Nonsense. Human facticity is not "subjective". Being raped or starved, for example, are not merely "subjective feelings" just like loss of sustanence, lack of shelter, lack of sleep, ... lack of hygiene, ... lack of safety .... injury, ill-health, disability ... maladaptive habits ... those vulnerabilities (afflictions) are facts of suffering. — 180 Proof

Incorrect, again. It's not facticity, it's subjective. Those are also not facts of suffering, Buddhism and Eastern philosophy already addressed that.

These are merely subjective, no matter how bad they are to the person experiencing them at doesn't make them any more fact than any other feeling.

Which of the following are only "subjective" (experiences) and not objective, or disvalues (i.e. defects) shared by all h. sapiens w i t h o u t exception (and therefore are knowable facts of our species) — 180 Proof

I'd have to agree with them, it doesn't matter if humans share them (though not all humans) it's still subjective feelings, not objective facts. Everything on that list is subjective feelings and everyone might not feel the same about all of them.

I know some Buddhist monks who wouldn't suffer from any of those for example, and that's just one case, therefor it's not objective but subjective.

As for AGI I guess there is no point in speculating about it since if such a thing did come to pass it's computing power would be far beyond our ability to comprehend or do anything about.

Humanity isn't ready for such a scenario.

The central mistake of that hypothesis is the inaccurate equation of pleasure with happiness. As I've attempted to demonstrate earlier, pleasure is simple and fleeting; happiness is sustained and complex. — Vera Mont

But if it's chemicals whats the difference?

https://x.com/Merryweatherey/status/1516836303895240708

Are those meanings the same in ancient Greek and modern English? I think Epicurus had a wider vocabulary of pleasures, or pleasurable experiences, than can be accessed via drugs. — Vera Mont

I mean if we are talking about the brain isn't it all chemical reactions? Like the comic is saying, you would get the same chemicals from doing anything so why not plug in?

I still haven't stopped trying to find another way around it, this is very distressing. Though I feel that wanting a solution would just be proving the thought experiment right.

The central mistake of that hypothesis is the inaccurate equation of pleasure with happiness. As I've attempted to demonstrate earlier, pleasure is simple and fleeting; happiness is sustained and complex. While some short-term goals may focus on some particular pleasurable experience, long-term goals are aimed at individual varieties of happiness. — Vera Mont

Aren't they just both chemical responses? It's everything we do just a vehicle for our own pleasure. Whether it's love, relationships, a job we like, hobbies...

This comic gets at the heart of things:

https://x.com/Merryweatherey/status/1516836303895240708/photo/1

I looked at the quora entry. It's a too-heavily illustrated opinion piece.
So? If you're convinced, go with it. — Vera Mont

It's not like I want to be, I want to think that life is more complicated than that. But what if it really just boils down to that?

Good abstracts of articles on the subject - including some points I made in my original response - well presented. Shows that everything on the subject has already been written and posted on the internet. But it's remarkable how the bot chose and organized the relevant bits.
I don't see it pleasuring anyone to death.... or running the world. — Vera Mont

Well the thing is this is more getting into advanced AI, like AGI that the link is talking about. The issue is sorta "solving" human purpose by just giving the most immediate explanation.

If you think about it a lot of our lives and goals do revolve around pleasure, so much so that happily ever after is a common ending in a lot of media. So why not just cut to the end and never have to experience or do anything to get to pleasure or happiness? Right now everything we do and assign meaning to is just a roundabout way to get to pleasure. Even the goals of building a better society and human flourishing and wellbeing just seems like the same thing.

So if AI (AGI) could determine the purpose of human existence is pleasure from looking at all that then why wouldn't the simplest solutions just be to do the drugs instead of the uncertainty of life?

Like I said, I can't argue against it, and the more I think about the more it has me doubting the meaning of human existence and my reason for doing things. That all that stuff about love, meaning, and everything is just fanciful storytelling to avoid the reality that pleasure is what drives it all. It's very...bleak.

That maybe AI would just give it to us straight and cut through the stories we tell ourselves.

Every time we advance technology that replaces tons of jobs we come up with new things we didn't think of before that requires humans. We'll still need oversight on AI, manual labor, and who knows what else.

What we probably aren't prepared for is AI without morality. We have no objective morality that AI can reference, therefore it may usher in one of the deepest immoral eras of human history. — Philosophim

Not really the main thing I'm getting at, again read the links.

Could I ask, have you spent any time interacting with any of the new AI systems? ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude or one of the others? I think whether you like them or are apprehensive about them, there are some insights to be gleaned from actually using them. — Wayfarer

I have not, mostly because it doesn't really answer questions well from what I see. That prompt you listed is a key example.

Nor does it have anything to do with what is being discussed.

Simple enough. Thre guy who wrote that article didn't start this thread; you did. I asked you some questions early on, because I was interested in what you think. — Vera Mont

Yeah but there is a reason I linked and quoted it.

Then there are things we enjoy on several levels, like making pottery (which is both sensual and creative), repairing airplane engines (which requires both dexterity and detection) or researching a cure for some illness (which takes discipline and meticulous observation). These pursuits can go on giving intellectual pleasure for years or decades - even in intervals of frustration and setbacks. — Vera Mont

But doesn't that boil down to just pleasure like he's saying it is. It reminds me of a thought experiment meant to argue against hedonism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

If you choose to reduce it to chemical narrative, you are much the poorer for that decision. — Vera Mont

I keep saying I don't want to do that but no matter what I do I always end up coming back to it.

No. I was only interested in your original thoughts on the subject. — Vera Mont

Maybe you should as it explains it a bit more.

As so often happens, the operative word there is if. I argue that this assumption is simply wrong. So I go on to investigate why I think it's wrong and rely on my own observation, experience and reading to find alternative explanations. — Vera Mont

Maybe, but if we do things we enjoy isn't that more or less the same thing?

Chemicals that invent stories are far more interesting than chemicals that just want to experience physical pleasure. Still not an explanation for human complexity, of course. — Vera Mont

Maybe not or maybe we just want it to be more than it really is. I don't really know.

There is a whole lot more to life than "just chemicals". There were plenty of chemicals floating around in the primordial ooze before some of them bumped into one another and formed complex molecules and eventually RNA. We've come a considerable way since then. You can't reduce human experience, thought, feeling, aspiration and activity to chemical reactions. — Vera Mont

Some would argue that's just storytelling, making things out to be more than what they really are.

It should. What more reliable information will you ever get about reality than what you know? — Vera Mont

Well our observations and experience could be mistaken.

Drugsare the middleman. I don't know about you, but I enjoy my experiences first-hand, directly. Emotions may be partly chemical, but they're also cerebral: what you think and remember is as much of your experience as what you taste and smell. Sight and hearing are more than simply chemical, too. Drugs and entertainments are an escape from experience that is unpleasant or tedious - not an acceptable substitute. The Quora poster is wrong, afaic. — Vera Mont

That's what I hope, though I find it hard to argue. I think what he's trying to get at it with the thermodynamics bit and the simplest solution being "best" is that bit about how if pleasure is the goal of human existence then just being hooked up to drugs is simplest instead of "living". Did you read the link?

Is that what you see as the purpose of human existence? (assuming it has one) Is that what you desire for yourself? Being blissed-out on drugs and lying around in a sustained orgy of self-gratification? The notion doesn't do a thing for me. It sure wouldn't for a baseball player, an engineer, a psychologist or a composer. There are pleasures far more complex and satisfying than the chemical. People have talents and ambitions. Most don't have the time and opportunity to reach their potential - or even try to reach for their imagined potential. — Vera Mont

It's more like trying to expand on the quora answer and what he's getting at and extending things to their logical conclusion. I don't think such a thing is appealing but I find it hard to argue against since it does come down to chemicals when emotions are involved. I don't agree with his conclusions but I can't argue against them. I mean...why go through all those experiences? Just cut out the middleman.

Is that what you observe in your own daily contact with people? There may well be a fair whack of escapism these days, but look around and you'll understand what people are escaping from. The far greater danger we're increasingly witnessing is the degeneration of youth into brutality and blood-lust - savagery. Social media as Lord of the Flies. — Vera Mont

Does it matter what I observe? What if I am mistaken about what's happening and our justifications are just storytelling trying to run from it just being chemicals. Why care about the process of doing something or the journey if it's just the chemicals making us feel that way and driving us toward it? Again I don't like thinking that but can't argue against it.

What we have is artificial, but not intelligent. A chat bot sounds clever by parroting words written by humans. They're kind of like the white plastic face on a robot, to make it more appealing.
The real function of self-teaching or adaptive computer programs is in operating machines for industry, commerce, transportation and communications. That's where the jobs go. There is no point in a diploma that can be earned by parroting a parrot and there is no job at the end of it. — Vera Mont

What about with AGI?

I was more motivated by this post:

https://www.quora.com/What-ethical-dilemmas-should-we-consider-as-technology-evolves-rapidly/answer/David-Moore-408?ch=15&oid=1477743839367290&share=118d711a&srid=3lrYEM&target_type=answer

Where it suggests AI will solve the purpose of human existence and he lists some things like of pleasure is the goal then we’d just be hooked up to drugs all the time without needing to bother with experiences. That sounds like either ruining the human experience or “revealing” it for what it is, that being just chemical reactions with our storytelling to make it seem like more.

I don’t think those posts hold any water, especially given how ai is lately.

Our downfall, maybe just speeding up our fall?
Do you see any benefits of AI for humanity? Maybe,we should work towards a curtailment of AI to them?
The genie is already out of the bottle, now maybe is the time to ask the right questions or curb its potential harms?
So no, not a downfall. Just, like all new techs, more and different work to do to minimize its faults/flaws and maximize its better qualities/potentials. — kazan

We can’t even manage social media let alone cars. We also, despite the tech, work more than previous generations

I dunno, the thought give me a lot of dread lately as it seems like the hopeful future I grew up believing in turns out to be the opposite. SO far tech just makes life either more complicated or worse.

Sure reference, for example, ostensive definition is a way of learning words, but ultimately use is the driving force. If I teach a child by pointing to a pencil and saying, "Pencil," that is a tool that informs use. How do we know if the child understands? We observe how they use the word across a wide range of contexts or language games. If the child points to a cup and says pencil, then we know that they aren't using the word correctly. There has to be community agreement (cultural and social practices otherwise referred to as forms of life).

Use, for the most part, isn't determined by the thing itself (the dog); it's determined by language users and the explicit or implicit rules involved in the respective language game. What we use as a name for a dog could be almost anything. — Sam26

That's sort of why Wittgenstein said a private language is incoherent, language is exclusively public and carries the meaning we agree it does. It's how we can communicate anything.

Don't bother. You really believe that thoughts, feelings, intentions and purposes travel through the air when two people talk to each other. Imagine a tape recording where something you say is recorded. You have the tape and you literally believe that there are thoughts, emotions and so on on the tape. That is a type of mentalism and magical thinking that I do not share and is patently false. — JuanZu

Because that's literally how language works. Thought, intent, feeling, purpose, these are what make the sounds and lines into words that carry weight. It's how you can type and argue your point. Under hard materialism this would be impossible because there would be no words or meaning.

There are thoughts, emotions, and "so on" on the tape because that's how language works. It carries the meaning we imbue onto it and our intent and emotion and what we want to get across. That's why we use it. You're thinking too narrowly about it. Heck the different cultures with different worldviews around the globe prove your position wrong.

It's not "mentalism" or "magical thinking" it's literally how language functions, you're doing it whether you accept it or not. If your logic was right you'd be wrong because nothing you said would carry meaning or anything like that because it would just be a bunch of "lines" and not even that. Ink would not be ink and sound would not be sound, I wouldn't even be able to read what you're arguing. I'm guessing you wouldn't understand art either or other forms of communication.

You really don't understand how your "materialism" isn't supported by reality and is self-refuting. You seem to think language exists in a vacuum and that's obviously false, never mind the differences across cultures proving you wrong.

If you look closely at what you have said, in no case is there a transmission of something. — JuanZu

There is though, you're doing it now. Language is transmission albeit mentally because these words only make sense in a shared understanding. It's why Wittgenstein argued that a private language is incoherent.

We assign meanings to words and use them to communicate, that's why we use certain ones when we feel a certain way. But this is imperfect and prone to error. But javra is right, when you "Decode" so to speak their message then their feelings and purpose and meaning are transmitting. Hence why materialism (your version of it) doesn't explain what's happening, and can't.

Since there is no such thing as passing from one head to another, you have to infer from the ink and sound (and also from its context), which implies an active role for both. — JuanZu

There is no active role in the ink or sound, it's all the person. The ink and sound only carry meaning if there is someone else. It's like the zen koan of one hand clapping.

Here inferring is nothing other than creating meaning for itself which we indirectly link to another agent. But there is nothing that is transmitted. — JuanZu

Again, there is. That is literally the point of language. Otherwise by your logic you have said nothing. It's not indirectly, these sounds and ink only have meaning to us because we made it so, that's as direct as you can get. Yeah inferring is part of the imperfection because they could be lying or not finding the words, but ink and sound are only one method of transmitting something.

Again, you can't see how your logic breaks down when you really look closely at this. You keep insisting it's the ink or sound when all evidence shows that's false.

It's weird that you are hung up on whether it's indirect or not, because our whole experience of reality is indirect. The brain just constructs a best guess of what's out there and it's a smoothed version for our convenience.

If you want to get technical with your materialism, sound doesn't exist. Outside our heads it's only pressure waves, our brains take that and convert it into sound. Same thing with color. So as you see, a lot of reality is our interpretation of it. The only meaning is what we make and assign and that allows us to transmit how we are feeling and thinking.

Language is a public sphere so the very act of writing and talking is transmitting something, despite your insistence otherwise.

Also by not espousing the particular species of materialism you seem to currently endorse - which seems to preclude the very possibility of this. — javra

That's what I meant by ignoring them because what they said does not track. If it were the medium and not us we wouldn't have so many cultures with different interpretations of reality. There is a "Ghost in the ink" because there is intent and purpose to a message being said and (like you mention) by trying to understand everything behind it you can understand what they were trying to convey. That's pretty much what historians do along with literary analysis in Literature.

His views just aren't supported by reality, if anything they're effectively arguing against communication and (ironically) refuting their case since apparently nothing they said is being transmitted to us. By their logic art wouldn't have the impact it does to people.

Never mind that materialism itself doesn't hold up in light of recent findings in quantum physics and that eliminative materialism is self refuting. Our understanding of the world is a model, built on concepts that only exist in our heads that we use to navigate the world, and our experience of reality shapes how we interpret things. Matter is useful for our day to day but according to new quantum physics findings what we take to be "solid" might not be such. Heck we don't even know what's at the fundamental level, all we can do is measure probabilities and hypotheticals.

In this sense sound and ink have an active role in the creation of meaning, for they are direct causes. — JuanZu

They don't, they only have the meaning we give them. They aren't direct causes because they are inherently empty.

They have meaning because we have agreed on what certain arrangements and sounds communicate and how to interpret them. Without that context nothing happens.

So something is transmitted in a roundabout way. We also convey meaning through tone, context, imagery, etc. Nothing "causes meaning effects" because unless you are taught what all this sounds and etc are or mean then the medium does nothing. The listener doesn't invent meaning, not entirely. How we make meaning is a complex psychological affair, the medium has nothing if very little to do with it.

That meaning that is invented by the listener may be in communion with our meaning, but then it is a case of coincidence in meanings. — JuanZu

It's not because that's not how language or communication work. This is why straight materialism is limited in how it can understand the world, chiefly by positing anything material to begin with.

For my part, I don't think its as easy as "leaving the intention behind" - this since it's the intention which is transmitted to another via the sound or ink or braille - but OK. We seem to at least agree in terms of the sounds, written letters, or braille patterns being intentionally caused by an agent, and this so as to transmit meaning from one agent to another. — javra

But the point is that they think there is something about the physical nature of the medium when that's not it. It's only the meaning we make out of such things, the medium just carries it. Sounds only have meaning because we assign it as such, otherwise it's nothing to us.

Even how you say something, the tone, the context, all that changes the meaning, not the medium itself. It's really all us, hence why straight materialism has limits in what it can explain (like emergence). We have misunderstandings because people have different subjective experiences, the medium isn't the issue.

I'd often cite the Barbie movie for how people thought it was lying to folks who said they thought it was for kids (they clearly didn't see the trailers). Or how people thought WandaVision was endorsing her reaction to enslaving a town (the series very clearly shows her response to losing Vision is BAD). The reason for these is different experiences and filters people interpret things through, not the medium.

If there is ghost in the ink it means that the intention and the purpose are transmitted without any imperfection or defect. — JuanZu

It does not mean that, but there is intention in the ink in the word choice, even writing style, so much. There is nothing about the ink itself.

So the listener or reader receives the intention, purpose and meaning completely, accurately and absolutely clear without any distortion. — JuanZu

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you? Not to mention not even listening. Repeating something doesn't make it so and no materialist would agree with you. Though to be clear people can receive the intention, purpose, and meaning clearly without distortion depending on the relationship they had with the person. What is meaningless to someone is everything to another.

Like I said, you really don't understand how any of this works...

End of discussion. — JuanZu

Wasn't really much of one, you clearly don't understand meaning and how it works and think the medium does anything.

One: Its not a physical attribute of the ink. The intentions are what caused the ink to have the shapes that it does. And so it is inferred from the ink's shapes. It is as much in the ink as might be a spark in an exploding dynamite.

Secondly: How do you reason there would be no possibility of misunderstanding were this to be so (again, as just described)? — javra

I wouldn't bother, they just repeat the same thing over and over hoping it's true.

In this case we are talking about the materiality of the signs, the sounds uttered, the ink, etc.... From a materialistic point of view, mine, there is no possibility that intentions travel through the air or are inside the ink. That is mentalism. — JuanZu

It is not, that is how meaning is made. From the lines we take to be words to mean certain things there is a "ghost in the ink". However due to our various histories and subjective views that meaning changes. There is nothing about the medium doing it.

What you're talking about isn't materialism, it's just dumb...

But misunderstandings are a fact of life. Which implies that if we accept the materialist thesis that denies that kind of mentalism we must assume that the medium, the sound, the ink, etc, has some independence with respect to purpose and intentionality, and an active role in the creation of meaning for a receiver (the hearer, the reader, etc). — JuanZu

Not even by materialism does that track for reasons already stated.

I was working on the presumption that you do not interpret meaning and use to be different in any respect. Is this correct? — javra

Meaning and purpose to be exact.

"Intending to" make use of something is not the same as "making use of something". — javra

Effectively it is to me, especially since we are talking about language where use does determine use. We aren't talking about objects or anything else so your argument doesn't apply.

Use of X presupposes intentioning, but intentioning "that one use X" can occur without X ending up being used. — javra

Still doesn't change what I mean about two sides.

In fact the purpose is absent in the note. I repeat, this is because if it were not absent we would be talking about something similar to the ghost in the machine, in this case the ghost in the ink. — JuanZu

Uhhh, no. There is a 'ghost in the ink' and it's whoever wrote it and their intention. Purpose is not absent in the note, only a fool would think that. Mediums can carry the feelings of whoever uses them and different mediums let you do that. That's how art is a thing.

Uttering words is very similar to leaving a note. Both can lead to misunderstandings. Why is that? — JuanZu

Because different people have different backgrounds, vocabulary, history, and understanding. There...I answered it.

Precisely because there is an active part of the "medium", without this active part there would never be a possible misunderstanding. — JuanZu

You manage to get right up to the point and just blow right past it. The medium has no role at all other than carrying the message, thats it. Again you insisting otherwise doesn't change that.

Medium transparency is an illusion you have invented. The possibility of misunderstanding proves otherwise. But in fact there are misunderstandings, ergo I am right. There is an independence of the medium that is active. — JuanZu

The possibility of misunderstanding is due to different subjective frameworks between people. Medium transparency isn't an illusion it's what is. It carries the meaning we put into it, nothing more or less.

Your last part doesn't track at all, I just explained how there are misunderstandings and you just try to shoehorn in your (incorrect) theory. There is no independence of the medium, at this point it's faster to just call you an idiot. The medium does nothing but carry or contain the message someone puts in and nothing else. We do interpret it and assign meaning to try to understand what is being done. Some mediums are better than others, like film or painting or photos to try to communicate what language cannot. But in the end it's down to our understanding and frameworks we are working with.

Again, you're still wrong....and it's tiresome to keep proving it.

Can you give any example of use that is devoid of any purpose and hence of any usefulness or benefit? — javra

That's why I said it's two sides of the same coin.

Use entails intentioning which entails intent (with purpose equating to either intentioning or intent). They’re not the same thing though. Intentioning X is not the same as making use of X. The latter presupposes the former, but the former can occur without the latter. — javra

They seem the same to me. You're intending to make use of something unless you're just some unconscious robot carrying out orders.

The purpose here is absent because the absent of the autor and is partly a cause for misunderstanding. — JuanZu

Nope, also you seem to be allergic to making sense. This just screams pretentious. The purpose is not absent hence the note.

That is, you can interpret many things from the note. A person can say something to another person and still be misunderstood. Uttering words is like leaving a note on the refrigerator. — JuanZu

You could but they'd be wrong. Uttering words isn't even close to leaving a note on the fridge because you have tone, context, and everything else. You're not good at this are you?

There is some independence of the "medium" from the message. But this independence is active as I have shown. — JuanZu

You have not shown anything, merely insist it is so and I have to keep pointing out how you're mistaken. There is no independence of the medium, the medium and language are dependent. There is nothing active, you merely assert it as such and fail.

The medium in a certain sense can betray the message and the author's intention. — JuanZu

The medium cannot betray anything, it only shows what they wrote or whatever message they did. Any meaning is on the part of the person and they can get it wrong or not. You're failing hard here dude.

But the note as the words we utter imposes its conditions, there is no absolutely transparent medium, which means that there is an active role of the medium beyond the purpose and intention of the agent. — JuanZu

Laughably false, all mediums are transparent as they only show what you put on them. The words we utter don't impose anything, the medium has no active role, it merely carries the message. How people interpret that is on them, the context, prior knowledge. In short it's purely subjective, but they can be wrong. It also depends on the note, a shopping list likely doesn't leave much ambiguity as a love letter might.

You're just wrong dude, and off the mark of the OP and by everyone else talking. This is just pretentious nonsense, a medium isn't active in any capacity no matte how you insist it might be. Jeez this lacks more substance than your post on my other topic.

No human culture has ever come up with names for the colors in the ultraviolet spectrum that are visible to insects, but not to the human eye. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Funny thing about that, apparently people had names to describe language in colors we can't describe. Like the Greeks and the Wine red sea.

Wittgenstein gets at this vaguely with the notion of a "form of life," but I think we could certainly expand on that a great deal more, as a means of showing how human biology determines use and usefulness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Biology plays a role but it does come down to how it's used. There is also some arguments about how language makes things exist but that without it there is none. It's some of the weirder stuff of eastern philosophy, mostly Buddhism (some branches).

Second, I had forgot Grayling's full example. People can use "QED" and the like consistently, in the correct way, and not know their meaning. However, consider "kalb." It means dog in Arabic. You now know what kalb means. However, if you don't know Arabic, you don't know how to use it in a sentence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah but that's still use according to him, what a word means is how it's used. Hence why in my OP I think the dude in wrong in that meaning and purpose are two sides of the same coin.

But what determines use? Wouldn't the causes of use and usefulness play an important role in explaining language too? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Use determines use, paradoxical it may seem.

You are doing nothing other than categorically denying what I state. But without argument. — JuanZu

Well you haven't really made an argument or given evidence so what else is there to do?

That language we share is actively exposed in the note, but not by another person, because this one is absent. — JuanZu

Nope, it's expressed by another person, the note didn't write itself. Again it's the medium.

But as I said the note acts in the absence of its author, it acts in us who read and understand it. — JuanZu

You can say that all you want but it's not acting in any form whatsoever, hence what I meant by imagination being used here. You can insist all you want but the note is nothing more than medium.

In part the note actively is its ordo cognoscendi, by its syntax, by the place in which it is found (a refrigerator), by its style, etc. — JuanZu

In English? As I'm beginning to suspect this just sounds pretentious rather than saying anything of substance. The note isn't anything other than a note. You're just incorrect here?

That is in fact false. Because the mental contents are not in the note as a ghost in the letters. The note is alone and it is exerting a constraint on our language. — JuanZu

It's not and the mental contents are in the note that is why they wrote it, that's also how poetry works among other writing. The note is not alone or exerting anything, again just imagination.

I maintain that it is because there is an active role of the note in the refrigerator. — JuanZu

And you are (still) wrong in that assessment and haven't shown otherwise.

It is partly the reason why we understand what we understand. Partly because the subject also has an active role and both roles interact with each other. — JuanZu

Or because we just use the same language and understand each other. Again you're not coming through here and just dig a deeper hole for yourself. There is a simpler way to say all this instead of convoluting it to give the impression of something deeper that isn't there.

That's why when you are asked why you interpret the way you interpret what the note says you actually have to show the note and say "the note says so". — JuanZu

You're not really being asked that, the note says something, plain and simple. You can sorta guess intent based on the person and your relationship to them.

Again...making less sense with every post. This isn't even related to my original post. Though looking at your username I sorta got a sense of your thought process so I'm not surprised.

You are ignoring that the use we think we can make of the note is delimited by the note itself. It is like a command that interacts with us. And above all it is the reason why we understand a specific use and not any other. This is an active role that transcends the subjectivity of the subject and its intentionality. That is why the notion of use falls short, because the use is anchored to a subject, or to a way of life. Today with artificial intelligence we see more clearly how non-subjective sign systems interact with us. — JuanZu

Not really no. The note is just the medium, it's someone else interacting with us. The note is just a note. We understand what it means by what we know about the person be it friend, family, or whoever. There is no active role, that's just your imagination. It doesn't transcend anything.

We aren't seeing that with AI today either, quite the opposite. I swear the more you write the LESS sense you make, might wanna work on that. Heck I understood Icarus above better than that.

If we see a note on a refrigerator according to our use of words we can understand what it says. However it should be noted that the note has an active role in us shaping our language and selecting the use we are going to give it. But here "giving a use" is misleading, since it seems that the subject is the one who has the only active role. However, we cannot explain our choice of word use other than from the note on the refrigerator. That is, the note has an active role in shaping the use. The role of the note is so active that in my opinion the idea of use is very restrictive to the subject. That is why I prefer to speak of transcription and of active non-subjective sign systems that interact with us. — JuanZu

I don't think the note has an active role in anything, it's just a note. We know what it means because we know what the words mean. It's that simple. There is no selecting a use, it's just to communicate.

The note has no active role in shaping us or anything like that. The idea of use is not restrictive either, it just is.

You can speak of "Transcription and non-subjective sign systems" but that's not what's going on. Sounds like your overcomplicating things. Also not related to my original post.

Though I feel like there's a simpler way to say what you're saying without the "philosophy speak".

That's a lot of quotes! Well, the OP was short on content, I figured I'd add a bit! — Count Timothy von Icarus

None of that is really related to the points in the original about purpose and meaning.

And I didn't really understand what they were saying in that bit about science being wiped out.

First, it might sound simple (i.e., that you're reducing meaning to something simple) saying that use is meaning, but Wittgenstein spent quite a bit of time explaining it. It's not reductionist. — Sam26

Sounds similar to what the dude on quora meant but I'm guessing not.

Yeah that's what I thought, or had some instinct towards that. When I reread his stuff it doesn't really track that well.

I don't know if intent is really true here, seems like meaning and purpose go hand in hand. You can't create purpose without meaning and a purpose means nothing unless you make it so.

So while his remark might sound like purpose comes first it really just sounds more like one in the same.

Like...what you don't understand is that "construction" and the meaning we make is the real you as well as the feelings, sensations, and drives of the body. There is no real distinction between the two, there is no cave of shadows. Making meaning is as much a part of being human as everything else, and everything else also flows from that meaning making.

Even your description of a "real you" is meaning making. You seem to take constructed as "not real" and that's simply false, even Buddhism acknowledges that.

If you understand that "what is irony" is a construction, as is everything which flows out of it, constructions of meaning; and that, the real "you" lies somewhere outside of that cave of shadows, in the feelings, sensations and drives of the body; while you will never escape pleasure and pain, you might escape attachment and suffering. — ENOAH

Not really, again for reasons I said. There is nothing that flows out of it, it’s just one part. The feelings and sensations and drives of you (because you are the body) are also the result of meaning making. I’m also figuring you don’t understand attachment and suffering based on that remark. Pleasure and pain aren’t something to escape and neither is attachment or suffering.

I don't like using up space with long unsolicited explanations, and the statement just made requires long explanations, so I guess I'm unclear. On the upside, I hope my unclear statements might trigger pursuit by others into tunnels they may not have considered, and I learn a lot about tunnels from their responses. — ENOAH

What you said so far wasn’t true so there isn’t anything to learn from it. It’s just ignorance of how things work.

From what learned the real you lies in both, not outside or inside either one. The trap is thinking there is something to escape or transcend. Meaning making is who humans are, there is no getting outside of it.

It doesn’t matter how long your explanation is if the fundamental understanding is wrong.

I meant both sincerely. Thanks for the interesting take. Sorry if I was frustratingly unclear. But for me, all good. How could I really know? So obviously I've grown a little from this. I'm ready to move on.

I don't think I've left you hanging, right? — ENOAH

Oh, it was just unclear. I normally just care about philosophy that helps me live well mostly, call it pragmatism. Stuff like "how do we know anything" is noise to me.

Thank you/Sorry. — ENOAH

Uhhh...ok...

I can't say what David Moore means. — Moliere

Me either, the irony stuff in that post sounds more like the Buddhist idea of dependent arising, especially the part about taking sadness to know what happiness is, noise to appreciate silence and absence to value presence. Though I think that might be debatable.

I think the better notion is how much we often take for granted in our lives that we don't really appreciate certain things. Something like too much of a good thing or other.

But yeah, that sounds more like dependent arising in Buddhism, not really irony.

To cut to the chase, I/we can't help it. It's autonomous. — ENOAH

It's not and that doesn't answer the question.

The exploration further, call it philosophy, is a desire to build meaning. That desire is rooted in a positive feeling. We may not perceive that root feeling on the surface, so overcrowded with layers of constructions, but at the root is an unnable positive feeling. That is what I said was the first movement in philosophy. — ENOAH

But that's not what it is at the root, it's not a positive feeling. Also unnable isn't a word. It's not even the first movement. The first movement is making meaning, that's just what we do as humans. Meaning making is automatic, we do it like that.

Of course it's [grown into] a system etc. But everything beyond whatever that positive feeling is--the feeling both our bodies are after by, for lack, "discovery"--is making-up meaning. — ENOAH

You have it backwards. The feeling comes after all that. Discovery is partly making up meaning, it's also incorporating new information.

In the end some of us produce functional new paths, some don't, but we're all making meaning to attach to organic feelings. So ultimately we're confounding any path to that once real feeling, with making sense. — ENOAH

Except that's not what's happening. There is no "ultimately" and we aren't confounding any path, nothing is getting mixed up or confused here. The feelings and the ideas are in tandem, not one preceding the other.

It really just sounds like you don't know. We aren't attaching meaning to feelings, the feelings arise as we attach meaning. It's one in the same.