the term 'white' sort of does what you were talking about in the OP..it kind of sets up a way of looking at race in a binary way; ie black and white...if you do or have to identify, and tick the 'white' box, then that disregards all the variations of how someone's genetics are formed..my ancestors must have come from all over the place, like Scandinavia to Italy etc...but forget all the nuance in all that 'you're wither black or white etc'...this might lead to a polarisation in how people see things, unnecessarily. I'd certainly rather tick another box, like 'mainly of European descent'..or something....how would I know exactly what section of the world all my ancestors came from historically? — wax

I took the National Geographic DNA test, and it showed how my ancestors migrated out of Africa and settled and intermingled around the globe over the millennia. Based on my haplogroups, I learned that I have Ashkenazi blood, something my family never knew before. I also share some genetic traits with northeastern Asian and southwestern Asian populations, 2% and 17% respectively. Historically, based on my mother’s genealogy work, my ancestors from the past few hundred years came from the Netherlands and Germany (Prussia), but that is not the whole story. According to the NG DNA test I also have a little Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA as do all non-Africans.

I was always athletic until I became diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder/schizophrenia. Then the medications changed my metabolism, energy levels, and hormonal balance. I started taking Nugenix four weeks ago, and now I have the energy to go to the gym five times a week for the last four weeks. I haven’t lost any weight, but I’m getting stronger and feel better. I’m benching 240 pounds now and getting stronger every week.

Well, at least we agree on something. Weren’t you the one who said I was going to be sodomized by a robot? LOL

If the universe exists without conscious minds inhabiting it, then of course it must embody meaningful information. Which would just mean that there is information there which would be meaningful to a conscious mind if there was a conscious mind. — Janus

This sounds like my persuasion of the blending of materialism and idealism.

It would have no meaning unless someone who spoke the language the sonnet was written in viewed it. Then intentional meaning would probably be (incorrectly) imputed. It would still possess accidental meaning, though — Janus

I agree with this.

Think about fossils, they lay for millions of years in bedrock until they are discovered and interpreted. They are meaningful in the sense that they are traces or signs that show the kinds of creatures or plants that once lived. — Janus

What if all universes were incapable of supporting life? Would they still hold meaningful information?

What if a quadrillion monkeys scribbled on a chalk board where the “intentionality” of the man-made keyboard is taken out of the equation? What if in all of that scribble, a beautiful sonnet appeared? What then?

Is anyone here arguing that the universe would hold meaningful information without conscious minds existing to make it “meaningful information”?

but from that it does not follow that whether or not there is meaning there is dependent upon our imputations. — Janus

What do you mean by this?

Meaning consists in intentionally produced patterns. — Janus

I agree that intention is essential to meaning. As far as the million (or quadrillion) monkeys accidentally typing something meaningful, I would say that the work is given meaning by the intentional act of the reader interpreting it. We see rock formations that look like people or human objects or animals or the like. Just as they are “accidents” of nature, they are given “meaning” by the mind of the beholder.

I haven’t read through much of this thread, but isn’t the question whether a mind is needed to give the text meaning? Is that the point of this thread?

I wrote this verse when in my early twenties:

Oh, troubled woes of the undetermined mind!
What sweet placidity
would sure countenance prevail!
Aphrodite, make haste with your decision on me.
For the mind cannot decipher
what the heart was meant to read.
Entrance me with a spell of adoration.
Sicken me with a disease of the heart.
For reason kneels before you,
Impotent against the torments of your art.

It’s not the best, but occasionally I will write a poem for fun.

Do you know Paul Nachbar? If not, I suggest contacting him through Facebook. He wouldn’t mind I’m sure. He has written tons of poetry and much of it very good. You can tell him I say, “hi!”

Anyway, keep writing for your own sake even if it never becomes big here. Most true poets (unlike me) feel compelled to write anyway, and it is good to keep your mind working in a way that keeps it on what is beautiful in this often ugly world. The world needs poets even if it doesn’t know it.

Regards,

Noah

Thanks. I really don’t know why @S hates me so much. I thought for a minute a few weeks back that we bonded over “Rick and Mortie”, but that didn’t last. I know he despises people who believe in God, but I’m not judgmental about his atheism, so I don’t know what his problem is.

cool

That’s a good idea. Perhaps if one is popular, then we could do a reading group?

Rather than wasting more of your time, perhaps you could suggest to me a symbolic logic textbook that I can download to my Kindle? Thanks.

How do you define “tautology”?

The set of tautologies in L is the theory generated by the empty set (ie no axioms). — andrewk

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

I skipped symbolic logic in college because I didn’t need it to graduate. The joke about nerds and getting laid was just that, a joke.

The idea of mathematical tautologies was suggested to me by my professor who got his PhD from UCLA.

I understand a tautology to be a proposition that has to be true given the meanings of the terms used. Is that wrong?

“1+1=2” is a mathematical tautology that is self-evident to anyone who ever had an apple then was given another one. Theories of logic just seem like convoluted language gaming to me. Perhaps you could explain to someone ignorant (as I am) why or how a theory can’t be based on tautologies.

Just humor me a bit. Does the theory refer to anything in physical reality, or is it free-floating? This is critical to my understanding. If it is free-floating, then I stand by my claim.

Please explain the critical distinction. A theory suggests that it’s foundation is in the observable physical universe. Or do you disagree?

Boolean arithmetic and binary arithmetic ARE languages as are all mathematics.

I hold that mathematics is based on tautologies. That is why you can come up with mathematical equations that do not refer to anything in the physical universe. It’s kind of like the CTEK theory of justification in that it just circles back on itself. Now, I don’t know anything about Peano arithmetic, but the Arabic numerals normal people use as in this example is a tautology.

How is it irrelevant when it is in the topic title?

I’m saying that “1” has a meaning. “+” has a meaning. “=“ has a meaning. “2” has a meaning. Given these meanings, “1+1=2” must be true all the time. You’re making something simple more complicated than it really is. What kind of nut goes about “proving” something that every child can show with apples as @wax suggested?

My objection was that self-evident equations shouldn’t have to be proven (given the meanings of the terms used). Why not prove something interesting?

“1” and “2” are not variables, and “1+1=2” is basically a linguistic tautology.

Oh, and where did you get that tautology should not be proven? — Nicholas Ferreira

Would you seek to prove this tautology: “A bachelor is an unmarried man”?

I suppose you could try, but why?

Why not try to prove something that isn’t self-evident instead?

Oh by the way, she was right about at least one thing. — Sir2u

And to what, pray tell, are you referring?

Alrighty then. See ya around Play-Doh Bollocks Cunt. (That one was for Baden :kiss: ). — S

If @Baden said that about me, then he can eat a dick.

I am often struck by themes in American movies that suggest values that are taken for granted: “Hard work is moral”, “Success is monetary in nature”, “Us vs. Them where it is assumed that ‘We’ are always good and right”, “Business savvy equals intelligence”, and many others.

Can you think of others?

“1”, “+”, “=“, and “2” have specific meanings by convention. So, “1+1=2” is a tautology. It has to be true given the meanings of the terms used. There is nothing to prove.

Later, shitting vagina.

Me: (yawn)

S: (queef)

You’re running out of interesting things to say it seems. So, you might want to put your thinking cap on. Or do you put that on your vagina?

That’s almost right. Your talking vagina family is the exception. I guess you were created in His image.

And what did your mom’s vagina say when you came out of it? “Damn. Too late for an abortion.”

My mother wasn’t a Te Stroete, moron.