Can I recall that the initial subject was DAO ?
Where does this dicussion lead us ?
1 Like
No, you are not correct, because only the languages are about to define the words. This is the job of a language.
The words are not defined in computer programms, or in the law science, or in engineering.
The definition of words is only language’s job. The language exist first of all, and because of this language we can have law sciense, or computer programms, or engineering.
So everything is a part of the language, either it is in computer terms, or technical terms , or law terms. Everything is above all the language, and a language should always define its words.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word
Haha, see? You could have highlighted:
- “la définition d’un mot” + “les langues”
- “the definition of a word” + “languages”
But you prefered to highligh:
- “la définition d’un mot” + “les langues”
- “the definition of a word” + “programming”
Nah … you are not an intellectually honest man…
You understand things very poorly… Probably because you don’t know the sense of the mathematical words !? …
Just replace D[M(x)] by NewD[M(x)] = {D[M(x)] + Sound[M(y)] for y in “the words indices for the words defined by sound”}. Same demonstration, CQFD.
Juste define first, I will destroy it secondly.
No, I don’t “must” nothing.
You are already forced to use D[M(x)]
See? You MUST use it!! Want it or not, D must be used somehow!
It lead us that there is no understanding as long as we give to the words a different meaning.
To demonstrate it is false to say it is enough and coherent, of course. For instance I can use too the variable “x” in a demonstration that prove that “x” doesn’t exist. This is the base of many demonstrations.
Gödel used mathematics to prove that you can’t prove into mathematics that mathematics are enough and coherent by themselves.
So you can live without mathematics, and there is also no definitions of the words (indeed anyone can note than mathematics words are subpart of all words), and any try to define them will receive a recursive demonstration that prove that they can’t be defined “surely”, in any way.
Etymology is not about “words defined surely” . Etymology is “most of the words are defined”.
Not all words can have etymology, this is not possible, and you are right in that.
But the more the words are not simple sounds and they have some etymology, the better it is.
And if a language tends to be full of sound words, without etymology at all, then this is a disaster.
Sure I am.
Etymology is a word. And yes, you cannot avoid not being able to communicate with others. If you believe others “must” understand you, or you “must” understand others, then you don’t understand what meaning is.
For sure, meaning is not sure, neither coherent for sure, neither different than any relative things.
1 Like
Yes of course.
But in the other hand meaning in your talk is defined as how the others understand you, not how you understand yourself. Because you dont need speech in order to understand yourself, the goal of speech is for others to understand you.
Meaning is not 100% sure, neither 100% coherent for sure, but the more unsure, the more incoherent the meaning of your talk is, the more it is not talk at all. When you talk you must have meaning (to the others, not to yourself), otherwise you dont talk at all, you are just making sounds.
So when you talk, the others must understand you, because this is the goal of talking. If they dont understand you, you dont talk at all, you just sound, so it is meaningless to talk.
And when you hear, you must understand the others, because this is the goal of hearing. If you dont understand them, no need to hear them at all, as long as it is meaningless to hear irrelevant sounds.
Many times this happens, in order to achieve a goal some things must be done. You must define your words when you talk in order for the others to understand you, and the others must understand you when you talk, because this is the goal when talking or hearing. But If you goal is not to understand the others or If your goal is not to become understood, then of course you can use “should” instead of “must”.
Just jumping into this old topic as languages are one of my favourite topics.
I believe there are a few wrong concepts that are circulating around here.
Yes etymology is important to understand words of a given language. But all languages have an etymology, back to the first uttering of our apes ancestors (and even previous animals). Every sound led to another, making languages more and more complex over time, but always building from previous languages. Greek itself didn’t “come out from nothing” and if we had a deeper knowledge of Proto-Indoeuropean (we actually have quite a good knowledge of it - at least linguists reconstructed what it probably sounded like), we could trace all the transformations that led to the Greek language, and thus analyse ancient Greek words with their etymology. Sounds (syllabus, mores) are the building blocks of any language, but again they became as they are because of a very long history. Depending on the needs of the different populations on earth, every “language group” created new words for their own needs (one needs more words to describe snow when living in the mountains or the North Pole, but these words are completely useless to the populations living on a tropical island, who will grow a totally different set of vocabulary).
But then, despite their etymological past, definitions of words at a certain point in time are just an agreement among a community, mostly based on their current needs (again mountains vs tropical island, or you could compare an animist community with a monotheist community who would grow totally different meanings from the same original roots). Currently “democracy” is accepted by the majority as being “a government made of the people’s representatives for whom the population vote” - which is very different from the Greek’s original meaning. But speak of “democracy” around you, and you’ll see that the majority has agreed on another definition and if you use “democracy” to speak about the Greek concept of it, people will misunderstand you. Are they wrong? I’m afraid to say that they are not, you’re the wrong one since you’re the one who stuck with a meaning that is not commonly shared anymore. As you’re saying, the goal is not to utter sounds, the goal is to convey a meaning to others, so you must use the language they have agreed upon, not a “perfect-construct” that only exists in your head or a convention that has been used at some point but that is now long gone. I’m not judging - yes it is confusing (maybe on purpose), yes it is not what should be the best or optimal way of defining a language. But a language is not defined by mathematicians or even linguists (except maybe for newly and artificially created languages such as Esperanto where the community tries to keep the language as “clean” as possible by your standards - and has quite a challenge at hand!), it is defined by the people who use it and who, at a certain point in time, agree that this particular word means this and/or that. And this is a very nice allegory of democracy - the people very clearly overwhelming the linguists’ attempted oligarchy! 
Go to Quebec and other French speaking countries and notice how conventions give the same words different meanings - regardless of etymology. Read old books and notice how the meanings of words have “deviated” one way or another with time. The Americans and the British don’t use the same words for the same things (my wife is American, I was raised by teachers who were from a British/Irish background, I know what I’m speaking about!).
Even in the scientific community (where you would expect a lot more rigor in the use of such an important thing as vocabulary), words bear different meanings. Again, every specialized isolate focus on a number of concepts and is forced to use a number of words to describe these concepts. Because the community next door focuses on different contexts, they may reuse the same words for different things. It is common to find think tanks with people from different communities argue on the meaning of words (take for instance a biologist, a chemist, an geneticist, a mathematician, a quantum physicist, an MD and an agricultural engineer, put them in a room and give them a problem to solve that needs all their technical abilities, they will struggle to find a common vocabulary on at least a number of concepts).
Thus it is up to a community to choose and define the vocabulary it will use. In this regard, I find that the TRM community has done a pretty good job - the vocabulary is very well defined and cannot be misused when discussing within the community. Yet, when other communities use the same words for different meanings, we should leave them alone - their choice may be different than ours, and very rightly so because they have different preoccupations and therefore need a different set of words with a different set of concepts. So when speaking about TRM, the vocabulary is well defined, but when speaking outside of the community, words may have different meanings (typically “argent” that is used for “monnaie”). No one has the power to change the people’s acceptance of a word in their own framework.
Back to DAO and Ether.
DAO reminds me very clearly of darkcoin/DASH’s attempt at democracy. A democracy for the rich only. Let them build their democracy, I’m certainly not in it (I’ve attempted to discuss with DASH people, they are too proud to see that their “democracy” is nothing more than a very obvious oligarchy). I don’t see much difference with DAO and Ether. As pointed by others here, the “work” you are providing for them to give you Ether doesn’t come for free or from simply giving some time or muscle, and you have to spend quite a large amount of Euro/Dollar/whatever to get significant Ether, along with a huge speculation on the future value of the coin. It is not different that Bitcoin in this respect, and clearly not something that can bring “fairness” to the world in my opinion, rather the opposite… Maybe you should wonder why quite a number of the richest people of the world invest massively in these technologies. They know that if these technologies are adopted by the masses, their ROI will be absolutely huge - thus who benefits again and who is still in the mud? Nothing new under the sun. But of course, you are free to speculate and invest in these technologies for your own sake - just be sure you understand that it is only for your own sake and this will not bring “freedom” to anyone. At least that’s my opinion.
2 Likes
My question is simple. If you define democracy as “a government made of the people’s representatives for whom the population vote” then how do you call democracy?
I am yelling because I think you have lost the real meaning of democracy, and you have not invented yet a word to represent this meaning.
This is absolutely not democracy, it is representative government, which is totally different.
But anyway this discussion is out of Duniter project, so I close this subject, you should develop your own project in your own website. Thanks.