Edit.

Language is a Wonderful Thing. I delight in your delight in it. Sadly, I have nothing to offer that is worth reading, on this subject. So this is it. Well done for posting this! :grin:

I haven't claimed that, I don't think, but it is something I believe to be true. But first, your introduction:

You stated that physics has good arguments to offer concerning these matters. It is not unreasonable to ask you to reveal them. It is a stupid question, but only because physics cannot address the Conscious Universe any more than carpentry can address gravity.

As for the rest, I believe that physical objects (human beings) create the Conscious Universe. And I have no more idea how than I have how the mind emerges from the brain. This is the mind-brain discussion, in different clothes, after all. Or maybe it's subject/object? These things all interlock. :wink:

Now please state those arguments from physics, or retract your claim that they exist, to use your (somewhat abrupt) phraseology.

But of course, you claim that certain objects in the physical universe, create the conscious universe, but have no clue how or why.

Physics, however, has good arguments how and why. — tom

Please state the good arguments physics has to offer concerning the Conscious Universe?

I suggest that physics is not a good yardstick in the consideration of qualia, and the like. Physics is about the Physical Universe, while qualia belong to the Conscious Universe. Physics cannot address qualia.

So, red objects reflect or emit photons of predominately red energy. Humans label photons of this energy (or the black-body spectrum centred on red) as "red". — tom

Yes, and they go on to experience Redness, which I should've emphasised. :blush: Robots can't do that. Even if, one day, they become conscious - the robot version of consciousness - they won't experience Redness as humans do. Redness is a uniquely human experience.

Fair comment. :up:

The ball is red. The redness of the ball begins a causal chain by which certain neurones fire in a human or certain circuits fire in a robot. — tom

This confuses two things. The ball is not red; the ball reflects electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm. "Red" is a label that humans give to that radiation when they see it. The human eye and the robot's circuits detect electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm. But, later in the chain, and only in the human, this simple act of detection becomes a perception, and that somehow leads to the conscious experience of Redness. The robot does not experience the latter.

I think it was the last sentence that got me off on the track I went on. It seemed like you were saying that the snooker ball actually had the Redness property itself. — SteveKlinko

Oh yes. :yikes: I see now. No, IMO the redness is in the eye of the (human) beholder. :up: [I.e. in the mind, not the literal/physical eye. :) ]

I like your Conscious Universe/Physical Universe split. It's just subject and object by other names, but that's OK. I have been looking at very similar things via the hive (all humans, taken together, but in a specifically socio-cultural context) and particularly the hive-mind. The hive-mind is both author and keeper of human culture (using "culture" in its broadest possible interpretation).

The conscious experience of Redness is at the bottom of the abstract chain for the hive-mind. Higher up, we have art, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), religion, crafts, philosophy, politics; in short: all human creations and accomplishments. I think perhaps your Conscious Universe is a helpful perspective in this, so thanks for it! :wink:

As I reread my text, I wonder why you can't see we're in almost exact agreement over this. :wink:

"Normal" is a word that I have grown to reject using on the basis of ambiguity and inexactness. — Posty McPostface

That's a shame. It's utility lies in its ambiguity and inexactitude. :up:

It's a strange word because it derives its meaning from what is 'abnormal'. — Posty McPostface

I don't think so. I think it derives from the norm, and means typical or average. In ambiguous and inexact terms, of course. :wink:

1) I see the redness of the snooker ball.
2) I consciously see the redness of the snooker ball.
In what kind of circumstances could the truth of these two statements come apart?
If they are always true or false in the same circumstances, then what is added by talk of consciously seeing anything.
In both cases, it looks like what is being seen is an instances of a visible property and that instance, wherever it is, is no more inside my skull than the snooker ball itself is. — jkg20


Robots and animals can do 1).

Only humans can do 2). — tom

Robots and (some) animals can detect electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is around 700 nm; only humans can see the redness of the snooker ball.

You appear to assert that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.
Have I understood your position correctly?
Is this offered as a definition of meaning, or an illustrative example of what meaning is? — Pattern-chaser

It is the definition of meaning. — Harry Hindu

OK ... for a start, the relationship between a cause and its consequent effect is known as, and defined as, a cause-effect relationship. Of course, cause-effect relationships appear everywhere, so if I point to a different way of defining meaning, you will easily be able to point in the same direction, and find a cause-effect relationship. But I don't think this supports your thesis. It's more coincidental, and relies on the almost universal presence of causes and effects.

This thread is about defining terms, and meaning is one of the more difficult ones. Not least because we will often end up referring to the meaning of meaning, and such like, and the phraseology can easily become confused. More generally, words are ambiguous. A brief look at a dictionary will confirm that most words have multiple meanings, in English and (I think) in most other languages too. Lawyers have laboured for centuries to find unambiguous language in which to phrase contracts, without significant success.

Some users of language celebrate its ambiguity. The choice that English often provides, of near-synonyms derived from Viking, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Latin or Greek, mean that we can choose the one with the required shades of meaning. Poetry is the most obvious, and most advanced, form of this kind of language usage. Meanings are stretched and distorted, quite deliberately, to transmit impressions that simple, literal, language cannot convey.

In these terms, it is difficult to appreciate a definition of meaning that is so analytical, and so unexpected, compared with the way that the term meaning is more commonly used. Most dictionaries offer a number of definitions for meaning, none of which mention cause and effect. This means little, as dictionaries are only a starting-point when it comes to defining words, and the way they are used. But your definition is so different, it is hard to know where to begin examining it.

Your definition makes it clear you see meaning as being intrinsic to the thing being discussed or described. And so I feel obliged to trot out the standard refutation for this: if meaning exists out there in the real world, please point to it. And please describe the measuring equipment used to confirm its existence. Where is your meaning-meter? :wink:

I am guessing that you are generally of the Objectivist persuasion (?), so am I correct to assume that you intend a simple and literal definition of meaning? Something comparable with 'the meaning of a word can be found in a dictionary'? In fact, I wonder if you see "meaning" as meaning little more than "definition"?

Despite all this, I cannot forget that many uses of the term meaning revolve around significance or import (to human beings). To use the term in a way that precludes this existing and long-standing usage can only lead to confusion, can it not? You do seem to be using the term in a unique way.

Consciousness does not drive the mind, it follows along with a notebook and writes things down. — T Clark

This is a strange conception for me. Do you believe in free will or do you think we’re determined? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This wasn't directed at me, and I may have it all wrong, but I think this is meant to refer to the nonconscious mind, and how it (very) often makes the decisions. The conscious mind follows on a bit later (perhaps with its notebook, as described :grin: ), and pretends to itself that it is really in control. I don't think it refers to predestination. :chin:

Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. Scientists don't actually even know what the Experience of Red is. They also don't even know what the Experiencer is, that is having the Experience. Scientist do not know what they themselves are. Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. Scientists understandably then mostly ignore the Experience and the Experiencer. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko

It is? It looks to me like the Hard Problem of (misapplied) science. For good reasons (that we don't really want to investigate here), science reduces humans to impartial observers, or ignores them altogether. This makes it difficult or impossible to come up with a scientific way of studying humans as active participants (in the world), instead of impartial observers. The success of science is (for me) beyond challenge, but it is not a tool that fits every problem, and this is one of the ones it doesn't fit.

These matters can be investigated, but it looks to me like we need to use considered, structured, thought to do it. No theories, no falsifiable hypotheses (and so forth), just careful consideration. It's what we have. We must use it, or we have nothing.

What you do with words is use them to refer to (communicate) the non-verbal contents of your mind. — Harry Hindu

So we use words to "refer to (communicate)" the non-words in our minds? :chin:

Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport. — Pattern-chaser

Yes. Cause and effect. I think you might be getting it. — Harry Hindu

Perhaps. But I think you're not. I commented because you claimed the words were the effect. Now you agree that they aren't (?), so I'm not sure what your argument or point is. Let's see if we can drill to the core of this sub-topic.

You appear to assert that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

• Have I understood your position correctly?
• Is this offered as a definition of meaning, or an illustrative example of what meaning is?

↪Pattern-chaser
What? — Banno

Assignment of meaning (to tree rings) by humans is pretty arbitrary from a tree's point of view. :grin:

The use to which we put tree rings - measuring the age of a tree - isn't arbitrary, from our point of view. But that implies the point, the one that you make, and I agree with:

Meaning is always assigned by people. — Banno

But the meaning of tree rings is far more problematical (than their use), in my mind.

Tree-rings have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is assigned arbitrarily to them by humans. Even using tree rings to determine the age of a tree is a human thing: we kill the tree to see how old it was. The rings simply reflect the way the tree grew. They have no intrinsic meaning, and they were not put there for the use of humans. Better, surely, not to assign meaning or use, but simply to observe and enjoy? — Pattern-chaser

The sentiment is right.

Meaning is always assigned by people.

But it's not arbitrary. — Banno

Not even if you're a tree? :wink:

In effect, the sounds you hear are the effect, while the vibrations are part of the cause. The vibrations were caused by a person speaking, which was in turn caused by some idea in their head and their intent to convey that idea. I don't see how this is so difficult to see as a causal process - where the effect (sounds in your head) mean what caused them - the idea in someone else's head. — Harry Hindu

Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport.

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life? — Noble Dust

I think it means adopting philosophy as one's belief system, and choosing to live by it. Just like some people might adopt a religion, or a political view. But everyone does this. The only difference between us is the actual belief system(s) we choose. This is normal human life.

I offer the suggestion that academic philosophy is not so normal. :wink:

I know of no evidence that 'red' exists in the scientifically-described space-time universe, do you? Do you even know of a theory that describes how 'red' might exist in the scientifically-described space-time universe? I don't.

Red is a human concept; electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm is something that occurs and can be measured.

that which actually is — Pattern-chaser

And in what way is that which actually is different from that which is?

And what about that which really is?

I can't believe you walked right in to that one.

Or are you messing with our heads? — Arne

Huh? :chin: Actually is just an amplifier, to make the intended sense doubly clear. "That which actually is" is shorthand for something having Objective existence. I.e. it exists in Objective reality, independent of any perceptions, thoughts, beliefs or opinions that you or I or anyone else might have. So that which actually is is that which really is. But surely that's obvious? :chin: No, I'm not messing with anyone's head, just trying to be clear. :up: But I think you knew that? Being autistic, I can't tell....

If meaning only existed in our heads and not outside of our heads, then how does the meaning in words get from the writer or speaker's head to the listeners' heads? — Harry Hindu

This is misdirective trivia. Sound exists outside of our heads. Written words exist outside of our heads. You are surely aware that sound and words can carry language, which can transport meaning from one human to another. But meaning only has meaning to a human. Spoken or written words are not in themselves meaningful. The meaning emerges when a human understands those words, within their minds.

N.B. I do not intend to refer to trivial meaning, as in "the meaning of a word is described in a dictionary", but something more abstract and human, like "the meaning of life".

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is. — Arne

In your mind, where your consciousness lives? :wink:

↪Pattern-chaser
The universe is everything on my view. All that was. All that is. — creativesoul

Makes sense to me. :up: :grin: I was only confused because most people mean something less when they write universe.

"and they were not put there for the use of humans"

I'm just not sure about this last part, I don't know why they were put there, do you? I can't logically exclude the possibility that they were put there for the use of humans just yet. — Tomseltje

That was me broadening the context considerably, and commenting on the ravage and plunder that humans have perpetrated on the world we live in, which seems to stem from the understanding that the entire world (universe?) is there for humans to use as they see fit. Not quite on-topic. :wink:

Oh, and I like the way you allow for a possibility you can't yet rule out. Not many people practice mental hygiene that thoroughly. :up: :smile: And no, I don't know why God put them there. I'd ask Her, but I suspect She wouldn't answer. :wink: She must be very busy. :grin:

No offence intended, but seeing your statement

I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser

I would have expected you would opt for assigned meaning rather than intrinsic meaning, yet you chose differently. I wonder why, got any thoughts on that?

(note, I realize this is a rather personal question, so I'm not expecting you to express the thoughts you may have on this, just whether you gave it some thought yet or not) — Tomseltje

Offence? Personal? No, I'm fine with that. I was confused, briefly when I saw these comments. In the Other Forum where I used to live, before I came here to TPF, courtesy was rare, and usually reserved for sciencists. So thank you for your courtesy. A refreshing change. :smile:

As for the question you ask, I was confused there too for a while, but I think I've got it now. Yes, I prefer a human-centric philosophy, and perspective on life, the universe and everything. But I want an honest view, so I would avoid projecting the meaning I see onto the world. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it is not part of the thing we assign or ascribe it to. That kind of projection seems to be very easy for us to slip into, as we do it a lot. I try to avoid it whenever I can, or comment if it seems someone else is doing so.

Does that answer your question? :chin:

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'. — unenlightened

Or actually real? Or really true? Or truly real? Or actually true? — Arne

If "objectively" is being used in its hardest and most absolute sense, then it refers to that which actually is, which is something more than merely true. But I'm not sure if this is the sense that was intended. :chin:

I've thought. When most people refer to the universe, especially on philosophy forums ( :wink: ) they mean to refer (exclusively) to the space-time universe that science so ably describes. Do I take it your intended meaning (of "universe") is somewhat broader than that? :chin: [And 'physical' space too?]

I use philosophy in pursuit of an ever deepening understanding of the nature of being. My philosophy tool box is going to be full of tools that best enable that pursuit. And if most of those tools come from a particular school of philosophy (a particular hardware store? a particular hardware brand? from a particular hardware department?), then those are the tools that are going to be in my tool box. — Arne

Yes, but I was equating each school of philosophy with a single tool, and philosophy as a whole as all of the tools, packed together into a toolbox. If Ethics isn't your thing, I can see how you wouldn't include it in your toolbox, but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink:

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space. — creativesoul

Really? Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter? Ignoring the trivial matter of their 'existing' in physical books, they have no existence in 'physical' space, do they? And how about science (the discipline, not its subject matter)? It also has no 'physical' existence. And so forth.... :chin:

but you assign meaning to them — Pattern-chaser

once meaning has been assigned, it has meaning I'd argue. — Tomseltje

Yes, but the meaning is in your head (mind) and mine. It has no existence in the scientific space-time universe (outside of our heads), and it has no association with the trees (outside of our heads).

Perhaps someone of finer vintage can back me up here, but their main shtick was smoking the lowest quality weed known to man, talking about spiritualism/poetry, and having sex; enjoying themselves. It was a political and cultural movement AFAIK, not one based around substance use or abuse. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I can back you up. :grin: That's more or less how it was. :grin:

TomseltjeThat's also where Pattern-chaser goes astray, rightly noticing that we impart meaning to tree rings while also concluding that this means tree rings have no meaning at all- apparently without noticing this contradiction.

Don't look to meaning, look to use: tree rings can be used to dermin the age of a tree. — Banno

OK, I'll phrase more carefully: Tree-rings have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is assigned arbitrarily to them by humans. Even using tree rings to determine the age of a tree is a human thing: we kill the tree to see how old it was. The rings simply reflect the way the tree grew. They have no intrinsic meaning, and they were not put there for the use of humans.

Better, surely, not to assign meaning or use, but simply to observe and enjoy? :chin: :up:

We use drugs for all kinds of reasons, some therapeutic, some merely for the pleasure of the experience. The main problem I see with drugs (albeit not the only problem) is the laws we have against them, and the enforcement of those laws. They seem to me to cause so much more harm than the drugs do, to the individual or to society.

I have MS, and use cannabis to moderate the rather unpleasant experiences that MS can deliver. No other substance that I know of can offer the benefit I get from cannabis. And I like the feeling of being stoned; I find it enjoyable. And it helps with the pain. Win-win. :up:

Although the age of a tree can be measured by tree rings, this isn't what they mean. I submit that they have no meaning at all. Clouds have no meaning either. Nor do black holes. They just are. — Pattern-chaser

Nonsense, if as you stated

I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser

following it's logical conclusion, you'd have to admit that to humans for who the age of a tree is relevant and know about how trees grow, the three rings indicating the age of the tree have that meaning.

Perhaps you meant that it has no meaning to the tree, but why would you with your preference to consider matters relevant to humans? — Tomseltje

I meant that it has no meaning. Not to a tree, and not to a human. As I said, the age of a tree can be determined by examining its rings. But this is not their meaning. They have no meaning. They are a physical attribute of a tree, but you assign meaning to them. Why, and on what basis?

You had the opportunity to be true to your word, but you declined. — tom

I declined nothing. You own a car that isn't made of quarks, it seems. What do I deny? :roll:

What tree rings mean are the age of the tree. — Harry Hindu

Although the age of a tree can be measured by tree rings, this isn't what they mean. I submit that they have no meaning at all. Clouds have no meaning either. Nor do black holes. They just are.

"to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu

Where "world" refers to the physical spacetime universe plus the ill-defined and sprawling mass of human culture, in all its wonder, and all its guises? For the latter is where 99% of humans live out 99% of their lives. And some words, those that are often applied and used to describe human culture, or some smaller part of it, are equally ill-defined. I think "meaning" --- in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not 'Many words have more than one meaning' --- is one of these. Human concepts like wisdom, value, and quality are similar in this regard. We all know what they mean, but writing it down in words is next-to-impossible. :brow: — Pattern-chaser

Here you are engaging in anthropomorphism. — Harry Hindu

Anthropomorphism? I don't understand your intended meaning. Did you intend anthropocentric, to which I happily admit? I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. But maybe this isn't what you're objecting to?

↪Pattern-chaser
I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible views.

Essentially, it's for the sake of consistency. Consistency is a theoretical virtue, that is, most of the time consistency is a property of a theory which makes the good or better relative to a theory which is otherwise identical save a for a contradiction amongst its assumptions or entailments. The more you pick views and assumptions between schools, the more likely you are to introduce contradictions into your set of beliefs. Of course, one can still find themselves in a school of thought who's tenets are inconsistent or results in a belief system with some other unwanted feature (ad hoc-ness, poor explanatory power, lack of fruitfulness, etc.) — MindForged

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced. For a start, I note that most schools of philosophy do not overlap significantly. They consider different areas of thinking and learning. Even when they do overlap, this does not necessarily introduce inconsistency or contradiction. Often it's just a different perspective; a different way of seeing things.

I consider different perspectives to be valuable, to the extent that I seek them out when looking for understanding. I thought I might coin the term Perspectivist for myself, but I found it was already defined, in a way that would be acceptable (to me) if it wasn't so dogmatic. Shame. :confused:

Consistency is nice - and more than just 'nice' in an ideal world - but it isn't as common as we would like. We get by, though. Why do we think God invented cognitive dissonance? :wink:

No you can't. — tom

I regret that the conceptual gap between your understanding and mine is too large to bridge.

Shame.

Oh well.