My dog is Max. Max is my dog. 'Max' is not my dog. Max is.

Labels/names = representational markers used to denote a set of properties that make up an entity or object.

Max is my dog. My dog is not labels and properties. My dog is Max. That dog is not Max.

'Max' is not Max.

'Max' is not a dog. Max is. All dogs are not Max.

Max is a man and he's my neighbor. Max is man, Max is s neighbor, Max is sometimes Maxwell.

Max is not dog, Max is not man, Max is not neighbor.

What is Max?

And finally: Where's Waldo????

'Max' is not Max.



Just playin' with identity.

'Max' is not a neighbor. Max is. 'Max' is not Max.

Thus Max is a label, as Bushi said. We know to whom or what the label refers only by process of deliniation (or further identity).

Therefore, as Bushi said, Max includes "a set of properties that make up an entity or object."

What particular issue do take with that explanation?

'Max' is the label. 'Max' is not Max.

Max is not hair, skin, and teeth. Max is my dog. My dog is not properties which belong to an object. Max is the object. 'Max' is not.

If Max were able to speak, in what ways might Max complete the sentance:

I AM ...

Ask him. I wouldn't expect a good answer other than 'woof'.

Max: Maximum, Maximillian, both have definitions in the dictionary, in which some specific ones of all the concepts man has, are described.

These definitions are in correspondence to meanings, which are in correspondence to man's concepts.

The definitions of meanings are of parts of the speech.

There is a noun, called "proper name", which is not a symbolic representation of an idea or concept, or of a meaning, but a rather random assignment to point out a specific instance or a specific specimen of a type of thing or individual.

I had a friend who called his house "The Blue House". This is a proper name, or proper noun, because the component words in it have no symbolic representation of the object they point at, that is, the meanings of the component words have nothing to do to with the object or person they are associated to,

Do not, please, allow the term "House" in "The Blue House" make you think that the "House" has a more meaningful relationship with the property of my friend, with his house. No. That is mere coincidence. He could have called his house "The Blue Monkey" or the "Vicious Tsunami". So the component words may have an apparent relationship, but not a causal relationship to the object.

This peculiarity allows man to call a dog "Max" and a friend "Max" or even his house "Max".

-----------

The connectivity relationship of proper nouns is many-to-many in a language. In effect, many things can have the same proper noun for a name, and a thing can have many different proper nouns as a name.

My daughter may be called Mary, Marcsa, Marika, Maria. She can be called Maria, also her mother, also the mother of Jesus is Maria, and so are 10,000,000 Italian women.

-----------

Meaning to concept is one-to-one.

-----------

Meaning to word is also many-to-many. "Run" means to hurry, to have diarrhoea, a tear in a nylon stocking, a production of a day's worth in a factory, etc. But each of these meanings have several expressions to cover them.

You're no fun wux.



Good to see you.

Jesus. In another thread I was told to be more serious, and not so flirty today.

"You can only please some all of the time; please all some of the time; but I seem to be able to please none all of the time."

CI :-S

Feels good to be back here... should I say home.

Whoop thay it is.

Max is my dog. 'Max' is not Max.