Yes, if you use Google Translate it takes you from fit to ataque (seizure) and back to attack. I would have said in Nick's case "Vamos a enfadar a Nick" or "Nick se va a volver trastornado" or one of several other expressions none of which contains "tener".
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 6:09 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > 'Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I can't speak for other > languages, but I assume there are many others where that would be true.) > > Nick está teniendo una rabieta... In Spanish. Perfectly parallel to the > English version. > > But if it were more appropriate to say "Nick is *throwing* a fit" would > the idiom transfer to Spanish? > > I was literally just (hours ago) discussing the various words for > "strong/hard/firm" in Spanish with the man who helps me around the > property. Our language overlap is not good enough to discuss at the level > that occurs here, but "Fuerte", "Firma" and "Dura" all came to mind. > Given the context, all three fit the conversation (discussing my choice of > a juniper fencepost as a support for a rick of firewood we were stacking. > > Google Translate leads me to believe that "having a fit" is more like > "making an adjustment" while "throwing a fit" is like "launching an > attack". I suspect this represents the fundamental weakness in automatic > translation, not Google Translate alone. It takes a bit of context or > something to realize "throwing a fit" can be dramatic but need not imply it > is directed (attack) at anyone aggresively? It seems (coincidentally) > nuanced to think of "having a fit" as making some kind of (internal?) > adjustment to one's emotional/mental state? > > Your own (Frank's) understanding of the context(s) involved > allowed/required you to use "rabieta" (tantrum), though I would ask if YOU > think Nick is "having" or "doing" (or in my lingo "throwing") un rabieta? > > (nod of genial thanks to NST for letting us rib him mercilessly in public). > > mascullar balbucear, barbotear, o mascar? > > Steve > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 9:37 AM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So.... This is JUST a question of whether we are having a casual >> conversation or a technical one, right? Certainly, in a casual, >> English-language conversation talk of "having" emotions is well understood, >> and just fine, for example "Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I >> can't speak for other languages, but I assume there are many others where >> that would be true.) >> >> If we were, for some reason, having a technical conversation about how the* >> Science of **Psychology*, should use technical language, then we *might *also >> come to all agree that isn't the best way to talk about it. >> >> In any case, the risk with "have" is that it reifies whatever we are >> talking about. To talk about someone *having *sadness, leads >> naturally --- linguistically naturally --- in English --- to thinking that >> sadness is *a thing* that I could find if I looked hard enough. It is >> why people used to think (and many, many, still do) that if we just looked >> hard enough at someone's brain, we would find *the sadness* inside >> there, somewhere. That is why it is dangerous in a technical >> conversation regarding psychology, because that implication is wrong-headed >> in a way that repeatedly leads large swaths of the field down deep rabbit >> holes that they can't seem to get out of. >> >> On the one hand, I *have *a large ice mocha waiting for me in the >> fridge. On the other hand, this past summer I *had *a two-week long trip >> to California. One is a straightforward object, the other was an extended >> activity I engaged in. When the robot-designers assert that their robot >> "has" emotions, which do they mean? Honestly, I think they don't mean >> either one, it is a marketing tool, and not part of a conversation at all. >> As such, it does't really fit into the dichotomy above, and is trying to >> play one off of the other. They are using the terms "emotions and >> instincts" to mean something even less than whatever Tesla means when they >> say they have an autodrive that for sure still isn't good enough to >> autodrive. >> >> What the robot-makers mean is simply to indicate that the robot will be a >> bit more responsive to certain things that other models on the market, and >> *hopefully >> *that's what most consumers understand it to mean. But not all will... >> at least some of the people being exposed to the marketing will take it to >> mean that emotion has been successfully put somewhere inside the robot. >> (The latter is a straightforward empirical claim, and if you think I'm >> wrong about that, you have way too much faith in how savvy 100% of >> people are.) As such, the marketing should be annoying to anti-dualist >> psychologists, who see it buttressing *at least some* people's tendency >> to jump down that rabbit hole mentioned above. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Eric, >>> >>> >>> >>> Many points well taken. I am particularly proud of being dope-slapped >>> by Glen about being overly narrow in my understanding of “inside.” It was, >>> as he said, a case of my failure to fulfill my obligation as a thinker to >>> steelman any argument before I try to knock it down. >>> >>> >>> >>> But let me turn Glen’s steel-man obligation around. Aren’t you made >>> uneasy when people claim that to be private that which is plainly present >>> in their behavior? And doesn’t the whole problem of “What it’s like to be >>> a bat” and “the hard problem” strike you as an effort to make hay where the >>> sun don’t shine? >>> >>> >>> >>> If you do share those concerns, and you worry that I have (as usual) >>> overstated my case, then that’s one kind of discussion; if you don’t share >>> them at all, then that’s a very different conversation. >>> >>> >>> >>> My position on “the realm of the mental” is laid out in many of my >>> publications, perhaps most concisely in the first few pages of >>> Intentionality >>> is the Mark of the Mental" >>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312031901_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> It’s an old argument, going back to Descartes. Do we see the world >>> through our minds, or do we see our minds through the world? >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric >>> Smith >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7:47 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >>> >>> >>> >>> It’s the right kind of answer, Nick, and I don’t find it compelling. >>> >>> >>> >>> Put aside for a moment the use of “have” as an auxiliary verb. I can >>> come up with wonderful reasons why that is both informative and primordial, >>> but I also believe they are complete nonsense and only illustrate that >>> there are no good rules for reliable argument in this domain. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, I don’t adopt the frame of using the past tense as a device to >>> skew the argument toward the conclusion you started with. (Now _there_ is >>> a category error: to start with a conclusion. Lawyer!) >>> >>> >>> >>> I think probably throughout Indo-European derived languages, “have” is >>> used to refer to inherent attributes. I have brown eyes. I have eyes at >>> all. It takes a surprisingly convoluted construction to assert that >>> someone looking at my face will find two brown eyes there, that doesn’t use >>> “have” as the verb of attribution. So that’s old, and it is something the >>> language has really committed to. I think you have to commit unnatural >>> acts to argue that that is a verb of action. >>> >>> >>> >>> Possession isn’t even a lot more action-y. I have two turntables and a >>> microphone. If nobody is trying to take them from me, it is not clear that >>> I am “doing” anything to “have” them. >>> >>> >>> >>> (btw, I am not a metaphor monist. I practice polysemy, like the >>> Mormons. So it seems completely natural that there can be multiple >>> meanings, if there are any meanings at all, and that distinct ones can use >>> the same word because they are somehow similar despite not being the >>> self-same.) >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to me as if the truest action usage of “have” is one that is >>> not nearly as baked into the language. If I have lunch, I eat lunch. If I >>> have a fit, I throw a tantrum. Many circumlocutions available to me. That >>> also could be quite idiosyncratic to small language branches. I think you >>> would never, in normal speech, say you “had” lunch in German. You would >>> just say you ate lunch. (Or in Italian or French either, for that matter.) >>> These kinds of usages do not seem to me to carry strong cognitive weight. >>> >>> >>> >>> So it seems to me that the semantic core of “have” is probably >>> attribution. The legal sense of ownership is probably metaphorical. It >>> would not _at all_ surprise me if the use both in the auxiliary (widespread >>> in IE) and in the deictic (French il y a, there is) are deep metaphors >>> describing either the ambient, or the ineluctable structure of time, with >>> attributes. >>> >>> >>> >>> But, back to whether attribution is natural for emotions (or, as good as >>> anything else, and better than most): >>> >>> >>> >>> If I “have” a sunny disposition, that seems not far from having brown >>> eyes. Italian: Il ha un buon aspetto. >>> >>> >>> >>> If I am having a bad day, that is a little different from having brown >>> eyes, and perhaps closer to having a black eye. Not an essence that >>> defines my nature, but a condition I can be in, or “take on". To say, >>> indeed, that I parse that as a pattern I carry around (as an aspect of >>> constitution or condition) does not seem category-erroneous to me. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sure, there are patterns in my behavior: if I take a hot shower and the >>> water lands on my black eye, I will wince. If you say good morning and I >>> am having a bad day, I will growl at you. A Skinnerian can say that my >>> wincing is all there is to my black eye. But a physician would tell me to >>> put ice on it, and would use the color of the bruise to indicate which eye >>> I should put the ice on. >>> >>> >>> >>> These uses of having seem tied up, more closely than with anything else, >>> with uses of being, as SteveS mentioned. So the be/do dichotomy seems to >>> determine largely where the verb usages split. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, living is a process, played out on organized structures. >>> Brains probably look different in eeg and electrode arrays in one emotional >>> condition than in another, and they probably also have different >>> neurotransmitter profiles, and maybe other things. Even You probably don’t >>> want to refer to a neurotransmitter concentration as a “doing”; It is a >>> variable of state, like a black eye is a state of an eye. You might want >>> to refer to the brain action pattern as “doing”, but maybe only in the >>> sense that you refer to the existence of non-dead metabolism as “doing” — >>> they are both processes. To me, the common language seems to split the be >>> and the do on brevity, transience, isolation, or suddenness of an >>> activity. I _am_ surly, and I _do_ growl at you. >>> >>> >>> >>> If non-black English still preserved the habitual tense, as John >>> McWhorter claims black American English still does, we might be able to >>> make a different kind of a distinction, between the pattern or habit as a >>> state, and the event within it as an act. That might give an even better >>> account of the split in the common language. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also want to acknowledge Glen’s points about working through many >>> frames in a dynamical way. I can’t add anything, but I do agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:30 PM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Now wait a minute! This is the sort of question I am supposed to ask of >>> you? A question to which the answer is so obvious to the recipient that he >>> is in danger of not being able to locate it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok, so, their meanings obviously overlap. If you tell me you “had” a >>> steak last night, I wont assume that it’s available for us to eat tonight: >>> “had” is serving as a verb of action. The situation is further confused >>> by the fact that both words are used as helper words, i.e, words that >>> indicate the tense of another verb. To say that I “have” gone and that I >>> “done” gone mean the same thing in different dialects >>> >>> >>> >>> In general the grammar of the two words is different. If you say I had >>> something, I am sent looking for a property, possession or attribute. If >>> you say I did something, I am sent looking for an action I performed. So, >>> there is a vast inclination to make emotion words as a reference to >>> something we carry inside, rather than a pattern in what we do. This seems >>> to me like misdirection, a category error in Ryle’s terms. >>> >>> >>> >>> Does that help? >>> >>> >>> >>> Mumble, mumble, as steve would say. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,JZI_rTsnO4PMxifIK-1Pc4gAtSO08UfA4WqKjx73T4Ek3tY5Xl71BUdt3A807uKgEplYNDHINHuRjmL2qnv7SkO_J10fWv5jebCjhCravg,,&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric >>> Smith >>> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 4:23 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, what’s the difference between having and doing? >>> >>> >>> >>> I once heard Ray Jackendoff give quite a nice talk on word categories. >>> Of all of it, the one part I remember the most about is what he said about >>> prepositions. Even after you are getting right most of the rest of word >>> usage in a new language (or handling it well with a dumb, rule-based >>> translator), you are still at sea in the prepositions. Their scopes are >>> not completely arbitrary, but arbitrary in such large part that speakers >>> essentially learn them nearly as a list of ad hoc applications. >>> >>> >>> >>> But when we are in a specialist domain, such as reference to the >>> unpacking of the convention-term “emotion”, which we all know is a >>> different specialist domain from car ownership or the consumption of lunch, >>> we know that verbs are not on any a priori firmer ground than >>> prepositions. Or it seems to me, we should expect that to be so. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am struck by how widespread it is in languages to use the same >>> particle or other construction for possession and attribution. Both in >>> concretes and in the abstractions that seemingly derive from them. SteveG >>> will like this one from Chinese if I haven’t messed it up or misunderstood >>> it: youde you, youde meiyou. Some have it, some don’t. >>> >>> >>> >>> Performance of an act, being configured in a state or condition, if we >>> use passphrases rather than passwords, we can discriminate many categories. >>> >>> >>> >>> So when we use metaphors to expand the scope of reference and discourse >>> (to eventually shed their metaphor status and become true polysemes once >>> our familiarity in the new domain is such that, as novelists say, it >>> “stands up and casts a shadow”), are some of the metaphors more obligatory >>> than others? Are the psychologists sure they are right about which ones? >>> Are they right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2021, at 3:06 AM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh! >>> >>> >>> >>> How we seal ourselves in caves of nonsense! >>> >>> >>> >>> And emotion is not something we “have”; it’s something we do. Or, if >>> you prefer a dualist sensory metaphor, it’s a particular mode of feeling >>> the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> n >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7HSjAiYZs0TskSYM3z8t3I3vm7JNBV7OyZgHYp-6EjYczSSRW9xIT6typjL4CJpU_atJnKNr9galrl_vRQGGlXHYIX3WqoquVu8Bpe1ntqUc&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >>> Steenekamp >>> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 6:04 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >>> >>> >>> >>> The creators of the Aibo robot dog say it has ‘real emotions and >>> instinct’. This is obviously not true, it's just an illusion. >>> >>> But then, according to Daniel Dennett, human consciousness is just an >>> illusion. >>> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/illusionism.pdf >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fase.tufts.edu%2fcogstud%2fdennett%2fpapers%2fillusionism.pdf&c=E,1,wZyzI4xcowqEH1XfK9Q39EPbwHxfV11-EVaCCROdnuFD-hDpoJBA6vqVkaGgbd-yOuYwvTupjP_Soz_obIbOZjgWkLMocfZEa2BpUqNsBKBy&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 09:18, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: >>> >>> "In today’s AI universe, all the eternal questions (about >>> intentionality, consciousness, free will, mind-body problem...) have become >>> engineering problems", argues this Guardian article. >>> >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fscience%2f2021%2faug%2f10%2fdogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence&c=E,1,0zM4mCzKmbes0weZLeJCmVy6dAfDvfYxSyHKpvl-aa8-hwd84lMymcY9HHVsp4jXbWOCjmb3kQDLfcwUGjHCouKd8sNTTfFuQtv62vY-RfAsXg,,&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> >>> -J. >>> >>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,USKWJzhBjgjJh7B-0LkOfSd3nemyd1czMDhazLKVBZtafmJNbogUKdBckMq8YDhHys57cq3edfUxouOPaNKkqPHN7BSB2_jSqY2nj0PnsWO4&typo=1> >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQIZirvod42goqmNxnJBxEDkNQZgDx4-Cpp9h61g27SR8pmXJ_MMfIylqQDG-apIDYJ41YBK5dlfDvP0mcsA7tgQfSN_fX8GOBstoJ7bRsPqllS8Hti8YhbPnto,&typo=1> >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W-ArAxIKQNrM-7j3cHCB7DvRKs598JN3aWrygvNoMFhZMfHBdCpRnINnr__3jjhPqyWLiXzRL9KRjVJqtjeAAqtCaNq5qf7Ix3B4AjcEzvp4LWtuE0_bNYs00g,,&typo=1> >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1> >>> un/subscribe >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,MzWtukTHxTmO0o4T4K75ZC6zy8h-gQojlN_6BSajavsHHOIC9hTMR8rjRvM4bWXKVt05qr4hoH2_sIH0XXVCaG4M61FBfWSeFBC6EOnQSCYDf-SZ&typo=1 >>> FRIAM-COMIC >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,t5Vd_UMHRAMj63ikH0-cOAr7pxIW_XRAEXTZXCbAclW2tPEeUJHS7SstrpQmDgjUyzeW0mVLy-LmuIF58gw1_1tcSuaylib5tGj2zgHAqJE7&typo=1 >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BFllSC-pZ0weFNqjV1iB-w3DR43rvvcmxiYfCh3Inlzi3UOaC9v0gh67rb1SPyCmQIqhrg8ev1C7TSKyRr6rbt_1hS-Cky5ClbwSki3p&typo=1 >>> FRIAM-COMIC >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lWRd3h5zEi_Sd3v9P1_NsGjaV_yXFovGQ-t8djjh-BNY8-KmDoPieLQWC8sugjPgglUTHnntK67jLtccS-k24YihXM8lbfVJ0LhKe0F-QUg-&typo=1 >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
