• Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    Nothing is ‘purely physical’. If there were any such object, physics would be the discipline which describes it. And yet, the search for the fundamental constituents of matter through the largest and most expensive machine in the history of the world, has resulted in conundrums, paradoxes and arguments about the nature of science.

    Every experience we have is mediated by judgement, and judgement can’t be said to be a physical process, as it comprises the relationship of ideas - if this, then that, because this is so, then that must be so. That has no analogy in the physical world, it is wholly in the domain of ideas.

    Schopenhauer of course saw all of this, although since his day philosophy has regressed.
    What does "purely physical" even mean? Are you saying that the universe is partly physical and partly something else? How can the physical interact with something else that isn't physical? This is the problem with dualism.

    There is only one "substance". If someone were to assert that the "substance" is mental, then that would be projecting your mental properties onto the world, as if the world was like the mind, and is anthropomorphic.

    If someone were to assert that the "substance" is physical, then what exactly does that mean when our perceptions of the world are not how the world is. Perceptions and the world are not the same thing. Perceptions are only part of the world. So perceiving "physical" objects would be similar to projecting your perceptions onto the world and also be anthropomorphic.

    So which is it, or is it something else? I think that it is something else. I often use the terms, "information", "process" or "relationships" to refer to the primary "substance". And I think a proper explanation of consciousness will shed the light necessary to understand our minds' relationship with the world.

    Maybe that is the problem - we are arguing about which scribble to use when referring to the primary "substance" (trivial), rather than trying to explain how minds and the world interact (not trivial).
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    Can you use "I" in a sentence Harry Hindu? If you can then what that "I" refers to is Harry HIndu's self. If you can't then that'd be interesting.TheMadFool
    Then you haven't told me what the self is, only what refers to the self. Harry Hindu and TheMadFool are just another scribble that refers to some self. So I'll ask again, what is a self?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    The self is the "I" that the mind infers to from what is essentially the Cartesian I think, therefore I am.TheMadFool

    The self is a letter of the alphabet? Or are you saying that the self is but another thought? Are thoughts about stuff that aren"t thoughts?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    What do you mean by "self"? The mind, the body, the brain? Is a fly aware of its body, but not its mind or brain? Then you're taking about awareness. How can an immaterial thing be aware of material things?
  • Evolution of Logic
    Both inductive and deductive reasoning make use those three fundamental rules of thought that I mentioned. My point was that there are many rules of logic. By practicing some but not all rules, are you still being logical?

    It seems to me that both inductive and deductive reasoning are simply reasoning from different directions. If a dog can make generalizations from observations then why wouldn't it not be able to apply those generalizations to observations? Thats what learning and applying what you learn is. What reason would you learn something if not to apply what you learnt in some similar situation in the future?

    What if the dog knew that foxes only run down paths, then the only place the fox could be is down the last path, or had the experience of observing a fox avoiding paths and darting through thick bushes? It would then understand that it should sniff more than all the paths but also the bushes. Humans and dogs reasoning are limited by their experience and their attention span and memory capacity but humans seem to be the only ones aware of this fact.

    The fact is that the dig can learn from observing the behavior of foxes, and it may make mistakes, and you learn from your mistakes. If the dog never finds the fox down the last path, what did it learn?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not.TheMadFool
    Then what do you mean by "consciousness"?
  • Definitions
    What would that shared reason be?
    — Harry Hindu

    If anything can be shared, how do we know that we're sharing the same thing or not?

    A somewhat idiosyncratic use of 'points'. I don't think you quite mean by it the same thing as others do. To say 'points to' seems ti me to be about drawing the attention. No attention is being paid to either ducking or riding a bike. If what you want to say is just "words have consequences", then I'd agree, I'm not sure many wouldn't, but that seems a rather trivial thing to assert.Isaac
    What did you intend when you use the word, "duck"? Using something requires intent.
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    At this juncture we must take note of the fact that in dualism, the mind is distinct from thoughts. Minds in dualism do the thinking and are not the thoughts themselves.

    Since the consensus seems to be that patterns of brain activity are just thoughts, minds can't be brain patterns at all.

    Of course one could then say that the brain is the mind - its pattern of activity representing individual thoughts. The problem with this physicalistic position is REM sleep, which somnologists have given the interesting name paradoxical sleep, a big clue in this puzzle.

    REM sleep is "paradoxical" because of its similarities to wakefulness. Although the body is paralyzed, the brain acts somewhat awake, with cerebral neurons firing with the same overall intensity as in wakefulness
    — wikipedia

    REM sleep is a state in which the brain is as active as it is when we're awake and fully conscious but we're not conscious. If the mind is the brain then why aren't we conscious during REM sleep? After all brain activity in REM sleep resembles brain activity when awake. :chin:
    The reason that the brain patterns are similar during REM and being awake is because you are dreaming. Where does dreaming take place - if not in your brain? When you are dreaming it is really difficult to tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, or being conscious. It is only after the fact that you realize that you were dreaming.

    If the mind is not the thoughts, then what exactly is the mind and how would you know that it exists if not for some thought? "I think, therefore I am" is asserting that thinking is the evidence for the existence of the mind.
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False

    So when certain parts of the brain are damaged and it affects your ability to recognize faces, speak, etc., but when the whole brain dies you are able to rise off the physical brain and see Grandma and speak English?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    If pareidolia is false then patterns are objective properties of physical objects but then you'd have to believe this pattern is real and whatever it entails:TheMadFool
    A real pattern on a pancake. What's the problem? Every pancake is unique- meaning they have unique patterns, just like fingerprints and neural wiring. Is the pattern on the tip of your fingers not physical?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    I guess I'd be happy with the view that the mind, although being associated with a physical brain, is some kind of pattern of brain activity - patterns are abstractions and are, in my humble opinion, not physical.TheMadFool
    This makes no sense. If the brain is physical, then why wouldn't patterns of brain activity not be physical? What is the difference between physical and non-physical? Is the pattern of the TV show on your TV screen physical or not?
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    If you think that your voting power is equal to the power of just one politician, who also has the power to vote and then some, then you are delusional.
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    Perhaps. Though, I find it difficult to imagine why the bar should be lowered for those who are not in power.Tzeentch
    Raising the bar for those that weild the power isn't necessarily lowering it for others. Those without power don't have any responsibility in weilding what they don't have.
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    This portrayal of voters as victims of misinformation is something I dislike, because this seems to treat people as children who do not know any better, rather than independent agents.Tzeentch
    It depends on you knowing that you're misinformed. It also puts the burden on voters to find the truth rather than the burden be on the politicians to tell the truth. Those with the power should be held to higher standard.

    Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep?Tzeentch
    So you're telling me that voters vote for people that they know lie?
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    And whose fault is that?Tzeentch
    The ones that benefit from you voting for them and not the other guy. It is in the politicians best interest to get you to think that only one party or candidate is righteous and the other evil. If not to vote for them then vote against the other candidate, either way they get your vote because most people maintain the two party status quo.

    This plays into what I was saying about the voters being barraged by misinformation perpetuates more ignorance by the media.
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep? Why do politicians focus on throwing mud at their competition instead of presenting voters with solid, future-proof policies?

    They do these things because it is what gets them votes. If it gets them votes it means it is what the voters want to hear and see. Thereby the behavior of politicians is directly influenced by the voters' preferences, in accordance with the quote "Every country gets the government it deserves."
    It only gets them votes from their party members. No one tries to cross party lines any more. It seems to me that most independents are the ones that are tired of politics as usual while the Dems and Reps keep voting for the status quo. It is they that have established an "us vs. them" mentality, as if the only solutions can only by provided by one party and any solutions provided by the other shouldn't be supported because it is from the other party. And then there are those potential voters that don't vote for anyone. I believe that the resentment against politics as usual is growing and evident in the growing number of independents.
  • Definitions
    Who, or what, determines what sound or scribble is a word
    — Harry Hindu

    The community of language users using the word 'word' for a shared reason.
    What would that shared reason be?

    The fact that you don't need to focus on it any longer doesn't mean that it no longer points to it.Harry Hindu
    Read your own post:
    If I say "duck!" just because I've learnt to say that word when a golf ball is flying towards someone, and you duck just because you've learned to do so when hearing the word "duck!", you're claiming the word still points to 'ducking' even though neither party involved thought of ducking. So the word had a property {pointing to ducking} despite the property not being attached to that word in either brain. I may be mistaken, as I thought you were a physicalist, if not, then I'm sorry for having wasted your time, if so, then where is this property, if not in either brain?Isaac
    So the word, "duck" points to what you learned, just as how you use a bicycle points to how you learned how to use the bicycle. Once you master riding the bicycle, you no longer think about maintaining your balance, but then you wouldn't be able to not focus on maintaining your balance without having learned how to do that. Causes/effects point to their effects/causes.

    Deflection is not an answer. No one here has said that words never point, so this line of argument is useless, and it still doesn't answer the question.Isaac
    Then I guess you weren't paying attention to StreelightX's posts. If you agree that words do point then I don't know what we're disagreeing about.
  • Evolution of Logic
    Animals can think in the sense they are conscious and can respond intelligently to situations. But the OP was about the evolution of logic. And my point is that it piggybacks on the new semiotic machinery that is grammatically structured speech.

    What makes humans different is all the differences that this new habit of structured thought can make.
    There are many rules of logic and some are more fundamental than others, like the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity. It seems to me that the very act of having objects of thought is a manifestation of these three fundamental "rules". It's not so much as rules that we make up after the fact, rather they are simply how thinking works. No object of thought breaks any one of these three fundamental laws. And this raises the question why we have rules for thinking in the first place.

    What is in question is whether we should count the dog's intuition as a kind of logic, or as logical in a kind of basic sense. It certainly seems that such intuitions must underlie the human capacity for explicit logical formulation; the fact the we are not merely following rules, but that we "get it".Janus
    Isn't what we get is the rules for thinking correctly? What every thinker eventually realizes is that in some cases what they thought was wrong, and you can only try to learn what you did wrong by doing more thinking. Corrective thinking is logical thinking. Learning the proper way to think is the fundamental aspect of logic and this entails learning from one's mistakes. Did the dog instinctively know that 3-2=1, or is it something that was learned by experience - by making mistakes? Isn't that what learning is - making mistakes, remembering them and trying something different?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    There lies the rub. The mind seems to be independent of the brain because when we sleep, the brain is still intact inside the head and yet we're not conscious. :chin:TheMadFool
    Yet drugs and damage to the brain causes a change in consciousness.

    Why do we need a brain then, or even a body?

    When you look at others, why is the only way to perceive their mind is by observing their body?
  • Evolution of Logic
    Apes have a smaller and less powerful version of this area. Hominids evolved a steadily larger one, most likely first for tool making and tool use. Then this became a pre-adaption for the ability to make complex structured vocalisations.apokrisis
    Sounds like thinking occurred before language-use to me. Understanding that there are tools to be used is the precursor to using words as a tool.

    Is not learning a type of thinking?

    How did you learn a language if you didnt already have the capacity to distinguish certain sounds and scribbles from each other?

    It also seems like you'd have to be aware of errors in your thinking and how you make them before coming up with rules to avoid those errors (the formal rules of logic).

    And then there is this:
    A Man Without Words
    Once you hear Ildefonso's story, it will be obvious that he had thoughts prior to learning to communicate them.
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    The mind can't be the brain because when I die, my brain doesn't go anywhere but my consciousness (mind) is missing.TheMadFool
    Once rhe brain is deprived of oxygen cell death occurs.

    Then where does your consciousness go when you're asleep? And how does it come back when you wake up?
  • Definitions
    Phewee! Ugh!Isaac
    So the sound of someone gagging is a word?

    We can use anything to point to something else. We could use a hand gesture of pointing your finger down your throat to symbolize the behavior of gagging. Does the fact that we can use scribbles to point to a sound, or gestures to point to a behavior is just indicative of how our mind establishes correlations and relationships, especially for communicating those things to others.

    Is all symbol-use word-use?
  • Definitions
    Sounds are not 'made into' words, they are sometimes referenced by words, sometimes even byt eh word 'word', but I can't make any sense of them being 'made into' words.Isaac
    You are't going to be intellectually honest either, I see. The question is simple, so stop trying to skew it into something that I did not ask.

    Who, or what, determines what sound or scribble is a word, or is it your belief that everything is a word, even the smell and taste of an apple?

    Which is all I was saying. If there are circumstances where one doesn't need to focus on the image/concept anymore then there are circumstances in which the use of the word is not pointing to that image/concept anymore.Isaac
    I know what you were saying. What I was saying is that you are wrong. The fact that you don't need to focus on it any longer doesn't mean that it no longer points to it. It seems to me that you believe that when something is out of sight/mind, it no longer exists.

    Think about it this way. If I were to write a computer program for a robot to execute a certain behavior when it hears the sound, "Duck!", I'd have to link the sound with the behavior. When the program runs, you might say that the robot isn't conscious at all and is merely performing actions based on stimuli and how it was programmed. What I'm saying is that learning is the same as being programmed. It has to be programmed into you what is expected of you when hearing the sound.

    If the sound didn't point to the behavior any longer then the program wouldn't work as expected. You wouldn't behave as expected when hearing that sound. This also shows that some sound can point to some behavior. Behaviors aren't words, but can be pointed to with words.

    I asked you what if you used some word and I didn't respond as you predicted? Does that mean you used a word or not?
    — Harry Hindu

    What else would I have used?
    Hand gestures? Facial expressions? Are hand gestures and facial expressions words?

    No. I'd probably just say it again, but louder.Isaac
    Are you sure that the only possible problem here is that I didn't hear you? How do you know the problem wasn't misunderstanding?

    You and Banno are avoiding answering the necessary questions.
    — Harry Hindu

    Right ho then. You tell me where to look and I'll do the legwork. where do I need to look to find out what sounds constitute a 'word' is?
    Wow. It appears that you actually DO understand, as you are now asking where to look to find out what makes some sound a word, as you are asking me to point you in the right direction.
  • Definitions

    :roll: What are you saying - that any sound that you point to with scribbles is a word?
  • Definitions
    And yet you insist on our providing a definition. One might be tempted to conclude that you have not followed what is going on here, Harry.Banno
    And (I believe) it was my first reply to this thread that words aren't defined by other words, as they can be defined by pictures. I also asked if we were telepathic, would we use words.

    So I asked you more than just that. You obviously aren't interested in being intellectually honest here. Maybe if we take baby steps, Banno.

    If someone makes a fart noise with their mouth, does that qualify as a word being used?Harry Hindu

    "Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony.Banno
    Then words communicate. What do they communicate, Banno? I would agree that they don't communicate more words. They communicate ideas, which are made up of images, sounds, feelings, etc.

    Is making a fart noise communicating? If so does that mean that a word was used. Does that mean that every sensory impression is a word? Is the smell and taste of an apple a word? Does the smell and taste not communicate to me that the apple is ripe vs rotten?

    When using language, can I not glean more from your language use than just your use of words? Don't you also communicate to me what your native language is and how well your grasp of it is?
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?
    — Harry Hindu

    At the quantum level?
    Dan Cage
    Is the quantum level physical, non-physical, or something else?
  • Evolution of Logic
    Experiments have been done to test apes for a capacity to learn simple logic rules. The evidence is they struggle to master more than a step or two of reasoning depth even with training.

    This is what we would expect if logic basically piggy backs on the human capacity for language. We have the neurology for syntactic structure - the recursive grammar trick. We can stack up the if/then steps in our working memories.
    The limitations of these apes seems to be related more with memory capacity and attention span, not necessarily logic. If an ape were to read a long sentence, would it still remember the beginning of the sentence when it reaches the end of it?

    It seems to me that it is the opposite - that language piggy backs on the capacity for logic. The law of identity, excluded middle and non-contradictions are the most fundamental rules of logic and language simply couldn't be conceived of prior to these rules being inherent within the mind - like that some identifying mark identifies something else. Establishing correlations and relationships has to be an inherent mental skill if you are to correlate some sound or marking with something else.
  • Anti-Authoritarianism
    It is a mistake to regard government as something external, as so many like to do. A government is shaped more by its people than vice versa, even though some governments in the past have tried. We see imperfect, authoritarian government, because it is governing imperfect people who require authority to be kept functioning.

    Society needs authorities to be kept from devolving into chaos. People need, and in many cases desire (even if they would deny this, it follows from their actions), to be ruled. Therefore, a discussion about anti-authoritarianism cannot be held without regard for what it would require from the people to live as such. A society without laws would rely on people's personal integrity to behave in a cooperative fashion.

    In short, the need for authority is a result of mankind's imperfect nature, and living in a society without authority would require mankind as a whole to make significant steps forward in terms of its intellectual development.
    Most governments in history have not been shaped by its people, rather shaped by a select few, or just one person.

    Its comes down to how much power should one person, or a group of people, wield over the rest of us when the people wielding the power are just as imperfect as those needing to be ruled.

    Once their accumulated power shields them from losing that power after mismanaging that power, then that is when those needing to be ruled should be worried. Life-long politicians like Joe Biden are a great example of this.

    Is our voting power an illusion? Is our ability to vote people out of office that are mismanaging their power real and effective in today's political climate? The lack of choices, misinformation in the media, and the ability to buy your way to the top are definite obstacles to the people having real voting power. The divide between the people and those that govern us is becoming wider and wider. In the beginning, the U.S. might have been a government established by the people, but there has been a chasm forming between them for a while now.
  • Definitions
    "Oi" isn't in the Shorter OED; I'd bet on it being in the full version. The other words here are.. "shhh" is spelled "sh".

    Claiming they are not words, for the convenience of a definition of "word", is special pleading.
    And claiming that they are is begging the question, so why don't you and Issac brainstorm and come up with a definition of "word". What makes a particular sound coming from someone a word? Does the sound have to come from their mouth? What about the sound of them sneezing or coughing, or vomiting. What about sound effects? If someone makes a fart noise with their mouth, does that qualify as a word being used? What if people react in some way to those sounds? Does that mean that those sounds were used and therefore that is what qualifies the sound to be a word? But then humans react to all sorts of things that aren't just sounds and scribbles, so what makes some sensory stimuli a word and another not?

    Isn't a word both a sound and scribble? Does the sound point to the scribble or vice versa? How did we learn that some sound is the same as some scribble, and that scribbles can be used the same way as some sound?

    I didn't say that such responses were.learnt without recourse to mental imagery (that would be a different argument). I only claimed that they are used without such recourse. My use of the word "duck" to someone which has learnt the appropriate response, dies not (in that use) involve any mental imagery or conceptualising in either the speaker of the responder, as such it is false to say that words always point to things. Sometimes they don't.

    I should re-iterate, I think, that this aspect of words triggering a Pavlovian response is only one small part of the argument against ostention in general. As StreetlightX has already said, you really ought to read Philosophical Investigations for a broader picture. I'm focussing on something very specific here.
    Right, and what you learned is what the sound/scribble points to - a behavior. Just as we learn to ride a bike or drive a car, it takes focus to learn something new. Once you learn it and become an expert at its use (which takes time and using it more than once, so using them takes practice and while you are practicing you haven't yet rerouted the information from consciousness through your subconscious yet), then you don't need to focus on it any longer. It is no longer necessary to route the information through consciousness, as consciousness is used for learning, it is the center of attention. Just because you no longer route the information through consciousness doesn't mean that what you learned is no longer the case. It has to still be the case for you to be able to not focus significant mental energy on the process. It can be handed off to the automated sub-conscious.

    I asked you what if you used some word and I didn't respond as you predicted? Does that mean you used a word or not? When that happens wouldn't you mentally revisit what you learned and consciously try to re-learn it's use, just as when something new happens when riding your bike or driving your car, you have to refocus your attention on what it is that you are doing and using?

    So when are you going to explain what makes some sound or scribble a word? When are you and Banno going to explain what you mean by "use" when using a word if you can use a word in such a way that doesn't include some kind of correlation between the word and some idea or behavior (what it points to, refers to, correlates with or symbolizes)? You and Banno are avoiding answering the necessary questions.
  • Mind Has No Mass, Physicalism Is False
    My Mind is not physical.TheMadFool

    What if the mind is the brain, or vice versa? In this sense the mind weighs as much as the brain. By measuring the weight of your brain and nervous system, you are measuring the weight of your mind.

    When I look at you I don't see a mind. I see a body with a brain. Does this mean that other minds don't exist?

    Mind has a causal effect on the body, therefore the mind is physical. If not then how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?
  • Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy
    There's a simple distinction between science and religion. Religion is where you believe stuff without evidence
    No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.Xtrix
    Then apes do science. What's so absurd about that? Humans are apes. :nerd: Integrating observation and logic is what science is. Asserting something beyond what observation shows is religion. Hypothesizing and theorizing something beyond what observation shows is only the first step in science. You have to then perform experiments and have others perform the same experiments and get the same results. This is how apes gradually learned how to put sticks in termite holes to procure lunch.

    No, this is completely wrong.

    Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.

    To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.
    The art depicted humans and their relationship with the world and that is the essence of philosophy.
  • Definitions
    Harry, that not all of language is pointing does not imply that none of language is pointing.Banno

    So the corollary is that every thing we do is largely pointing? Harry is thus largely correct?apokrisis

    So you're falling back on your prior comments and now disagreeing with Streetlight? Can you please be consistent because if you're not, you're not using words at all, you're just making scribbles on the screen.

    No. There's far more going on in Isaac's posts than just pointing.Banno
    Yet you can't say what that is that is going on in Issac's post that is more than pointing and Issac can't answer a simple question about what makes some scribble or sound a word.

    But haven't I just given an example where this is not the case. If I yell "duck!" I'm not expecting that you sync my image of you ducking with your image of you ducking. I'm just expecting you to get your head down.Isaac
    Sounds like we're saying the same thing. Strange, that you can say the same thing using different words? Doesn't that mean that the words point to the same thing, just like different scribbles from different languages can point to the same thing and what they point to is what is translated between the different scribbles? What is it that you are translating between languages if not what the scribbles point to?

    How am I suppose to know that "duck" means get my head down if I don't already have that notion in my head? What if I didn't duck, and made a quacking sound instead? Did you "use" words if I didn't do what you imagined me doing? Or is it that you used words, and that I just didn't get the gist of what you were pointing at?

    he reason I mentioned "Na" was that it is from a class of words which I don't see as ever having indexical meaning - "Shhh", "Oi", "Hey", "Ah"... They're word's which just 'do something' on a very primitive level.Isaac
    And how exactly are we suppose to know what to do when hearing these sounds if not having a mental image of the behavior prior to hearing it? Watching someone else respond to those words is how we learn what those words point to - a behavior.

    In fact, I could prove to you with fMRI, that Pavlovian response triggers, even if they're words, pass neither through the ventral pathway of object recognition, nor through the areas of the cerebral cortex where we might expect with some concept recognition, but rather straight to the sensorimotor systems to get you to duck.Isaac
    Ok, but this doesn't happen instantly. I have to learn what the word means, which means that I have to see others react to a sound in such a way consistently, meaning more than once, to know what is expected of me when hearing that sound. And for you to know how to use that word, you had to have a visual and auditory experience at some point in your past of seeing someone put their head down when you heard that word spoken. You had to be able to predict what would happen if you say that word, and predicting involves imagining.
  • Definitions
    Then you don't actually think, even though you're saying it, that I'm wrong and you're right. Is the state of affairs of you being right and me being wrong just another arrangement of scribbles on the screen or sounds being heard, or is it something else?
  • Definitions
    is not Issac pointing to some state of affairs like everything falling into a parentheses list, and by doing so isn't he pointing to some relationship between scribbles? Words are just scribbles with an agreed upon referent so that we end up syncing the images in our minds - what images in the mind another image (scribble) refers to.
  • Definitions
    Would words be useful if we were all telepathic? Why or why not?
  • Definitions
    The meaning of a word consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between the word(language use) and other things. Hence, the different meanings/accepted uses of the same word arise from the differences between the part(s) of that correlational content that is not the word(language use) itself.creativesoul
    Correlation, pointing - what's the difference? And the fact that what one word correlates with/points to doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone doesn't mean that words don't refer to other things that aren't words. It depends upon the experiences we've had with hearing/seeing the word used, and by "used" I mean used to refer to things that are not other words.

    I mean look at your's and Banno's posts. Are they not scribbles attempting to point to my mental state of misunderstanding what the meaning of words are? If not, then what are you actually saying? If I'm not wrong in my understanding, then what are you actually using those scribbles in your post to accomplish? What is your goal in mind when using some word?

    Because that's what's often said in situations of parting ways, not the beginning of conversations. "Hello" is a greeting, and it is not always an appropriate/accepted method/means to begin a conversation. Rather, it is often just a pleasantry; just a nice polite way to acknowledge another's presence.creativesoul
    Then "Hello" isn't a word, but a sound we make when greeting someone. Issac just wants to avoid the question, but I'll ask you - what makes some scribble or sound a word other than just some scribble or sound? Do dogs use their bark? Is their bark a word, or just a sound?

    I didn't say that. I asked you what arbiter of a word's correct use you'd prefer if not mutual understanding?Isaac
    I wasn't asking about correct usage. I was asking about what makes a word a word? You seemed to think that I understood what "Na" means. I don't, so then you didn't use the scribble, "Na", because there isn't a mutual understanding of the scribble? I do understand the scribble, "word" and that "Na" isn't one.
  • Definitions
    I didn't expect you to. Your response is what is expected, as that is always how you respond to my pointed questions. You're too predictable.
  • Definitions
    Hello" is used at the beginning, farewell at the end.; and nothing in that points to pointing.Banno
    If "used" doesn't mean "pointing" then what do you mean by use? If meaning is use and I use words to point, then what's the problem? You seem to think words can only be used how you use them, Emperor Banno.
  • Definitions
    Probs worth setting out why 'pointing' is so monumentally stupid to anyone who as yet doesn't get it: pointing is woefully inadequate insofar as ostention is radically indeterminate: if one points at a picture of a flower, one could be pointing at it's shape, a certain contour, a certain color, the fact of it's being a picture, a certain arrangement of shapes, the flower qua example of something else, the flower being the first in a series, literally anything. Pointing is utterly incapable of individuating anything on it's own, and doesn't so much explain anything whatsoever other than to demand further explanation. Pointing is the theology of meaning, a shitty stop-gap like saying 'God' and expecting that to satisfy anyone with even half a brain.StreetlightX
    Strange that this wall of scribbles seems to be trying to point to all sorts of stuff that isn't other scribbles, like mental states, pointing at pictures, and the actual, objective relationship between words and what they mean, regardless of what us "stupid" people think.
  • Definitions
    "Hello" doesn't point to the beginning of a conversation; it doesn't point to anything. It is an act done in speaking. Like "Get fucked!"; but not like "Ouch!".Banno
    Ok, then why don't we say "good-bye" when starting a conversation? Why should it matter whether or not we make the sound, "hello" or "good-bye" when starting a conversation?