Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Attention forum!

[This post may sound like it would fit better in the general philosophy forum but I have decided to put in here because it questions our knowledge of certain things that appear paradoxical to me. How do we know things, by assessing their physical properties or by looking at how a society has defined them and uses them? Since my question seemed to fit in that above criteria, I thought it's best to put it in this forum.]

In the late 19th century, when Mr. Bell invented the technology to create paradoxical voices, he immediately branded the product as "transmitted voices."

Here, I'm saying that phone voices or any similarly made voices are paradoxes. A paradox can be-- by definition-- a thing that combines contradictory qualities. The contradiction observed here is that a voice is typically indicative of a living person producing the sound but with "transmitted voices" you can't find that typical association. This can make one wonder if the voice produced is indeed a voice at all. But branding transmitted voices as paradoxical isn't something I have ever seen any other author do and so this paradox is one that's deeply buried--for many reasons--but I won't go into this as this isn't the point of this post but feel free to ask questions about this.

Upon careful consideration, you realize that it's simply not that the paradoxical voice do not equate to transmitted voices, despite the fact that this equivalence has been socially accepted [Through a lack of critical analysis] and we now have it engraved in our mind through over a century of service and recognition.[Feel free to look up the definition of transmission prior to the invention of paradoxical voices to challenge my view on this topic]. The thing is that it's with such an improper stretch of this definition of transmission that the new technology began to sell most easily.

So what did Bell do exactly? He simply added an entirely new line or meaning to transmissions to include phone produced voices. Through this shady approach, the presence of the paradox is swept under the radar as a more popular expression is found for it that draws you away from the non-arbitrary truth.

Fortunately, a new paradox producing technological device has emerged that creates an opening for helping the presence of this paradox to surge and emerge in our collective consciousness. It's the siren or horn that has been technologically built to warn us. They too are evidently paradoxes. A siren is a type of loud sound that's designated culturally as a warning. But designating a paradoxical sound as a siren is particularly interesting if you look at the origin of the word siren. That origin happens to also form an other alternative definition for siren. That's "each of a number of women or winged creatures whose singing lured unwary sailors on to rocks." And so the sound of a singing voice that preludes a grave danger is again used to define a paradoxical device and that's again not from knowledge but a cultural arbitrary and convenient decision to brand it that way.

If you scream loudly like a siren, it certainly can mean that you are attempting to alert others of some danger and so your screaming is essentially caring scream. But a power technologically produced siren isn't like that. Such high technology sirens can get to be so loud as to make you deaf. Mythological sirens in harbors were never known to do that. Does it remains a siren when the siren exceeds expectations?

When you blow through a whistle to alert others of a danger, that wind going through the whistle is directly pushed by breathing muscles in your belly that respond to your will. So your will directly produces the siren-like sound as mythological sirens were believe to do. And so it's indeed possible to have siren sounding sound produced through human power including the shaking of a bell with your arms. The new disassociation of the sound with it's human producer means that it's another type of force that now powers the sound.

[Here, the author is well aware of everyone's impulse to say, "it doesn't matter how it's produced, if you get the siren sound then you have a siren--but the author entirely rejects this point of view as "knowledge made by convenience" as opposed to "knowledge made by an understanding of the facts" and so the author simply marches over that objection.]

That new power source isn't "willed" like the actions and sounds of a person. It isn't a "willed" force but rather it's a dragged force with apparently no will of its own. So immediately, the question should be, what credential does a modern technological siren has to alert others? It is neither caring nor does it do it of its own will? Shouldn't a sound meant to alert others be made by another with his own energy and willingness?

[Here again, the author is well aware of everyone's impulse to say, "It's the will of the ambulance operator to turn on the siren and so a human will brings it on! But the author once again entirely rejects that because this apparent delegation of the will is nothing like that which we see within human groups and among human. That kind of delegation is also a paradox and so the author sees it again as an objection to just ignore as it's not founded on cognitive knowledge but on arbitrary knowledge.]

These unwilling forces of nature harvested by people can be dragged into service but once they are forced to serve, they become dragging devices as their work isn't willing work. No will to force accompanies the natural force that has been dragged into service. So, a power technology can produce a siren but that siren is a paradox because it cannot be what it appears to be.

So my question is, if you do not clear the path for a paradoxical siren vehicle when the law requires you to, what would a judge say about that if you brought this argument in your defense that you simply didn't hear any siren and just blocked your ears over the paradoxical noise that's inadmissible as a siren. Would the law need to change to specify that a paradox is legally the same as what it's supposed to represent even if it can't be it? What would be your solution to this defense against the paradox?

[night912]

Someone who understand what paradoxes are, can clearly see that there's no paradox here.

FYI,
A "paradoxical voice" isn't a real thing. It's just something that was made up by an ignorant person who thinks that he knows what paradoxes are.

[The Beast]

Conveying a sensation in some written form language/picture might not correlate with the rules of logic. It also depends on the trained sensation coming across the boundary of the understanding. There is rhythmical activity and introducing the concept of “siren” as a function of the trained (techne) sensation is advanced melanistic (IMO Melisna).
1.- Anything “imaginable” can be a set.
Imaginable can be the trained (sensation) curiosity and called it knowledge.
Concrete the same as object. By concrete () is defined. Conceptual.
After all,…. Ignorance is the same as knowledge. A paradox.
IMO to resolve the paradox the introduction of dimensions (spectrum of reality) is necessary hence the concept of intentionality.
Wha to do? What to do! What to do about intentions?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Someone who understand what paradoxes are, can clearly see that there's no paradox here.

Would you mind to elaborate a bit?

FYI,
A "paradoxical voice" isn't a real thing. It's just something that was made up by an ignorant person who thinks that he knows what paradoxes are.

Here you do elaborate a very little bit, thanks. But can you please elaborate more in regards to the arguments made by that person, or by revealing which part of the definition of a paradox you use to assess that an alleged error is made so that we know where your authoritative knowledge comes from on this?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Following further developments of my theory of technological paradox, I think I may be able to figure better what a judge might want to say about this.

In the General Philosophy forum, I started a new thread about paradoxical products and someone helped me realize that some products were "synthetic." Such products were not paradoxical because they were not to be confused with any other products since they are unique and unnatural.

So, the "siren" could be considered a synthetic product. It may be more reasonable to welcome among us a synthetic product as opposed to a paradoxical product. However, I am uncertain that the synthetic product label for the sound of a electric siren would be appropriate because for this label to be fairly used, you would need to accept that there are no more siren sound used to warn people and instead, an electronic producer of disturbing sound would need to be used.

And the question as to whether people would think it's appropriate to use such device as opposed to using a siren to alert people, is it something people are willing to agree with? Like, "Didn't you hear my synthetic noise disturber?, if you did, then why didn't you move out of my way?" What would you respond to that? "Use a siren if you want me to move out of your way?" or "Fine, I am moving not because I think you are in a social hurry or emergency but because I feel I am being heavily disturbed right now and giving you the right of way likely with help to reduce my own feeling of discomfort from your synthetic noise disturber."? So, the judge would have to refer to a question that needs to be answered by the population, and which hasn't yet been socially considered.

[The Beast]

A synthetic siren is an unnatural/non sentient form. A silent siren voice might follow a timeline that includes personal history and ancient history. Ancient sirens or mythological creatures are half human/half fish. A synonym of siren is mermaid. The paradoxical voice might silently whisper “marmaid” since logic has it that mar is the equivalent of sea and “mer” is related to sheep unless is French. Ancient Mariners and current marines might achieve the title of Royal… or not in search for the golden fleece/boot or the paradoxical Royal Merino wool. Paradoxical silent voices need a natural synthesis (chemical combination of voices) and IMO is sires (sir + es) that it might only happens in Royals. Uttering Sires might pitch paradoxical moods in the never-ending paradoxes.