-like, are humans immune to the Blind ward?

[Axelmania]

Page 128, under "Damage" for the "Dark" ward:

Those with normal, human-like vision are blind

I have encountered arguments that using the suffix -like implies an exclusion of the preceding term.

So since this does not say "human or human-like vision" would this mean that humans are unaffected?

[kiralon]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... human-like

[dreicunan]

Page 128, under "Damage" for the "Dark" ward:

Those with normal, human-like vision are blind

I have encountered arguments that using the suffix -like implies an exclusion of the preceding term.

So since this does not say "human or human-like vision" would this mean that humans are unaffected?

If you read the line in context, you wouldn't need to ask this question. Normal, human like vision as opposed to nightvision, which is only halved with regard to distance and clarity. So, does the human in question have nightvision? If not (and assuming no other logica reasons that a human might not suffer the same penalty, such as special training at fighting blind), he suffers the penalties while within the unnatural darkness.

[Axelmania]

The reason I ask the question is because I have encountered the argument that "human-like" instead of "human and human-like" excludes "human".

[kiralon]

The reason I ask the question is because I have encountered the argument that "human-like" instead of "human and human-like" excludes "human".

It's possible, different cultures and stuff but they have to remember the book is written in American English and that's not what it means in American English (well currently anyway).

[Library Ogre]

I am a human. I have human-like vision.

I think that argument is highly specious, and relies on the idea that Palladium books are tightly worded.

[dreicunan]

I am a human. I have human-like vision.

I think that argument is highly specious, and relies on the idea that Palladium books are tightly worded.

This is just an extension of the psi-sword argument. To contrast, you are a human. You are not a human-like bipedal being. If a book described a character as a human-like bipedal being, then the logical conclusion is that the character is not actually a human.

[kiralon]

I am a human. I have human-like vision.

I think that argument is highly specious, and relies on the idea that Palladium books are tightly worded.

This is just an extension of the psi-sword argument. To contrast, you are a human. You are not a human-like bipedal being. If a book described a character as a human-like bipedal being, then the logical conclusion is that the character is not actually a human.

Humans still come under humanlike bipedal beings though as its a broad category. Humans are definitely humanlike and bipedal.

[eliakon]

The argument is on its face absurd.
Anyone with normal human-like vision means just what it says.
Anyone with vision that is normal and like that of a human. As all humans vision is exactly that then they are affected.
And no this is not a way to get around the psi-sword argument because in that case the sword is described, specifically, as being more than just 'sword like' but is explicitly stated to be a non-sword that just is sword shaped.
There is a difference in the two statements.
points for effort in trying to find a way to get around the Psi-Sword/Sword-Chi argument in the HU thread... but no dice.

[Library Ogre]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

[dreicunan]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

To say that a human is human-like attempts to define a thing by itself. That is a definitional fallacy. To make the point in a more pointed fashion, you are a human, not a human-like human!

[eliakon]

However all humans have human like sight.
Because their sight is not being circularly defined.

[dreicunan]

However all humans have human like sight.
Because their sight is not being circularly defined.

Exactly.

[Library Ogre]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

To say that a human is human-like attempts to define a thing by itself. That is a definitional fallacy. To make the point in a more pointed fashion, you are a human, not a human-like human!

I am a human-like human... and, to a degree, it is a circular definition, but only insofar as you define "human-like" as "being like a human". If you definition of "human-like" is more specific, then calling someone a human-like human is a bit tautological, but not circular.

For example, let's say human-like vision is defined as "Binocular vision primarily in the 390-700nm range, with a field of vision roughly 30° superior (up, limited by the brow), 45° nasal (limited by the nose), 70° inferior (down), and 100° temporal (towards the temple), and an aggregate visual field of 135° vertical and 200° horizontal." There's a lot of things that definition leaves out (such as typical range of sight), and a few ways that I don't meet that definition (I am legally blind in my right eye, so my field of vision is restricted). But, it's a functional definition of human-like vision as might apply as a species average, and would let us exclude others from having "human-like vision." While Palladium doesn't go into what makes up Nightvision, we might see that some species would have eyesight that extends significantly above the 700nm range, allowing them to see in conditions where the "visible" light spectrum wasn't sufficient. Or, maybe, they have vision that works in the "ultraviolet" range of 10-400nm, allowing them to see, again, in situations where human-like vision is insufficient.*

Is my vision "human-like"? Depends on what you mean as "human-like". But is an elf's vision human-like? With regards to the Dark ward, no. Because human-like vision is being contrasted to nightvision... which most humans do not have, but elves do. It seems most likely that the Dark ward blocks light in the 390-700nm range, where most humans and many other species function, and that those who operate at least partially outside that range still find some restrictions. The only angle that phrasing leaves for "it doesn't apply to humans" is one that's so grammatically ridiculous it doesn't bear serious consideration... human vision is not human-like, because it is human, which is not human-like.

*My personal version has many underground races active in the infrared, perhaps the 600-910nm range, meaning they have limited perception of blue, indigo, and violet, especially if they have limited day vision. Aboveground species, in my version, tend to work on Ultraviolet, and may suffer losses in the red/orange/yellow spectrum.

[dreicunan]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

To say that a human is human-like attempts to define a thing by itself. That is a definitional fallacy. To make the point in a more pointed fashion, you are a human, not a human-like human!

I am a human-like human... and, to a degree, it is a circular definition, but only insofar as you define "human-like" as "being like a human". If you definition of "human-like" is more specific, then calling someone a human-like human is a bit tautological, but not circular.

What would this supposedly more specific definition of "human-like" be?

[kiralon]

Just guessing but it can describe general traits (bipedal) or specific traits (ability to see in the dark). Elves are generally human-like but their vision and lifespan certainly aren't. Depends on what the writer is talking about.

[Library Ogre]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

To say that a human is human-like attempts to define a thing by itself. That is a definitional fallacy. To make the point in a more pointed fashion, you are a human, not a human-like human!

I am a human-like human... and, to a degree, it is a circular definition, but only insofar as you define "human-like" as "being like a human". If you definition of "human-like" is more specific, then calling someone a human-like human is a bit tautological, but not circular.

What would this supposedly more specific definition of "human-like" be?

I spent two paragraphs talking about what it looks like in terms of vision. Like. Literally, there was a single line of space between the statement you quoted and the rest of the discussion.

[dreicunan]

According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a rooster, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’”

I am a human-like biped. I am also a human, which makes me quite human-like, indeed, filthy mammal fellow human.

To say that a human is human-like attempts to define a thing by itself. That is a definitional fallacy. To make the point in a more pointed fashion, you are a human, not a human-like human!

I am a human-like human... and, to a degree, it is a circular definition, but only insofar as you define "human-like" as "being like a human". If you definition of "human-like" is more specific, then calling someone a human-like human is a bit tautological, but not circular.

What would this supposedly more specific definition of "human-like" be?

I spent two paragraphs talking about what it looks like in terms of vision. Like. Literally, there was a single line of space between the statement you quoted and the rest of the discussion.

Exactly, you spent two whole paragraphs talking about "human-like vision" after claiming that there was a more specific definition of "human-like," one which makes calling someone a "human-like human" tautological but not circular. Hence why I quoted the text that I quoted and asked for the more specific definition of "human-like." Nothing in the paragraphs that you cite does anything to explain what this more specific definition of "human-like" whose existence you've asserted actually is. That isn't surprising, since "vision like a human" clearly doesn't present the same problems as "human like a human" does!

Perhaps I was insufficiently clear about that, so I'll ask the question more clearly: what would this supposedly more specific definition of "human-like" be that would make the phrase "human-like human" not be circular?

[Library Ogre]

Bipedal, tailless, two-armed organic sophont, approximately 1-2m tall as an adult, with binocular vision and broadly bilateral symmetry. That would be human-like, and many humans would meet that criteria.

BUT that criteria would also cover dwarves, elves, most goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, changelings, and kobolds as being "human-like". You could likely construct other, similar, definitions for "human-like" that would cover a broad variety species, without saying "human-like" necessarily means "human", nor excludes human.

[dreicunan]

Bipedal, tailless, two-armed organic sophont, approximately 1-2m tall as an adult, with binocular vision and broadly bilateral symmetry. That would be human-like, and many humans would meet that criteria.

BUT that criteria would also cover dwarves, elves, most goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, changelings, and kobolds as being "human-like". You could likely construct other, similar, definitions for "human-like" that would cover a broad variety species, without saying "human-like" necessarily means "human", nor excludes human.

I'm afraid that your definition doesn't work. You are claiming that an adjective is a noun. The adjective "human-like" cannot mean "sophont".

Human-like means "like a human." "Human like a human" doesn't work. You can't be a human-like human.

[kiralon]

Human-like means "like a human." "Human like a human" doesn't work. You can't be a human-like human.

So what if there was a group that had 5 doglike humans 3 catlike humans, 5 birdlike humans and 3 humanlike humans. (Cyberpunk ftw) from what I remember of engrish an adjectives are a noun descriptor and humanlike=adjective (suffix's are adjectives im pretty sure) and human=noun.

but English word rules were never my strong point.
Me fail engrish, that unpossible.

[Library Ogre]

Bipedal, tailless, two-armed organic sophont, approximately 1-2m tall as an adult, with binocular vision and broadly bilateral symmetry. That would be human-like, and many humans would meet that criteria.

BUT that criteria would also cover dwarves, elves, most goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, changelings, and kobolds as being "human-like". You could likely construct other, similar, definitions for "human-like" that would cover a broad variety species, without saying "human-like" necessarily means "human", nor excludes human.

I'm afraid that your definition doesn't work. You are claiming that an adjective is a noun. The adjective "human-like" cannot mean "sophont".

Human-like means "like a human." "Human like a human" doesn't work. You can't be a human-like human.

And I disagree. Most humans are human-like. Some are not, in various ways, by various definitions (a blind person, for example, does not have have human-like vision). And, if you say something affects those with "human-like vision", it would include strictly human vision, as it has a 1:1 mapping to human vision.

Being human-like means, among other things, being a sophont. "A human-like intellect" is a common phrase in discussing various alien species, as is its converse ("intelligent, but not in a human-like way.") The concept of human contains, among other things, they idea that you're a sophont.

[dreicunan]

Bipedal, tailless, two-armed organic sophont, approximately 1-2m tall as an adult, with binocular vision and broadly bilateral symmetry. That would be human-like, and many humans would meet that criteria.

BUT that criteria would also cover dwarves, elves, most goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, changelings, and kobolds as being "human-like". You could likely construct other, similar, definitions for "human-like" that would cover a broad variety species, without saying "human-like" necessarily means "human", nor excludes human.

I'm afraid that your definition doesn't work. You are claiming that an adjective is a noun. The adjective "human-like" cannot mean "sophont".

Human-like means "like a human." "Human like a human" doesn't work. You can't be a human-like human.

And I disagree. Most humans are human-like. Some are not, in various ways, by various definitions (a blind person, for example, does not have have human-like vision). And, if you say something affects those with "human-like vision", it would include strictly human vision, as it has a 1:1 mapping to human vision.

Being human-like means, among other things, being a sophont. "A human-like intellect" is a common phrase in discussing various alien species, as is its converse ("intelligent, but not in a human-like way.") The concept of human contains, among other things, they idea that you're a sophont.

Disagree all you want; adjectives aren't nouns. Hence why you needed to say "human-like intellect" to specify that you are talking about an intellect like a human. In and of itself "human-like" does not mean "intellect like a human."

It also isn't the point of contention here, nor is human-like vision, as neither of those terms attempts to define a word by itself. I've no argument with that. Humans do of course have human-like vision and human-like intellect.

The point of contention is "human-like human." A human is not like a human. A human is a human. Being blind does not stop one from being human! It just means that you can't see. Don't conflate the qualities of a thing with the thing itself.

[Library Ogre]

It also isn't the point of contention here, nor is human-like vision, as neither of those terms attempts to define a word by itself. I've no argument with that. Humans do of course have human-like vision and human-like intellect.

The point of contention is "human-like human." A human is not like a human. A human is a human. Being blind does not stop one from being human! It just means that you can't see. Don't conflate the qualities of a thing with the thing itself.

A human is very like a human. There is a 1:1 correspondence between humans and the qualities that make something human-like.

If you describe a uncertain figure as "human-like", are you wrong if they then turn out to be human?

[dreicunan]

It also isn't the point of contention here, nor is human-like vision, as neither of those terms attempts to define a word by itself. I've no argument with that. Humans do of course have human-like vision and human-like intellect.

The point of contention is "human-like human." A human is not like a human. A human is a human. Being blind does not stop one from being human! It just means that you can't see. Don't conflate the qualities of a thing with the thing itself.

A human is very like a human. There is a 1:1 correspondence between humans and the qualities that make something human-like.

Once again, a human is not very like a human. A human is a human. There is a distinction between merely being similar to something and actually being that something.

However, since you think that "human-like human" is a thing, what would say a non-human-like human is?

If you describe a uncertain figure as "human-like", are you wrong if they then turn out to be human?

Of course not, precisely because when you describe them as human-like you are not declaring them to actually be a human. You also wouldn't be wrong if they turned out to not be human.

[Library Ogre]

There are lots of ways a human can be non-human-like, depending on what you're talking about. As mentioned above, a blind person does not have human-like vision. A psychopath does not have human-like empathy. Someone with severe brain damage does not have human-like thoughts. All are humans, and are human-like through certain perspectives, but not through others.

In what way do YOU see humans as not being human-like? You're the one insisting that humans are not human-like. I assume you also think cats cannot be cat-like? Dogs cannot be wolflike? Cheese cannot be milky or creamy?

[dreicunan]

There are lots of ways a human can be non-human-like, depending on what you're talking about. As mentioned above, a blind person does not have human-like vision. A psychopath does not have human-like empathy. Someone with severe brain damage does not have human-like thoughts. All are humans, and are human-like through certain perspectives, but not through others.

In what way do YOU see humans as not being human-like? You're the one insisting that humans are not human-like. I assume you also think cats cannot be cat-like? Dogs cannot be wolflike? Cheese cannot be milky or creamy?

Notice how you can't define a non-human-like human and instead have to get more specific and talk about a human who lacks human-like empathy. That is my point, linguistically. Cats are cats, and not merely catlike. To say that a cat is catlike tells one nothing. You don't define the word by itself.

I'm the one insisting that you are Mark Hall, not a Mark Hall-like Mark Hall. If you are the thing, you are not merely like the thing.

[Library Ogre]

But being the thing is also being like the thing. Being Mark Hall is the essence of being Mark Hall-like. Others approach it, but they do not reach the same levels of Mark Hall-like as Mark Hall is Mark Hall-like. If there is a platonic form of Mark Hall, then I approach it most closely (except, of course, for those other Mark Halls who are like their own platonic Mark Halls, and may or may not be Mark Hall-like when you consider me as being Mark Hall)... but there will also be days when people will say I am not being like myself. Do I cease being Mark Hall because I cease behaving in a Mark Hall like fashion? Or do I remain Mark Hall-like, but as a further deviation from the norm of what Mark Hall is?

You see, because you DO define the THING by itself, and the thing is not the word. The word is the label attached to the thing, without being the thing. It signifies the thing, but humans are not the word human; the word describes them, without being them. They define the word, not the word them. A human is human-like, except in the ways that it deviates from human norms. I am quite human-like, though, depending on how you define human-like vision, I do not have that.

[dreicunan]

But being the thing is also being like the thing. Being Mark Hall is the essence of being Mark Hall-like. Others approach it, but they do not reach the same levels of Mark Hall-like as Mark Hall is Mark Hall-like. If there is a platonic form of Mark Hall, then I approach it most closely (except, of course, for those other Mark Halls who are like their own platonic Mark Halls, and may or may not be Mark Hall-like when you consider me as being Mark Hall)... but there will also be days when people will say I am not being like myself. Do I cease being Mark Hall because I cease behaving in a Mark Hall like fashion? Or do I remain Mark Hall-like, but as a further deviation from the norm of what Mark Hall is?

You see, because you DO define the THING by itself, and the thing is not the word. The word is the label attached to the thing, without being the thing. It signifies the thing, but humans are not the word human; the word describes them, without being them. They define the word, not the word them. A human is human-like, except in the ways that it deviates from human norms. I am quite human-like, though, depending on how you define human-like vision, I do not have that.

If there is a Platonic Mark Hall, there is only one and all the Mark Halls that we see are mere reflections of that ideal form. You are mixing Platonic forms with Aristotelian substances.

And I suppose that if you subscribe to Plato's ideals, you could have a human-like human. I don't subscribe to them.

We clearly are not going to agree on this, and you likely are as dumbfounded by my position as I by yours. We are both quite convinced of the rightness of our views, and clearly are not convinced by the other's arguments. For example, your last paragraph, to me, is a load of sophistic crap. Obviously the word is not the thing in an absolute sense, but that doesn't change the fact that "human like a human" is a circular definition and thus a definitional fallacy. Or you are claiming that the thing is like the label, perhaps, which also makes no sense. If humans are capable of being human-like, then you also have non-human-like humans, which would require human-like to be defined in a way that does not reflect the fullness humans. That would thus require that human-like not actually mean "like a human." Perhaps that is what you meant by talking about a more specific definition. However, such a definition would destroy the utility of the word (how does one know which humans are excluded from being human like a human?).

And you like likely find that paragraph of mine to be a load of sophistic crap.

As enjoyable as this is, I'm doubtful of the chances us getting anywhere (mainly due to your irrational refusal to admit that I am correct ).

[kiralon]

Well I'd call the following lady a non-humanlike human
https://momgrind.com/wp-content/uploads ... nstein.JPG
Same with Michael Jackson
http://celebritysurgerynews.com/wp-cont ... ctures.jpg

but saying non-humanlike human takes to much effort, but it still applies.

[Zer0 Kay]

Uh... do "those people" understand that human-like and humanlike mean the same thing and the hyphen is a hyphen and not a minus symbol?