“We 'physicist' are firing trillion watt lasers into the sky.” Michio Kaku, a physics professor at City College of New York, talks to Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell about the potential future of weather(2013). A 1-watt laser can light a match. *Don’t shine lasers in the sky* "Michio Kaku" by campuspartybrasil is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 #Shorts #Celebrity #Caricature of a physicist. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3TFB6_jM2s

?WORD ONTOLOGY: ALL WORDS RESOLVE TO EITHER AN OBJECT OR A CONCEPT? All words can be grouped into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. But how do we accomplish this? Q: Since all words are first and foremost lexical concepts, how do we reference a rock in our sentences? Wouldn’t the rock be a concept? Answer: No! This issue is resolved objectively by way of ontology. Opinion plays no role here. It is the ontology of the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) which determines whether the word in question will be categorized as either an object or a concept. The word “rock”, in and of itself, is obviously a lexical concept. We already explained previously that atomic brain activity is the referent of any lexical concept, like “concept” or “rock”; i.e. the referent is a verb or process (i.e. a concept!) That’s why all words are concepts in and of themselves. And this is what our brain does when we parse a sentence from a syntactical point of view, as sentential syntax strictly deals with concepts. But we don’t derive the meaning of words and sentences from syntax. Surely, there must be objects out there like rocks, planets, and stars which are not just the petty linguistic syntax of our brain activity. These are objects which must have their own physical presence because they exist, right? Of course, in order to consistently resolve this issue, we need to consider such words in their proper context. This means that we must evaluate the REFERENT of the word in question (i.e. “rock”) as this is what ultimately allows us to resolve its underlying ontological context. And this is exactly what we did previously when we evaluated the referent of the lexical concept “concept” as a process of atomic brain activity; i.e. a concept! But in our current case, the referent of the word “rock” does not resolve to a concept or a process of brain activity. It specifically resolves to a standalone object. Why? Because all objects have shape! This is the only objective criterion which can be consistently used to determine whether the referent of a word is either an object or a concept (i.e. a relation or process). When we evaluate the word in question, we ask: Q: “Does the Ontological Context of its Referent have a shape?” If so, then the word in question resolves to an object; otherwise, it’s a concept. Since a rock (i.e. referent) has a shape, then the word “rock” is placed in the category we call: OBJECTS.? f?tf?st ✊? 2014 https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Language-What-is-a-CONCEPT. #Ontology #Concept #Thought #Language #F?tF?st ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oda5GgNyquo