Heat has to do more with equilibrium than kinetics.
A=A is not a tautology.
Usually the first A is taken broadly and the second A narrowly.
The second, as they say, carries a pregnancy.
``Why do I think I can avoid literary effects and reason directly instead?''
Then there's Edmond Jabes, on freedom and how words come to mean anything.
It must be a Princess Diana effect.
"If we let ethical considerations get in the way of scientific hubris, then the feminists have won!"
Back when science was fun :
Watson, repeating similar experiments [to Pavlov], noted thetransference'' aspect of such conditioning. Having found that the violent striking of an iron bar produced fear in an infant, he noted that he could give a ``fear'' character to some hitherto neutral object, such as a rabbit, by placing it before the child each time the iron bar was struck; he next demonstrated that this conditioned fear of the rabbit was transferred with varying degrees of intensity to other things having similar properties(such as fur coats or cotton blankets).''
Watson, repeating similar experiments [to Pavlov], noted the
Apple(X) <==> [ Green(X) or Red(X) ] and Edible(X) and Size(X, medium), etc.
The criteria for ordinary language making something count, or fit the case, are ordinary
language criteria, not mathematical criteria, of counting or fitting.
That is, ordinary language rules the operation of ordinary language, using the ordinary
meanings of count and fit, not the mathematical ones.
Ordinary concepts (nice red apple) are not less precise than mathematical concepts ; but
they give precision a certain shape.
The philosopher (not the mathematician!) wants to say that ordinary langauge
lacks something that mathematics has. The philosopher however is not curious about why he thinks this.
What does a word point to? See an essay on words as labels in Stanley Cavell The Claim of Reason p.175
In the background is always : what is this fantasy about? Meaning in this context the AI fantasy.
Actual robot fantasies begin around p.403