- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "xumbe"
[parent]
[root]
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.
|
-
|
|
|
|