Comments

  • Is there an external material world ?
    I agree that how humans use language is a state of affairs, but is there an ultimate arbiter of the truth of certain statements about the world, for example about the truth of empirical propositions? Are there objective
    truths about physical nature, or are these truths relative to contingent and conventional linguistic states of affairs?
    Is the claim that dinosaurs existed before anybody talked about them incoherent? What if we instead say that SOMETHING existed before language-using communities named and defined them, but we can’t say that they were dinosaurs , since that is a conceptual convention?     — Joshs
    Is a dinosaur a word or a type of extinct organism?

    Do you need words to tell the difference between an elephant and a giraffe? Or can you do that by just looking at them? Can you tell the difference between the letters A and B? If so, then how are you distinguishing them - visually, audibly, etc.?

    What about similarities? Are there not things in the world that share characteristics and some share more than others? It is these similarities that we are pointing at with our use of words. When some things are similar to some things and different than other things then it seems like it would be useful to use a common symbol to communicate those similarities and differences. Nothing is identical, sure. There is a difference between this elephant and that one, but the similarities and differences are what we talk about and what similarity and difference we are focused on or communicating at any moment is dependent upon the goal. When talking about elephants, we aren't focusing on the differences between each organism with a trunk and big ears. We are talking about all organisms with a similar trunk and big ears.

    But let us take a look at this so-called natural kind. Natural kinds, when we examine them, almost always turn out to have boundaries which are to some degree arbitrary, even if the degree of arbitrariness is much less than in the case of a completely conventional kind
    like “constellation”.     — Joshs
    If boundaries are arbitrary then the boundary between fact and convention is arbitrary. The boundary between letters, words, and sentences on this screen are arbitrary.

    Stars are clouds of glowing gas,glowing because of thermonuclear reactions which are caused by the gravitational field of the star itself, but not every cloud of glowing gas is considered a star; some such clouds fall into other astronomical categories, and some stars do not glow at all. Is it not we who group together all these different objects into a single category “star” with our inclusions and exclusions? It is true that we did not make the stars as a carpenter makes a table, but didn't we, after all, make them stars? — Joshs
    You're focusing too much on the boundaries as if they are more important than what is within those boundaries. Does the fact that the boundaries are blurry mean that everything else that isn't at the boundaries are arbitrary? There are many objects that fit neatly into the category, "star", while there are a few that lie on the boundary of that category because they share some visual characteristics with stars and also share some visual characteristics with planets. Not every object that we call, "star" lies on the boundary. When we talk about "stars" we are not talking about what is on the boundary, but what lies easily within it. The fact that similarities exist and that some objects share more similarities than differences with other objects is not something humans created. It is what allows us to categorize and use words as representations in the first place. If everything had an equal number of similarities and differences in relation to everything else then I could see language, and categories in general, being much less useful than they are now.

    Now Goodman makes a daring extrapolation. He proposes that in the sense illustrated by these examples, the sense in which we “make” certain things the Big Dipper and make certain things stars, there is nothing that we did not make to be what it is. (Theologically, one might say that Goodman makes man the Creator.) If, for example, you say that we didn't make the elementary particles, Goodman can point to the present situation in
    quantum mechanics and ask whether you really want to view elementary particles as a mind-independent reality. It is clear that if we try to beat Goodman at his own game, by trying to name some “mind-independent stuff”, we shall be in deep trouble.”     — Joshs
    There's a difference between making the stars and making the scribble that refers to stars as a means of communicating. Is a star a word or scribble or utterance, or is a star a thermonuclear globe of hydrogen and helium gas?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    Language is about the world, and I would include mathematical and visual representation in that characterization. So, it is via language that a kind of separation appears between the world and what is about it. Of course from one perspective that which is about the world is within the world, but from another perspective the world appears only within that which is about the world. Remember the nature of the dialectic; every idea holds within it its own negation. — Janus
    It's the other way around. Every negation holds within it its own assertion. You have to know the truth to lie. You don't need to know how to lie to tell the truth. We often give unconscious signals to others about our mental state but it takes conscious effort to lie. Telling the truth (unconsciously) is prior to the act of deceiving.

    Is your mind about the world? Is your visual experience of colors and shapes the world, or about the world? Are colors about wavelengths of light? The world only appears in such a way via a mind and language is like everything else in the world that we visually and audibly experience and learn to use via the mind.

    It makes no sense to say that language is in the world but separate from the world. We learn and use language in the world and thinking of it as separate stems from the antiquated religious idea that humans and what they do are special or separate from nature.

    What does it mean to be about something? Aboutness is a causal relationship. The crime scene is about the crime. Your current beliefs are about the way in which you were raised and your life experiences. So words are not the only thing that have an aboutness to them.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    . Truth would simply be what is the case and what is the case is independent of our having articulated what is or isn't the case.
    — Harry Hindu

    And is this your belief about the nature of truth?     — Joshs
    No. I was explaining the implications of Banno's belief about the nature of truth. If "there are truths that are independent of our attitude towards them" then truth is not a meeting of the world and language, rather truth is "simply what is the case in the world" independent of what we articulate (how we use language).

    I'm more interested in what we mean by terms like "truth", "fact" "right/wrong", not really the terms themselves as they seem interchangeable. If you mean different things when using these terms, then I want to know what that distinction is.

    Do you agree with Hilary Putnam that “while there is an aspect of
    conventionality and an aspect of fact in everything we say that is true, we fall into hopeless philosophical error if we commit a "fallacy of division" and conclude that there must be a part of the truth that is the "conventional part" and a part that is the "factual part””, and that "this dichotomy between what the world is like inde­pendent of any local perspective and what is projected by us seems to me utterly indefensible."?

    Or do you prefer David Lewis , Donald Davidson or San Dennett’s attempts to hold on some form of separation between fact and convention?     — Joshs
    I don't like putting myself in a camp designated by some philosopher's name. So I probably don't fall neatly into any camp. I want to know what you mean by "fact" and "convention". Is a convention a fact, or a state of affairs, or what is the case? How humans use scribbles and utterances are themselves a state of affairs, or what is the case.
  • On the Existence of Abstract Objects
    Let’s begin with perception. I experience the physical world though my five senses: sight, taste, touch, hearing, and smell. I do not possess a special “tree-sensing” sense. So how can I experience a tree? The answer is I do not directly experience the tree. — Art48
    What does it even mean to "directly" or "indirectly" experience something?

    An abstract object is defined as something which is neither spatial nor temporal: an abstract object does not exist in space and time. (“Object” should not be taken too literally; think “abstract entity.”) A typical example of abstract objects is numbers. Numbers such as 2 or π do not exist in space/time. Yes, two apples exist in a particular place at a particular time; but the number 2 itself does not. — Art48

    We can directly see on only one thing: light. The mind does the rest. Almost everything we experience though our senses are universals, are abstract objects, are ideas in our mind. — Art48
    Then the two particular apples are also universals?

    My mind directly experiences the number two because the number two is a thought and my mind experiences thoughts directly. Similarly, my mind can directly experience the abstract object named “tree” because that, too, is a thought. As to what is causing my experiences, I suppose there’s a material object, a material tree, existing in a physical universe outside myself. If I’m not dreaming, hallucinating, or a brain in a vat, then my supposition may be correct. There may actually be a material tree, existing in a physical universe outside myself. But, then again, there might not. — Art48
    How did you come to know the number 2 if not by seeing the scribble, "2" and seeing two of something, like seeing two apples? Are the scribbles on this screen directly or indirectly experienced?

    It seems to me that universals stand for all the existing things in that set, and by "existing" I mean that they have causal power.

    Is your idea of a cat an abstract or concrete thing? It is abstract when it is understood to exist in the same way as what it is meant to represent. Does the idea, "cat" exist in the same way as a physical cat? It is concrete if understood to exist in the world and is just as real as what it represents. Is your actual experience of cats just as real as the cat that is experienced, and is just as much part of the world as a physical cat? What are you talking about when you talk about your experiences. Are you talking about something abstract or something concrete? I'm not asking about what your experiences are of. I'm talking specifically about your experiences. What about your dreams? I'm not asking about dreams in the abstract. I'm asking specifically about your dream - a specific dream that you had. Is a specific dream that you had a member of the abstract object, "dreams"?
  • Issues with karma
    It's amazing how twisted up you can get over the concept that all intentional actions have consequences. — Wayfarer
    The consequences of unintentional actions are just as real as intentional ones. It's amazing how twisted up people can get over simple cause and effect.

    My issue with karma is the idea of personal continuity. Are we always the same in essence from one moment to the next? Karma in this sense doesn’t permit the ability to change for the better or for the worse. This is a form of unjust eternalism. “Type-casting” as it were. — Benj96
    Depends on what you mean by "essence". Each person is an amalgam of various characteristics. Just because one of those characteristics changes does not mean that we are not the same person. After all, what it is that is changing? To even assert change is to assert that there is something with an identity that changes. And what type of changes are we talking about if not the perceptions we have of the world as a result of our actions?

    Is karma only related to how the consequences of our actions affect other people, animals, or anything else in the world? Other people's reactions to the consequences of our actions are just as real as falling of your bike when not riding it correctly or being bit by the snake you are harassing, and can change us just as much as being socially isolated when you steal from someone.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    Truth is where the world and language meet. Some of our beliefs are true, some not. Not just anything will do. — Banno
    But language is part of the world. We perceive and have beliefs about how certain scribbles and utterances can be used just as we have perceptions and beliefs about anything else.

    And this makes sense only if we say that there are truths that are independent of our attitude towards them, or even of our having articulated them at all. — Banno
    If there are truths that are independent of our attitudes towards them, or even of our having articulated them at all, then truth is not where the world and language meet. Truth would simply be what is the case and what is the case is independent of our having articulated what is or isn't the case.

    Then I guess Trump supporters and liberals
    in the U.S live in different worlds, as Goodman says, given that they disagree profoundly on ethical, political and scientific issues. No pointing to the true facts , while castigating our foes for their laziness, stupidity or malevolent motives, will change this situation.     — Joshs
    Most people are not in these extremist political camps. People with open minds must play a part in this relationship with the world.

    It's not that they live in different worlds. It's that they have different perceptions of the world, which includes language.

    No, rightness is where the world and language meet, and rightness is not about truth and falsity but coherence of fit. What fits and what does not , and in what way, depends on lour purposes. We can ignore the particularities of our participation in social activities on some occasions , such as when we create broadly general categories of purpose that abstract — Joshs

    Then maybe you and Banno need to iron out the distinction between rightness and truth. I think both of you are making the antiquated mistake of separating language from the world. We can disagree on the use of language as much as we can disagree about the usefulness of the Democrat and Republican parties.

    This is too abstract: I think it would be far better to say that it is in actuality and significance that the world and language meet. Some of our ideas are workable, some not. Some of our ideas are insightful and inspiring, others not. Who gives a shit if the cat is on the mat or the cup is in the cupboard? — Janus
    Language is not separate from the world. What makes language so special as to have a special meeting with the world while everything else in the world lacks this kind of meeting with the world? I have to learn to understand language just like I have to learn to ride a bike, or how babies are made. The world and our perceptions of it precedes any use of language as language must be perceived in the world to make any use of it.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I'm not interested in proving that propositions exists. — Michael
    But you were interested in how they exist, which is what I've been asking you:
    OK, but do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? Does the existence of a proposition depend in some sense on us? — Michael

    For us to continue, I need to know how you are using the term, "proposition", so that I'm not wasting my time or yours in talking past each other.

    I am simply, for the sake of argument, taking as a premise that "p" is true iff p, or to use a specific example, that "the cat is on the mat" is true iff the cat is on the mat. I then show what follows from assuming this premise. — Michael
    Which I agreed with (go back and look). The relationship between the scribbles, "the cat is on the mat", and the cat and the mat is true IF it is the case that the cat is on the mat. If the cat is not on the mat, then the relationship between the scribbles and the cat and the mat is false.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I don't know, as I previously said. — Michael

    That was your answer to my question about where the rules of inference were. You seemed to be shocked that I might question the existence of rules of inference, but you can't even show them to me or even know what they are either. It's like asking for proof of your God that you insists exists and you don't know how show proof.

    You can't even prove propositions exist yet you used the term in your attempt to use rules of inference. If you can't show me what you're talking about when talking about propositions and rules of inference then it appears you don't know what your taking about when using those terms.

    You should work that out before trying to make arguments using propositions and rules of inference.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Either there are rules of inference or there aren't. If there are then my argument is valid. If there aren't then I guess anything goes and we can say anything we like and we abandon all talk of reason or contradiction. I don't even understand how you expect us to engage in argument unless you accept the reality of logic. — Michael
    Why don't we go back and see if we can define proposition. What forms do propositions take? If I were to look for a proposition where would I look? What would I see or hear?
  • Against simulation theories
    We could be simulations, in fact that's what follows if you think my argument based on the novacula Occami is flawed and you do. Do we deserve the same rights as our creator(s)? — Agent Smith
    No, we wouldn't. But I doubt we're simulations. Why would the creators create simulations that create simulations? What would be the point?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I don't know. Regardless, unless you want to reject the accepted rules of logic, you have to accept that my argument is valid (and as you accepted the premise, that my argument is sound). — Michael
    If you can't tell me where rules of inference are, then how can you say that they even exist? Are the scribbles you made in your posts the rules of inference, or do the scribbles refer to rules of inference that are not just more scribbles? If the latter then where do the rules of inference exist relative to your scribbles?
  • Against simulation theories
    You have a point monsieur - the simulation is part of the real world; you said the same thing about the notion of unnatural many suns ago if you recall. — Agent Smith
    What I said about the distinction between natural and unnatural (artificial) has nothing to do with the distinction between reality and simulation.

    The difference between unnatural and simulation is that yhe latter is a world and so deserves, how shall I put it?, equal respect as the real deal. — Agent Smith
    So you think that simulated people deserve the same rights as real people?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    2 is an application of existential introduction. 4 is modus tollens. They're valid rules of inference. — Michael
    That's nice, but every rule of inference is either uttered or scribbled. Where do these rules of inference exist?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    ↪Michael

    1. is fine.
    I take issue with 2 and 4.

    2 and 3 seem to be saying the same thing.

    As I pointed out to Tate propsitions can be true or false. A true or false propsition is not synonymous with an existing or non-existing proposition. A false proposition is just as real as a true one. The difference is that a true propsition accurately represents something while a false one does not.

    Can propsitions exist independently of some string of scribbles or utterances? Is a proposition a string of scribbles or utterances? If so propositions exist everywhere scribbles are drawn and utterances are made.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    OK, but do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? Does the existence of a proposition depend in some sense on us? — Michael
    Did propositions exist prior to humans existing? If the answer is no, then propositions depend on our existence. If the answer is yes, then I'd have to pause and ask exactly what we are proposing when we use the term, "proposition".
  • Is there an external material world ?
    It's usually thought of as an abstract object, which just means a proposition is "beyond" any particular person. I can be wrong about the status of a proposition, so it's not just a resident of my noggin. Mathematical entities are also abstract, so you can compare propositions to things like numbers. — Tate
    What does it mean for a proposition to exist "beyond" any particular person? Where, in relation to a person, does a proposition exist?
    You being wrong is a relationship between your idea of a thing and the real thing. Propositions can be true or false. A wrong (false) proposition can only exist in your head. True propositions only exist in your head as well because the proposition and what the proposition is about are two separate things. Propositions do not exist anywhere except within a mind as a relation between some scribbles and what the scribbles refer to.

    I'm not ruling out propositions, I'm questioning what it means for a proposition to exist. Do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? If they do then it strikes me as Platonic realism. Is that what you're arguing for? — Michael
    Propositions are a causal relation just like everything else in the universe. Any particular thing does not exist independent of the causes that led to its existence.
  • Against simulation theories
    Let's look at this from a human perspective. The possibilities are:

    1. We're in a simulation, meaning there's the real world + the simulation we're a part of.

    2. We're in the real world. This isn't a simulation.

    Your point is that the simulation is part of the real world, whichever world that is, and that implies that I'm wrong (about the simulation hypothesis being a perfect Harry client for the novacula Occami :snicker: ).

    Let's do the math.

    From the simulator's point if view: Real world + The Simulation it creates = Real World (no issues).

    From the simulated's point of view: The Simulation it's part of + The real world of the simulator > The Simulation it's part of.     — Agent Smith

    I don't understand your point.

    It's really simple. A simulation is part of reality in the same way that the Earth is part of reality and the same way the Andromeda galaxy is part of reality and the same way our universe is part of the multiverse (reality). It's not a mathematical relation. It's a spatial relation.

    Even heaven and hell (if they were to exist) are part of reality with reality being the entirety of all causal relations. The events in our universe would have a causal relation with the events in heaven and hell with your actions here in this world determining whether you go to heaven or hell, and God - being in heaven - creating the universe. Heaven, hell and our universe would not be separate "realities". They are all part of one reality because they all interact with each other (Occam's Razor) and any boundaries between them would be arbitrary constructions of our mind.
  • Against simulation theories
    Is a map of the territory another "territory"?
    — Harry Hindu

    It can be, e.g:     — Michael

    That's pretty cool. I can't imagine the the time that went into making that.

    My point was that even the map is part of the territory depending on how much territory we're talking about. For instance, that map is part of the territory of the Earth that is taken to represent another part territory of the Earth, just on a smaller scale and with less detail. For instance the map you posted does not include the people of that territory. It can only represent so much being on a smaller scale than what it is representing. What parts of the real territory it represents and what parts it doesn't depends on the map-maker's intentions and goals.

    Now that I think about it, a map can include itself on the map. When hiking nature trails, you will find a sign post that contains a map of the surrounding territory with a mark on the map labeled, "You are Here". It's not really where you are, it's where the map is because you move along on the trail but the map and it's mark of where "you" are doesn't move. So the mark is really where the map is, not where you are.
  • Against simulation theories
    How would William of Occam tackle this? — Agent Smith
    By understanding that if a simulation is a world it is no longer a simulation. A simulation only makes sense in light of a world.

    Is a map of the territory another "territory"? Just because the map does not represent itself on the map even though it is part of the territory does not mean that it is above and beyond the territory. It just means that it would be useless to do so.
  • Against simulation theories
    It's true that the simulation is part of reality, within it to be precise. However, the simulation is a world unto itself and so must be treated as equals with the world it is within. — Agent Smith
    :roll:
  • Against simulation theories
    A simulation’s an additional entity over and above reality. — Agent Smith
    No. It's not. A simulation exists within reality as it is composed of real things. You need a real computer to create a simulated one.

    I have no idea what "over and above reality" means anyway. Reality is all there is. There can be no "over and above" reality.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Perhaps there is a subtle joining here of 'effect' and interpretation of that effect becoming a personalised meaning. I would prefer your last sentence above to read 'So effect and its interpretation as good or bad are two different things.' I am not sure the word 'meaning' rests as comfortably in your sentence as the word 'effect,' I don't see the word effect and meaning as synonymous — universeness
    I never said that meaning and the effect were synonymous. I said that the relationship between some effect and its causes is synonymous with meaning. As such, your interpretation is the effect of the interaction of the observed effect (like words on this screen or tree rings in a tree stump) with your memory and goals. So effects are also the causes of subsequent effects (infinitely?). As such, the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.

    I concur with your first sentence here but yes meaning, because it can be very subjective and interpretive is garnished from effect. If an item falls towards me from a window and just misses me then once I know whos window it came from, I can interpret the meaning to be a deliberate act or accidental.
    I need further investigation to know for sure but 'deliberate' or 'accidental' are both valid creations in my mind at the moment of the 'event.'     — universeness
    Exactly. You interpret the meaning. Interpretation and meaning are different things. Again, the interpretation is just the effect. The meaning is the relationship between your interpretation and some other causal relation. Your interpretation is the act of discovering that relationship between the item falling and its cause.

    Well 'scribbles on a screen' is a phrase intended to dilute the importance of the communication attempt or the communication method or perhaps both. We are social creatures, asking questions seems to be fundamental to our psyche and our 'seek meaning' imperative. — universeness
    Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that scribbles on a screen are what is interpreted, and the act of interpreting is discovering the cause of the scribbles on the screen - specifically the idea in the head of the author that produced the scribbles.

    To me, your tree example speaks to how meaning becomes knowledge and finally widely and sometimes even universally accepted knowledge such as 'all humans are mortal.' — universeness
    No, not how meaning becomes knowledge. It's how interpretations become knowledge - another causal relation, or meaning.

    When we are sure what interpretations/meanings are correct to most people than we accept them as truth. — universeness
    We don't necessarily need to prove to others our own interpretations for our interpretations to work for us. We test other's interpretations to see if they work for us. It's not in the number of people that believe it. It's if it has been tested by each individual to see if it works for them, not the fact that someone simply claimed what their interpretation is and is accepted by everyone without everyone testing it for themselves. Common knowledge exists as a result of others trying on others' interpretations, not simply taking others at their word.

    I agree but it's also a continuum of how your legacy is interpreted by each new mind that encounters its forms of memorialisation and their view of the memorialised interpretations of others, about you.
    Socrates has no personal memorialisations so we only assign personal meaning to his legacy through the interpretations others have made about him yet he remains an important figure in human history and to each new generation of humans     — universeness
    Do you need others to interpret your legacy for your life to have meaning? Are you saying that your life's meaning is dependent upon others' interpretation of your actions? Or can you give your life meaning by interpreting your own actions and their subsequent effects on the world (which includes other people)?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage". — Bitter Crank
    A young person could die tomorrow. No one at any age knows how long they have. The point is to live each day like it's your last no matter how old you are.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    But you can't, don't, won't teach others your solution. You simply blame them. (So typical for religious/spiritual people and optimists.) — baker
    There's nothing to teach. You give meaning to your life by simply living. Of the millions, if not billions, of possible genetic combinations between your parents, you were the lucky one to have come into existence.

    I'm not religious or spiritual. I can be an optimist as much as I can be a pessimist. I am a determinist. Your existence is determined given the conditions of this universe. Make the most of it.

    1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence?
    — Tate

    Chronic pain, among other things.
    Social ostracism, disenfranchizement.     — baker
    This explains a lot. From a chronic pessimist's POV everyone else is a "typical religious/spiritual people and optimists". It seems to me that a balance of optimism and pessimism is necessary for a better understanding of life's meaning.
  • Against simulation theories
    My brain tells me this:

    1. Real (1 entity)

    2. Real + Simulation (2 entities)     — Agent Smith
    Invalid if we think of the simulation as part of reality. All simulations exist within one reality. Simulating an old gaming console on your modern computer is real example of a simulation within reality. Both the simulator and the simulation are only a fraction of reality. The problem is that we just don't know how big reality is, or how much information exists.
  • Against simulation theories
    Exactly how does this contradict what I said? — hypericin
    As I pointed out, all you need is a more powerful information processing system to simulate another system that has less information. Your argument is invalid because you dont know if our universe contains all possible information. You just dont know how much information actually exists. Our universe could be a fraction of the total information so a larger system could actually be simulating our universe.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I never said that. Plainly from the perspective of a subject, myself, other beings appear in some sense as objects, but we do not regard other beings as objects, which is why we refer to them with personal pronouns rather than as ‘it’ or ‘thing’. — Wayfarer
    Language habits left over from when humans thought of themselves as special and separate from nature.

    (For that matter, reflect on why humans and some of the higher animals are called ‘beings’.) — Wayfarer
    When did we start calling chimps and dolphins "beings"? Who have you heard say that? I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just wondering about the evolution of the word, "being".

    Philosophy has long been aware of the paradox that we ourselves are subjects of experience, but are also objects in the eyes of other subjects. — Wayfarer
    What makes something both a subject and object and not just an object? Which came first? Are subjects dependent upon their accompanying objects existence? Is a subject a part, or a fraction, of their accompanying object or does the subject exhaust what it is to be the object?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    Does a walk exist? Does a cartwheel exist? Does a backflip exist?

    Our language no doubt attempts to abstract actions from the extant being that performs them. But at no point should we take this to mean there is an actual, existing distinction between doer and deed. They are like the morning and evening star, one and the same.     — NOS4A2
    I wasn't trying to separate dream from dreamer. I was pointing out that if you can talk about it must exist. The manner in which it exists is irrelevant. You, as the doer, are dependent upon other things for your existence just as your dreams' existence are dependent upon your existence. The Earth is the doer and you are the deed.

    Your body and mind are just as much a deed as a doer. One might even say that the deed of living and the doer (your body/mind) are one and the same.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I exist. I experience. But it doesn’t follow that something called “experience” exists. — NOS4A2
    I exist. I dream. Do dreams exist?

    It follows from the idea that people are attempting to communicate sonething when they use words. If what you are talking about doesn't exist then what are you talking about?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Still waiting for your proof. — Jackson
    I have shown that the proof is in the way people use the word, "meaning" in that they are referring to a causal relationship. I think that universeness's mentioning of "legacy" and how one's actions affect the world and other people support this.

    I have asked you what you believe others are referring to when they use the word, "meaning" and I'm still waiting on that.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people.
    — universeness
    A legacy is essentially the effects you leave behind.     — Harry Hindu
    To expand on this: One's legacy (the effect) is a result of one's actions (the causes) in life. As such you create your own meaning by your actions - hence life is not meaningless unless you take no action.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect and reference is a type of causal relation.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Not if meaning is subjective and interpretive. How can inherent meaning be subjective? If you are saying that the reason is that some interpretations of meaning are wrong or fall short of what you are labelling 'inherent and found in nature,' are these incorrect meanings not still created in real human minds. These human minds are physical parts of the natural world. A nazi will assign certain interpretive meaning to the label Jewish. Such personal assignment of meaning can be very destructive and very unjust. This happens also in your serial killer example and may be due to a malfunctioning brain.
    Were such warped meanings not still CREATED in the real brains/minds of the people who constructed such.     — universeness
    If meaning were subjective and interpretive then how can we ever hope to communicate using scribbles on a screen? Wouldn't we have to have a common understanding of the meaning of the scribbles for us to communicate?

    Take the tree rings in a tree stump. What do the tree rings mean? What does it even mean to ask that question? A botanist would say that the tree rings mean the age of the tree. Was the meaning projected by the botanists mind or something discovered by observation? If it was projected by the botanist's mind then I could project something different and then where would we be? Who would be right or wrong and would it even matter? In other words, if meaning is projected by the mind then I simply need to project from my mind and asking others would be pointless. If it is something that is observed then what would that be if not observing how tree rings (the effect) were created by how the tree grows throughout the year (the cause)? If this is the case then meaning is inherent in the causal relationship between how the tree grows and tree rings appearing in the tree stump. I would simply need to observe the causal relation and agree with the botanist, but there would be no reason for me to agree, or even ask the botanist's opinion, if meaning is projected by each mind.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Its not different really but it is down to their interpretation of the 'effect' you have had of THE world or THEIR world. Which can be very different from your own personal assessment of your effects. — universeness
    Right. So we're not disagreeing that your actions have effects on the world (meaning), or that one can have an interpretation of those effects as being conductive to achieving their goals or inhibiting them. So meaning and it's interpretation as good or bad are two different things. Those effects exist prior to any interpretation. Unless you are saying that the interpretation of the effects is meaning which would mean that unless we share the same goals, we don't share the same meanings. If this is the case then when someone asks what the meaning of life is then you have to get at their goals in life to even know if your answer would be useful to them. Goals are simply ideas in the present that trigger effects like behaviors in an effort to realize the goal. Having a purpose, or goal, for something does not necessarily mean that you will achieve that purpose or goal. Even acting in such a way to achieve the goal or purpose doesn't necessarily mean you will achieve it either. Failure to achieve goals and purposes is something that should be considered.

    The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people. — universeness
    A legacy is essentially the effects you leave behind.

    Does this also indicate that you think some meaning is useful to ones life? — universeness
    Sure. Meaning and usefulness are mutually exclusive. Meaning is the relationship between causes and effects. Those relations are either useful or not depending on one's own goals. One's goals do not determine if some causal relation is meaningful. They determine which relationships are useful in achieving or inhibiting one's goals.

    For instance, your words on this screen carry all sorts of meaning as the effects of numerous causes. Your words are caused by your ideas and your intent to communicate them. They are also caused by the language you learned and you level of understanding of English. By reading your words I can get at your ideas as well as your understanding of the language you are using - depending on my goals. Just because I may be more interested in your understanding of the English language does not mean that you words also do not carry meaning in that they refer to your ideas. Meaning is there in the causal relation between your idea and your words on this screen, but aren't useful to my goal in understanding your level of education with the English language.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Where is your proof of that? Just asking you a question. — Jackson
    In the definition I have provided for meaning as the relationship between cause and effect. The definition I have provided stems from my own observations of others asking questions about what something means and what they actually mean in asking what something means is what caused it to happen.

    For instance, what do your words on this page mean? They mean your ideas and your intent to communicate them. If you didn't have any ideas or an intent to communicate them (the cause), would your worlds appear on this screen (the effect) for me to observe and read them? In reading your words (the effect) am I not attempting to get at your ideas (the cause)?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Indeed. But others judge your 'meaning' or 'value' to the world or to their individual lives. — universeness
    How is this any different from saying that others judge your 'meaning/value' based on your effects on the world and their individual lives? Meaning and one's judgement of it are mutually exclusive. Meaning exists where ever causes leave effects. Any judgement of those effects is based on one's individual goals. So in judging some meaning to be bad or good, they are projecting their own wants and needs on to meaning that already exists as inherent in the universe

    I do think all humans seek meaning — universeness
    Right. So meaning is something that exists prior to seeking it as it is something that is looked for and found in nature, and not created by the mind. Not all meaning is useful to one's life, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist apart from your own wants and needs.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    It is your issue not mine. — Jackson
    No, it's yours as you are the one that thinks that value and meaning are objective. If that were the case then a serial killer's values and meanings would be shared by you.

    That sentence made no sense. — Jackson
    I'm no longer interested in what you think.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    It's a personal value measure, yes, it's subjective, yes. Seeking personal meaning may be objectively true. I suppose you would have to see how many dissent from that before you could declare 'seeking meaning' to be objective. I don't think it's useless to ask others about their measures of meaning as it can help you judge what kind of relationship you might establish with them. — universeness
    If 'seeking meaning' is seeking value then what makes a life valuable if not the effects it has on the world?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Why would I want to do that? — Jackson

    Why wouldn't you want to do that?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    You edited your post where you seemed to disagree that value is subjective. I can't have an intellectual discussion with someone who changes their posts in the middle of the discussion.
Home » Harry Hindu