TheVat

Was speaking historically (from the faux persona of someone who only yesterday heard of soccer). (One child and I used to play, practicing with a Limey neighbor and another urchin in the street; my kid was then in a youth league for a year or so)

I was reading at BBC about how Nigel F resigned and happened to notice there's some sort of international sporting event involving something called a cup and people kicking balls around a field. There seems to be some immensely complex system for determining who wins this cup, involving 30-50 years of playoffs and a team of mathematicians using advanced combinatorics and possibly string theory to determine arcane "rankings" and decide who enters the finals. Argentina and Brazil seem to be good at it, whatever it is they do on the field (seems to involve passing a ball around and then maybe once every hour or so some actually interesting action that lasts about five seconds), possibly from forcing toddlers to train in special reeducation camps or "favelas"'as they're called, starting at age 18 months. Not sure why the finals are being held in some backward and xenophobic banana republic with baking hot summers and large numbers of citizens carrying guns around. Perhaps it's that the country's authoritarian leader is in bed with the president of the sport's governing body? You would think it wouldn't be that hard to grab the couple while they're locked in one of their amorous embraces and drop them down a mineshaft or similar.

Emily has been watching the World Cup playoffs especially how officials are handling an outbreak of bloating among teams eating American cuisine. Keep one gas, Sam? Ref, football lab, to offer massage, no peek. (Balogun's snug o' lab.) Emily also notes how this gassy trend has affected her favorite team which has sent several players to the playoffs: Emirate metal up, it's FIFA sign: IT area dip, Arsenal planes rapid aerating is a FIFA stipulate met. A rime.

Not really. Several inaccuracies here, which I don't have time to get into. Signals leading up to the action potential (graded potentials in the dendrites) fluctuate continuously in size and strength. The neuron translates this graded, analog voltage into a digital spike frequency. But there are several threshold effects that are analogic. And as others point out, many aspects of the physical world (especially in the Standard Model) are not binary.

Pecking of the cloaca - write a song about that , latter-day Gilberts. In the genus of Prunella There was a naughty fellah Twas in Malaysia, down in Malacca, He was always pecking a cloaca. In trees and in bushes, Molesting birdie tushes, This fulfilled his need To banish rival seed Ensuring his paternity And a genomic place In Eternity.

This poster seems to fall prey to idiosyncratic definitions and unsupported conjectures - I had to, with regret, withdraw. Quite a bit of evidence in neuroscience that brains have both analog and digital features. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37608987/

Yes, when the OP mentioned spatial skills and extra-pair mating in chickadees, my mind went immediately to The Mikado. The song's penetrating analysis of blighted affection in titmice and its correlation with higher suicide rates among (presumably cuckolded by extra-pair shenanigans) male titmice remains a staple of ornithology.

Yep, emotion is just as effective at clouding the truth as it is at motivating people towards the truth. There's a good reason a judge instructs the jury to set their emotional responses aside and coolly consider the facts in reaching a verdict. "The defendant looks like a real dickhead to me, so he's probably guilty" wouldn't be a reliable path towards justice.

How has a judge not promptly dismissed the charging document? There is not the slightest reason to believe this was anything but someone pulling loose shreds of paint from a pool - a task that some maintenance staff will have to do anyway. We shouldn't waste time analyzing Pirro's Orwellian hogwash. Line the bottom with all the pages of the Epstein files coated with a good marine-grade epoxy sealant or some such.

Edited to add: I think several have touched on the way that some statements (and also propositions, for those who don't want to specifically cement this in language) do not really have a truth value. This seems especially the case with contingent propositions. Let's take: The King of France is bald. If France still had a King, then we could assign some truth value to that. A King is either bald or he's not. We can empirically determine if the proposition is true. The truth is contingent on the circumstance of France having monarchy based on a patriarchal system. But if France has no monarchy, then the proposition is neither true nor false since there simply is not an object to which the sentence's subject corresponds. This is what philosophers like Saul Kripke would call "a failed speech act." The world is full of nonsense which consists in such failed speech acts. Some here, like @Gees seem to be wary of language, possibly because of the occurrence such failed speech acts. But some statements are not prone to this kind of failure, and do correspond well to some existent state of affairs, and I think we can study these without too much trouble. How about this: All facts are empirically verified propositions about the world, thus demonstrated to be true propositions? Not all truths however require facts. The latter is because some truths are inherent in the definitions of the words expressing them (which are called "analytic truths"), like e.g. All bachelors are unmarried. We don't need any facts for that sentence to be true - it is true by virtue of what its words mean. Or similarly, All triangles have three sides.

Seems problematic that in a philosophy forum, there is dodging the work of finding a common philosophical definition of truth from which to proceed. I tried a while back to elucidate a little, but it doesn't seem to have been taken onboard. @Eise seems also to have difficulties getting concepts across. Another try: https://iep.utm.edu/truth/ Philosophers are interested in a constellation of issues involving the concept of truth. For example, what makes an assertion be true? Surely the assertion has grounds and does not float in mid-air, so to speak. The grounds might involve a variety of things: our evidence, or the assertion’s correspondence with the world beyond the assertion, or the meanings of the concepts involved in the assertion, or the nature of mind, or our social conventions about making assertions, or some combination of these. A preliminary issue, although somewhat subsidiary, is to decide what sorts of things can be true. Is truth a property of assertions, or of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or of propositions (nonlinguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? Is truth even a property? The principal issue is: What is truth? It is the problem of being clear about what you are saying, implying, and presupposing when you say some claim or other is true. The most important theories of truth are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. They are explained and compared here.... This is a personal and idiosyncratic definition of what is meant by true. Please feel free to read the IEP article on how philosophers have defined this word. And be aware that belief does not always reliably lead to knowledge. People believed many things about the world outside their heads which were never true. Examples are numerous and obvious.

Nice to acquaint meself with this band - sounds like they borrowed some old US country-western tune and adapted it a bit. Hereabouts, titmouse is a synonym for chickadee, which could be handy to anyone writing a song and needing just two syllables. When I lived east of the Mississippi River, the common species was the tufted titmouse. When I was a callow youth, I enjoyed the mental image that moniker evoked. I feel compelled to share that the song of the tufted titmouse is usually described as a whistled "peter-peter-peter!"

It has to be acknowledged that the OP, thought it did use fancy language like "extra-pair paternity," did concern itself with two-timing housewives sneaking off with clever navigators and having bastards. Sordid stuff! Not sure I can continue to recommend this website as family friendly. 😉

Wales Act on Simenon? None: M. is not case law. Emily also finds her friend's method for artificial insemination of livestock confusing: Liam, go hand Deirdre her dried DNA (hog) mail.

The real test of spatial skills is if they can drive the streets of Boston without GPS nav systems. Others seem fixated on boobies: AudubonBrown BoobyTropical seas around the world are home to this large, long-winged, strong-flying seabird. In North America the Brown Booby is seen most often near the Dry Tortugas, Florida, where it perches in...

Immortal words.

Please define in clear language what you mean by "the logic of DNA." Are you somehow trying to map the coding of protein synthesis by base pairs onto something other than making proteins? What is meant by "reflecting the logic" ? This is vague and unscientific - sounds a bit like dorm philosophizing. Who is "we"? Not everyone thinks symbols are reality, nor that maps are the territory. I think a fair number of people understand that categories are ways of mentally organizing perceptions or emotions or imaginings and not the things or patterns or feelings themselves. Words denote, connote, refer. We understand that abstraction is compression, in information science. I can say "the wild street dogs of Istanbul" without having to compose a lengthy string which points to every single wild dog within the city limits..."there's Abdul, there's Jeff, there's Old One-Eye, there's Monseigneur Tripod...." We know they're all being referred to. We grasp that the category reference is not actually the furry butt sniffers themselves - it's a verbal act (please see Saul Kripke's causal theory of reference) of denotation passed through a community.

If we have a thread here in the philosophy forum, wouldn't we use definitions proper to that domain? In philosophy, when it's done well, hammers and screwdrivers have their specific purpose. The sentence "I believe X to be true" is true as a statement of belief, i.e. when the speaker isn't lying, it's an honest report of one's state of mind. X itself, however, is true only when it is a proposition which aligns with reality.

Emily's friend, Deirdre R. Dried, runs a motel which only allows travelers with cats and has mystical beliefs about them. Dog woe, motel cat's bonus: a sun obstacle to meow God?

Grusch again? The same Grusch who had no direct knowledge of anything but "knew people"? And can't say everything in open session? My bs meter is also whipping like a flagella glued to a puppy's tail glued to a paint shaker. Har!

One doesn't rule out the other, as I understand it. Changes in gene expression (epigenetics, in this case centered on mRNA - enzymes in the octopus's cells swap out specific molecular letters in the RNA, essentially changing the instructions used to build proteins) don't mean there can't be separately changes in gene frequencies and structure as well. I should also note that epigenetics in this instance of mRNA and IncRNA modification can't pass from a parent to a child, since this example is just a short term response as @CharonY notes. RNA mods are a different layer of epigenetics from DNA methylation etc.

Chomsky's distinction between syntax and semantics (meaning ) may be helpful here. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

I asked because biologists tend to distinguish between language and calls. Calls (vocal or chemical or gestural) communicate, yes, but I can see how it is that many question if this rises to the level of language. Calls are innate, fixed signals triggered by immediate environmental stimuli (like food or danger or announcing presence to rivals). In contrast, language is a flexible, rule-based system of arbitrary symbols. They don't just signal basic responses. We can combine discrete sounds to express abstract ideas, discuss the past or future or things far removed, and create entirely novel meanings. IOW, some say that just being procedural, and not symbolic, doesn't qualify as language. And I question that pyramid builders who could use written codes were being merely procedural. It has the earmarks of a symbol system. Are you suggesting that "staff eyeball bird woman man with arms held up Ankh snake wiggling" is to be taken literally?

Wait, pheromones are a language?

Mined Stibnite - antimony? No MIT, nae! Tin bits, denim. Meanwhile, Emily, learns of a link between sadness in Shakespeare's hometown and Brazilian sixties pop... Diagnose Avon as sobs arise, sir, as Bossa Nova e-song aid.