Semiotics Semiotics frequently is seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon may be studied as communication.[2] Some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science, however. They examine areas belonging also to the life sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics (including zoosemiotics). Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[3] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences".[4] Terminology[edit] Ferdinand de Saussure, however, founded his semiotics, which he called semiology, in the social sciences: History[edit] Formulations[edit] Branches[edit] Notes
Personal identity What does it take for individuals to persist from moment to moment—or in other words, for the same individual to exist at different moments? Generally, it is the unique numerical identity of persons through time.[3][4] That is to say, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time.[note 5] In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem[note 6] of personal identity.[5] The synchronic problem[note 7] is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time. Identity is an issue for both continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. Personal identity theories[edit] Continuity of substance[edit] Bodily substance[edit] Mental substance[edit] Continuity of consciousness[edit] Locke's conception[edit] Or again: PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self.
7 Ways the World Really Could End Tomorrow Semantic change Examples[edit] Awful—Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". Used originally as a shortening for "full of awe", in contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.Demagogue—Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". (George Chauncey, in his book Gay New York, would put this shift as early as the late 19th century among a certain "in crowd" knowledgeable of gay night life.) Types of semantic change[edit] A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change. However, the categorization of Blank (1998) has gained increasing acceptance:[2] Blank considers it problematic, though, to include amelioration and pejoration of meaning as well as strengthening and weakening of meaning. Forces triggering semantic change[edit] Blank[3] has tried to create a complete list of motivations for semantic change. Practical studies[edit] Theoretical studies[edit] See also[edit]
Object (philosophy) The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about.[1] In a general sense it is any entity: the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination or the fear of cats. In a strict sense it refers to any definite being. A related notion is objecthood. Objecthood is the state of being an object. One approach to defining it is in terms of objects' properties and relations. The notion of an object must address two problems: the change problem and the problem of substance. An attribute of an object is called a property if it can be experienced (e.g. its color, size, weight, smell, taste, and location). Because substances are only experienced through their properties a substance itself is never directly experienced. Some philosophies[which?] Bertrand Russell updated the classical terminology with one more term, the fact;[5] "Everything that there is in the world I call a fact." Russell, Bertrand (1948).
braineating-amoeba-found-in-us-drinking-water-supply-for-first-time-8819759 Residents in the parish of St Bernard, near New Orleans, have been issued with a warning along with a list of precautions that must be taken before they can drink water from the tap. The southern state’s Department for Health and Hospitals issued a statement confirming that “the encephalitis death of a child that had visited St. Bernard Parish was connected to the rare amoeba, which testing confirmed was present at the home”. The amoeba – Naegleria fowleri – enters the brain via contaminated water which is inhaled through the nose, leading to an infection which destroys brain tissue. The US’s centre for disease control said the initial symptoms include headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, and stiff neck. Later symptoms include confusion, lack of attention to people and surroundings, loss of balance, seizures, and hallucinations. The amoeba cannot reach the brain if people only drink the water, and it is killed off by boiling or chlorinating liquids before drinking.
Euphemism A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.[1] Some euphemisms are intended to amuse; while others use bland, inoffensive, and often misleading terms for things the user wishes to dissimulate or downplay. Euphemisms are used for dissimulation, to refer to taboo topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, and death) in a polite way, and to mask profanity.[2] The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism. Euphemisms may be used to avoid words considered rude, while still conveying their meaning; words may be replaced by similar-sounding words, gentler words, or placeholders. Some euphemisms have become accepted in certain societies for uncomfortable information; for example, in many English speaking countries, a doctor is likely to say "the patient passed away" rather than "the patient died". Etymology[edit] Formation[edit] Phonetic modification[edit] Figures of speech[edit] Rhetoric[edit]
Bundle theory According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties inhere. Arguments for the bundle theory[edit] The difficulty in conceiving of or describing an object without also conceiving of or describing its properties is a common justification for bundle theory, especially among current philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition. Whether a relation of an object is one of its properties may complicate such an argument. Objections to the bundle theory[edit] Compresence objection[edit] See also[edit] References[edit]
CDC warns of 'catastrophic' results of increased drug resistance | Science The US faces "potentially catastrophic consequences" if it does not act immediately to combat drug resistance which already kills an estimated 23,000 people a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned on Monday. It is the first time the federal agency has estimated the death toll from bacterial infections that are difficult to treat because of antibiotic resistance. Every year, at least two million people in the US become ill with drug-resistant infections, the CDC said. While the CDC estimates that 23,000 patients a year die as a direct result of drug resistance, it notes that a further 14,000 die every year from clostridium difficile, an infection related to antibiotic use. A number of medical organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO), have warned that the overuse of antibiotics and the resulting evolution of resistant bacteria has caused a public health crisis.
Peirce's Theory of Signs 1. Basic Sign Structure In one of his many definitions of a sign, Peirce writes: I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant, that the later is thereby mediately determined by the former. (EP2, 478) What we see here is Peirce's basic claim that signs consist of three inter-related parts: a sign, an object, and an interpretant. 1.1 The Signifying Element of Signs The very first thing to note is that there are some potential terminological difficulties here. Peirce's idea that a sign does not signify in all respects and has some particular signifying element is perhaps best made clear with an example. 1.2 The Object Just as with the sign, not every characteristic of the object is relevant to signification: only certain features of an object enable a sign to signify it. The sign is the molehill, and the object of this sign is the mole. 1.3 The Interpretant 3. 3.2 Objects
Anatta In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions,[1] which along with the perception of dukkha, and anicca, is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. Anatta in the Nikayas[edit] The ancient Indian word for self or essence is attā (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often interpreted as referring to the denial of a self or essence. Anatta is used in the early Buddhist texts, as a strategy to view the perception of self as conditioned processes (or even an action), instead of seeing it as an entity or an essence. Taken together with the perceptions of anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (imperfection), anatta (not self) perception is the last of the three marks of existence, which when grasped strategically, leads to dispassion (nibbida). Karma and Anatta[edit]