you say "altered" and "in some way". But what is abnormal and by which
standards?

Coffee-drunk, tea-drunk, chocolate-drunk, drunk from lactose in milk ...
Where is the border?

As you say yourself brain produces similar substances anyway.
So is "joyful from seeing a picture of Mona Lisa" an altered state?

I'd rather use something like "x1 is in a state of mind x2 (property of
x1)" ri'a (factors follow) and another word "x1 is tranquil (amotional
state)".

Comment #2: Re: in what way?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Apr 9 21:08:47 2016)

gleki wrote: > you say "altered" and "in some way". But what is abnormal and by which > standards? > > Coffee-drunk, tea-drunk, chocolate-drunk, drunk from lactose in milk ... > Where is the border? > > As you say yourself brain produces similar substances anyway. > So is "joyful from seeing a picture of Mona Lisa" an altered state? > > I'd rather use something like "x1 is in a state of mind x2 (property of > x1)" ri'a (factors follow) and another word "x1 is tranquil (amotional > state)". I think that it is up to the context and the judgment of the utterer. I am purposefully vague here. This might be one of those "I know it when I see it" things. But, of course, that is mever really good enough, objectively. There is always uncertainty about the reliability of the judge (what are their rates for false positives and false negatives, for example?). And different judges may diagnose the same thing in different ways; even one judge may have judgment vary based on context. And the process of judgment cannot be exported/outsourced nor reproduced by objective, measurable standards of hard-definition. Even if that is not necessary, lacking a hard definition is unsatisfactory. But the intention of this word is to be flexible enough to allow for all of these varied subjective definitions and judgments.

Comment #3: Re: in what way? Curtis W Franks (Sat Apr 9 21:12:44 2016) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > you say "altered" and "in some way". But what is abnormal and by which > > standards? > > > > Coffee-drunk, tea-drunk, chocolate-drunk, drunk from lactose in milk ... > > Where is the border? > > > > As you say yourself brain produces similar substances anyway. > > So is "joyful from seeing a picture of Mona Lisa" an altered state? > > > > I'd rather use something like "x1 is in a state of mind x2 (property of > > x1)" ri'a (factors follow) and another word "x1 is tranquil (amotional > > > state)". > > I think that it is up to the context and the judgment of the utterer. I am > purposefully vague here. > > This might be one of those "I know it when I see it" things. But, of > course, that is mever really good enough, objectively. There is always > uncertainty about the reliability of the judge (what are their rates for > false positives and false negatives, for example?). And different judges > may diagnose the same thing in different ways; even one judge may have > judgment vary based on context. And the process of judgment cannot be > exported/outsourced nor reproduced by objective, measurable standards of > hard-definition. Even if that is not necessary, lacking a hard definition > is unsatisfactory. But the intention of this word is to be flexible enough > to allow for all of these varied subjective definitions and judgments. In other words, the question is about where the judge decides to draw the line. For example: If someone drinks one beer, are they drunk? It varies by person, law, and other context. How about five beers in a short amount of time? Is alcohol content or concentration enough to make this call? A small person will be affected differently from a big one. Likewise for varying degrees of experience. And, of course, the drink itself has a far higher alcohol concentration (although not necessarily content) than a human drinker, but it is not drunk, since it does not have a brain. Does drunkenness depend on behavior or physiological response? Comment #4: Re: in what way? gleki (Sun Apr 10 06:12:09 2016) krtisfranks wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > you say "altered" and "in some way". But what is abnormal and by which > > > standards? > > > > > > Coffee-drunk, tea-drunk, chocolate-drunk, drunk from lactose in milk > ... > > > Where is the border? > > > > > > As you say yourself brain produces similar substances anyway. > > > So is "joyful from seeing a picture of Mona Lisa" an altered state? > > > > > > I'd rather use something like "x1 is in a state of mind x2 (property of > > > > x1)" ri'a (factors follow) and another word "x1 is tranquil > (amotional > > > > > state)". > > > > I think that it is up to the context and the judgment of the utterer. I > am > > purposefully vague here. > > > > This might be one of those "I know it when I see it" things. But, of > > course, that is mever really good enough, objectively. There is always > > uncertainty about the reliability of the judge (what are their rates for > > false positives and false negatives, for example?). And different judges > > may diagnose the same thing in different ways; even one judge may have > > judgment vary based on context. And the process of judgment cannot be > > exported/outsourced nor reproduced by objective, measurable standards of > > hard-definition. Even if that is not necessary, lacking a hard definition > > > is unsatisfactory. But the intention of this word is to be flexible > enough > > to allow for all of these varied subjective definitions and judgments. > > In other words, the question is about where the judge decides to draw the > line. For example: If someone drinks one beer, are they drunk? It varies by > person, law, and other context. How about five beers in a short amount of > time? > > Is alcohol content or concentration enough to make this call? A small > person will be affected differently from a big one. Likewise for varying > degrees of experience. And, of course, the drink itself has a far higher > alcohol concentration (although not necessarily content) than a human > drinker, but it is not drunk, since it does not have a brain. Does > drunkenness depend on behavior or physiological response? I merely said that any state of mind can be altered, humans can't persist in one state of mind for a long time. So maybe add "abnormal" or "medically abnormal" or "partially unconscious" to the definition itself. Comment #5: Re: in what way? Curtis W Franks (Sun Apr 10 07:28:24 2016) gleki wrote: > > I merely said that any state of mind can be altered, humans can't persist > in one state of mind for a long time. So maybe add "abnormal" or "medically > abnormal" or "partially unconscious" to the definition itself. I agree. It has been done.