• Eee
    63
    meaning is meaninglessOmniscientNihilist

    Alksdf 34 [email protected] asdfm35 34 $#.


    when people talk about meaning its like talking about superman. sure you can talk about it but its not actually real. the smart thing to do would be to break meaning down into what it actually is. explain the processes of the mind and how they work.OmniscientNihilist

    Explain using meaningless mystical meanings, I suppose? These 'people' you mention...are they all philosophers but your own supreme, omniscient, mystical self? Or ain't that what we bodies are engaged in here? Explaining the mind, thinking about thinking.

    Pretending to doubt everything is all too easy, as are three word epigrams that project profundity. I don't mean to insult you but only to challenge you.
  • OmniscientNihilist
    131
    Explain using meaningless mystical meanings, I suppose?Eee

    no

    explain what the mind is in substance and how it works in process

    forget "meaning"
  • Eee
    63
    explain what the mind is in substance and how it works in processOmniscientNihilist

    Thanks for responding.

    We're already here doing that. Feel free to look at my past posts and debate this or that point. I like Derrida. I think he might be your cup of tea also.
  • OmniscientNihilist
    131
    We're already here doing that.Eee

    if you cant bulid a mind yet, then you still dont really understand it
  • Eee
    63
    if you cant bulid a mind yet, then you still dont really understand itOmniscientNihilist

    Perhaps. And what's your reason for saying so? That we understand only what we make? And does that inference require an understanding of the mind? 'We understand only what we can make.' OK, prove it. Support it. You saw on the branch you sing from. What is the foundation of your authority or insight?

    I don't claim to have a finished, bullet-proof theory. I suspect that such a theory is impossible. I challenge you as someone who pretends to be in on a secret.
  • OmniscientNihilist
    131
    That we understand only what we make?Eee

    “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    ego prevents people from seeing themselves for what they really are. which blocks true knowledge of what the mind is and how it works, which prevents the construction of A.I.
  • Eee
    63
    “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche
    OmniscientNihilist

    I love the old artilleryman. But sometimes people also deceive themselves in terms of aphorisms like those. Conspiracy theory is full of that stuff. The first are actually last, despite appearances. People who don't recognize my brilliance are simply afraid of the truth! Yeah, that's it. Or.... Let's really extend the suspicion. Let's suspect especially the suspicions that flatter us. As you say, ego is indeed a factor. Vanity is my favorite sin.

    ego prevents people from seeing themselves for what they really are. which blocks true knowledge of what the mind is and how it works, which prevents the construction of A.I.OmniscientNihilist

    An maybe 'ego' also whispers to us about some true nature that isn't really there. As far as AI goes, I actually know something about the field. And it's not really that exciting. Read some papers and see if it delivers that mystic feeling. IMO it's just another version of the angel/alien archetype. A techno-myth.
  • OmniscientNihilist
    131
    People who don't recognize my brilliance are simply afraid of the truth! Yeah, that's it.Eee

    the above is caused by the below

    An maybe 'ego' also whispers to us about some true nature that isn't really thereEee
  • Eee
    63
    the above is caused by the belowOmniscientNihilist

    I don't want to hijack the thread with this digression, but I will add one more point. What you don't give an account of is the transformation from an inferior perspective to a superior perspective. We both agree that ego or self-love is involved in distortion. This is in fact a old idea. 'Objective' means unbiased. But who is it that sees without distortion? The 'true self'? And how is this 'true self' connected to the community at large?

    As Wittgenstein and others make clear (though the realization is much older than that), meaning is a public or shared phenomenon. The individual brain is (to overstate it) incapable of meaning, since languages evolve among groups of human beings. The group is primary, and yet language/meaning obviously also requires the individual, living brain. What I like about Derrida is his investigation of the idea of a 'pure meaning' that lives 'behind' the 'dead' symbols and sounds we say that we use to 'transmit' this 'meaning.' Where you and I and he seem to agree is that meaning is a 'mystical' concept. The idea that God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth is connected to the idea of pure meaning. And the idea of pure meaning is connected to the idea of a pure ego or subject that gazes on or has direct access to this pure meaning. (Note that 'subject' and 'meaning' are themselves signs caught up in this game.)

    To me it seems that Derrida shows how this framework breaks down, despite its initial plausibility. The pure subject and pure meaning aren't really there. And yet they are at the heart of the philosophical mission. Timeless truth must be unstained by the exteriority of signs, ultimately independent of the 'flesh' of language, merely using it as a vehicle.
  • OmniscientNihilist
    131


    forget all that talk of "meaning"

    the word doesnt stand for anything.

    language is nothing but sounds and shapes that get associated to recorded sense data in the mind
  • Eee
    63
    forget all that talk of "meaning"OmniscientNihilist

    I can't, and neither can you, else you'd have no role to play here. Like the rest of us, you need a foil to shine against.

    the word doesnt stand for anything.OmniscientNihilist

    Well it does and it doesn't. But these grandiose one-liners don't clearly stand for anything. If you want to develop your mask, I suggest looking into pragmatism. It also likes to 'dissolve' problems by conspicuously being 'uninterested' in them.

    language is nothing but sounds and shapes that get associated to recorded sense data in the mindOmniscientNihilist

    That's a terrible theory, easily and long ago refuted. You need the concept of language in order to (implicit) deny concept itself. Consider the possibility of your own vanity. I understand the appeal of 'nothing is true' and 'it's all lies/confusion' positions. They don't require one to have read much, since they negate the value of books from the outset. But perhaps it's an anti-intellectual position that hopes to sell itself as the supreme intellectual position.

    Maybe we're all dying, pretentious dogs. But we mostly die slow, and it's fun to talk about talking.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.