Thinking about one's own thought and belief as a subject matter in and of itself requires an ability to pick one's own thought and belief about this world out of this world to the exclusion of all else.
— creativesoul
This world is not simply composed of entities arranged before us — Ludwig V

Red herring.

Are you denying that thought and belief is prior to thinking about thought and belief?

An emotive dog may wail.

What sorts of stuff can become meaningful to a creature incapable of isolating their own belief system, as subject matters in their own right, to be further discussed, in greater detail perhaps???

Directly perceptible stuff. Thoughts and beliefs about the world are not. Therefore...

Does the dog recognize the fact that its own belief is no longer warranted, based upon everyday fact? It is no longer true. The falseness is a lack of correspondence. Recognizing one's own false belief - in that situation - requires recognizing that the world does not match one's expectations. The dog clearly doesn't recognize its own false belief about future events. If it did, it would act as if it no longer expected the human and the 5 o'clock train to arrive simultaneously.

I'm astounded that one cannot discern between thinking about everyday lifelong routine/events/fact and recognizing that one's own thought and belief based upon that very routine are no longer true.

What else could "the recognition" of one's own false belief amount to when talking about one who continued and continued to follow the same daily routine - to a meaningful extent anyway - and hence continued to believe that the human would arrive alongside the train for years after the human's death?

It was clearly not recognizing its own false belief.





The dog goes because its entire meaningful life was lovingly shared with the one arriving on schedule. The routine was a part of the dog's experience. It is through past routine that the dog's expectation became deeply embedded. The same things happened over and over. The human arriving with the train was one of those regularly recurring timely scheduled events/occurrences/facts. The dog's expectation was based upon past regularly occurring events, and hence were based very firmly in regularity/everyday fact at the time they began influencing the dog. The dog's beliefs were once well grounded. There are no longer.

The dog's continued expectation is consistent. That's rational behavior, in my book, based upon rational thought and belief, because it contains no inherent inevitable self-contradiction/equivocation, and it's based upon belief that was true at the time the connections were drawn between the train and the human.

The dog is incapable of isolating its own thought/belief to the exclusion of all else.
— creativesoul
I don't know what "isolating its own thought/belief" means. — Ludwig V

Thinking about one's own thought and belief as a subject matter in and of itself requires an ability to pick one's own thought and belief about this world out of this world to the exclusion of all else.


That cannot happen without having something to think about. A means to do so. And a creature capable. The recognition of one's own false belief. We isolate. We point. We name. We learn to use naming and descriptive practices. We name and describe the things that catch our attention.

We isolate by picking something out of this world to the exclusion of all else.

Certain sorts of things captured our attention - as a species - long before documented histories began being recorded. Things become meaningful that way.

Mindless entities are so due to the absence of meaningful experience. Mindless things do not consist of thought and belief. Nothing is meaningful to a mindless entity. All meaningful experiences are meaningful to the creature capable of having that experience. If our notion of "mindless" does not agree there is a problem.

The criterion is not up to us.

Mindless entities predated minded ones. Minded entities predated us. Our own minds predated our own knowledge of them.

The use of tools indicates mindfulness, but not what form or kind it may or may not be — Mww

Sounds like a problem for the notion of "mindfulness".

to be mindful does not make explicit thought and belief, or thinking about thought/belief. — Mww

Another problem.

Either using tools is something that can be done by a mindless creature(a creature completely absent of thought and belief), or not only humans are rational creatures. Your position forces you to explain the former…..
— creativesoul

To would seem impossible — Mww

A problem.

also related in minds. One of elemental constituency and perhaps also existential dependency.
— creativesoul

……and I’m good with calling those correlations. — Mww

A nice clear point of disagreement.

...our brain gained an ability that subsequent mutations were able to build upon. We couldn't ever know the series of mutations, and what each one gave us. — Patterner

The detail of mutations remains unclear. What makes a mutation... a mutation?

The difficulty is setting out the ways we're similar, and the ways we're unique. Our own thinking is bolstered by our own complex language use and all that that facilitates. Naming and descriptive practices are key. They pervade our thinking. They allow us to reflect upon our own experiences in a manner that is much more than just remembering.

Other animals cannot do that.
— creativesoul
Right. But millions of years ago, our brains took a leap that no other species has yet taken. We were one of many species that had some limited degree of language, or representation, abilities. Presumably, various other species have evolved greater abilities since then.
— Patterner

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means, but evolution demands survival advantages. Different species have different perceptual machinery. Direct perception in the sense of completely void of abstraction. — creativesoul

I take issue with taking certain kinds of leaps. "Increase" works well. Very very slow increments.

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means
— creativesoul
Some animals eat what they can find.
Some animals can use a tool, if they find a good one, to help them get food.
Some animals can make a tool to help them get food.
Some animals can use tools and plan a couple steps ahead to get food.

Seems like increasing abilities to me. — Patterner

Yup.

The difficulty is setting out the ways we're similar, and the ways we're unique. Our own thinking is bolstered by our own complex language use and all that that facilitates. Naming and descriptive practices are key. They pervade our thinking. They allow us to reflect upon our own experiences in a manner that is much more than just remembering.

Other animals cannot do that.
— creativesoul
Right. But millions of years ago, our brains took a leap that no other species has yet taken. We were one of many species that had some limited degree of language, or representation, abilities. Presumably, various other species have evolved greater abilities since then. — Patterner

"Greater" abilities??? I'm not sure what that means, but evolution demands survival advantages. Different species have different perceptual machinery. Direct perception in the sense of completely void of abstraction.

(Maybe whatever species today has these abilities to the least degree is the baseline that all started at. Although even it may have evolved from the barest minimum degree of such abilities.) But our brain gained an ability that was either enough for us to get where we are now by learning and adding to our learning, or that subsequent mutations were able to build upon. It allowed us greater language, and our greater language helped develop our brain. Now we think about things, and kind of things, nothing else thinks about.

I wouldn't disagree with that or what I think it means. It could use a healthy unpacking.

A question that comes to mind...

Do all thought and belief share a set of common elements, such that they are the exact same 'thing' at their core?

I think so.

Correlations drawn between different things by a creature so capable. All thought, belief, and statements thereof consist of correlations. Some correlations include language use(are drawn between language use and other things. Other correlations are drawn between things that do not include language use.

All thought and belief are meaningful to the creature capable of forming, having, and/or holding them. Some correlations are drawn by language less creatures. Some of those correlations attribute/recognize causality(causal relationships). Some of those thought and belief can be true/false.

Either truth and meaning exist in their entirety prior to language or true and false belief exists without meaning and/or truth.

Agreed, in principle. With the (entirely personal) caveat that any comprehensible notion of mind, as such, is necessarily conditioned by time, reflected in all the relations a mind constructs, including between matter and form in general, clay and statue as instances thereof. — Mww

:smile:

If the statue is clay, then there is another relationship between them... also related in minds. One of elemental constituency and perhaps also existential dependency.

:wink:

All experience presupposes space and time. On that we are in full agreement. I'm good with calling that intuition...

Seems your pickle is one of logical consequences.
— creativesoul

All logic is consequential: if this then that. For a logical system, if this then that and from that something else follows. — Mww

Okay. It's the quality of the consequences that are in contention.

The implication from your comment is that my logic has consequences it shouldn’t.

Well, that's one possible implication/meaning of that comment. I'm less concerned about whether or not it shouldn't disagree with everyday observable fact, and much more concerned that it does.

Be that as it may, I’m ok with my pickle being the consequences of my logic, as long as nothing demonstrates its contradiction with itself or empirical conditions, which is all that could be asked of it.

We can watch some creatures learn how to use tools for specific purposes even though they have no ability to think about their own thought and belief. Either using tools is something that can be done by a mindless creature(a creature completely absent of thought and belief), or not only humans are rational creatures. Your position forces you to explain the former. Mine dovetails with the latter.

I don't see how. There is no need to think about one's own beliefs about future events in order to have beliefs about future events.
— creativesoul
I'm waiting on the platform for the 5 pm train; it is 4.58; I expect (believe) that the train will arrive shortly. It doesn't. I am disappointed. Is it correct to say that I now recognize that my belief that the train will arrive shortly is false? — Ludwig V

If and only if the train does not arrive shortly, and you isolate your own belief to the exclusion of all else, and you practice thinking and talking about them as a subject matters in their own right would it then be "correct" for you to say that-------> "I now recognize that my belief that the train will arrive shortly is false?"

It is correct to say that that constitutes a belief about a belief?

Sure. Yours.

Why would it be incorrect to substitute "the dog" for "I" in that story?

The dog is incapable of isolating its own thought/belief to the exclusion of all else. Dog's do not have a means to isolate their own thought and belief and further consider them as subject matters in their own right as a means to compare them to fact. That comparison facilitates the recognition of true and false belief.

I think you would reply that it is incorrect because the dog is unable to speak English.

A dog's inability to become aware of its own fallibility is due to not possessing the capacity/capability to isolate their own thoughts and beliefs. Realizing/recognizing that one's belief is false, in this case, happens when reality does not meet/match expectations and we're aware of that.

English is our means but given that it is not the only naming and descriptive practice, it is not the specific language that matters here. It's more about the ability to think about one's own prior thoughts and/or beliefs as subject matters in their own right.

When someone tries to find some respect in which humans differ from animals, what I hear is a desire to pretend that they are not an animal. But they eat and sleep and do all those animal things. How are they not animals - admittedly an animal with over-developed capacities? But that doesn't change the foundation.
— Ludwig V
Absolutely true in all respects. But I see the opposite. I see people denying there is anything different about us. As though any animal is capable of being educated and made able to build a skyscraper, build the NYC skyline, develop calculus, write string quartets, build the internet, and have these same conversations. Despite being very similar in almost all ways, we can think in ways no animal can. The proof is, literally, everywhere we look. — Patterner

The difficulty is setting out the ways we're similar, and the ways we're unique. Our own thinking is bolstered by our own complex language use and all that that facilitates. Naming and descriptive practices are key. They pervade our thinking. They allow us to reflect upon our own experiences in a manner that is much more than just remembering.

Other animals cannot do that.

:lol:

Yup. A bit before my time, but sounds like an effective ad.

Nicholas? Who's that?

:razz:

I eat them a variety of ways. Some pickleless, but just pickles and mustard suits me at times.

How are the clay and the statue related? — frank

By minds.

I do not believe in facts nor do I believe in good or bad. I do not believe that we truly know anything. — Plex

So... then are you saying that it's not bad to smack an old lady in the head with a shovel, or to kick puppies, or to knowingly and deliberately cause unnecessary harm?

Do you know that you do not believe in good and bad?

Nothing is certain, — Plex

Including this?

Dogs do not think about their own expectations as a subject matter in their own right.
— creativesoul
I only read their actions. You read their minds... — Vera Mont

Not quite. Rather, I take account of how meaningful thought, belief, and experience emerges, what it consists of, what that requires, and I apply that along with current scientific knowledge to any particular candidate under consideration.

We need not read another's mind in order to know how minds work.

Much of what you've been offering is quite agreeable. It seems that you may think some of that contradicts what I'm saying when it actually supports it.

I do not see how that gets you out of the pickle you're in.
— creativesoul

I’m guessing anyone thinking deeply enough about stuff he doesn’t know, gets himself into a pickle of some sort or another, sooner or later. — Mww

Well, I would concur that no one has been picklefree. :wink:

Seems your pickle is one of logical consequences. I have no issue with the 'problem' of other minds. I have no issue with knowledge about mindless conditions. I have no problem admitting and explaining the minds of language less creatures/non human creatures. I have no problem drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief.

Do you have a cogent argument for how it becomes the case that any creature could begin thinking about their own previous thought and belief? All timekeeping presupposes that.
— creativesoul
I did include a citation about biological clocks. I don't see how that presupposes or requires 'thinking about own previous thought and belief'. Yet another caveat added in order to exclude other species. — Vera Mont

Biological clocks? I'll have to look closer. I suspect there's some equivocation going on here. Clocks do not keep time in the sense we're discussing. Clocks have no thought/belief. Time keeping requires that. We use clocks to keep time. Clocks do not use themselves to keep time.

As best we can tell, time keeping practices were existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices.
— creativesoul
From what can you tell that? Stonehenge? Obelisks? Athens' Tower of the Winds? They don't say much, except that humans have been keeping public time since the beginning of civilization. those practices may have been named and described. — Vera Mont

So... we agree here then.

Before that, humans had to depend on our own sense of when to wake, when to eat, when to move to the summer camp, when to hunt, when to preserve food for the winter. Whether anyone named that or not, we don't know.

There may be a conflation between our reports of animal thought/behavior, and the animal's thought.

Dogs are always in the moment and unreflective.
— creativesoul
Now, there is a bald, naked, unsupported statement.
you can have it. I'm done here. — Vera Mont

I've given several arguments replete with definitions/criteria in support of what I've claimed. I'm often too verbose, but it could be boiled down to a few simple arguments.

The dog doesn't think about its own expectation. Expectation is belief about future events.
— creativesoul
Surely this proves too much. It proves that the dog cannot act purposively. — Ludwig V

I don't see how. There is no need to think about one's own beliefs about future events in order to have beliefs about future events.

Opening a gate is possible by observation...
— Mww

No thought? No belief? No expectation? What, on earth, could mindless observation be?
— creativesoul

Exactly, insofar as it is implicitly self-contradictory, hence altogether impossible, for a minded creature to comprehend a mindless condition. — Mww

According to your linguistic framework, perhaps. Not mine.

Comprehension by a higher intellect of a lesser animal’s behavior, which to an investigator of it is mere experience, was never the problem. — Mww

Who said it was?

To attribute to them a mind of some sort, sufficient for inciting that behavior, but without any means to prove THAT is the sort of mind they actually possess, from which arises causal necessity, or, without any means to prove they have any mind of any sort at all, when his only provision for it is his own experience, is certainly a problem. — Mww

Not mine.

To which the common rejoinder is….well, crap on a cracker, dude….how else could a dog, e.g., ever open a gate, if they didn’t do this or that first, which, in truth, is tacit admission that he could not possibly comprehend how that creature does anything at all, unless he supposes it to be enough like him that he could comprehend it, which immediately negates the possibility such lesser creature could manifest its behaviors by some means completely foreign to him. And that carries the implication he could comprehend the lesser creature’s behavioral causality iff he knew what it was.

But, where such investigator is human, he doesn’t. He can’t; he does not even know his own. He guesses his own, it works for him, the dog performs the same act therefore must be accredited with the same guesswork insofar as it apparently works for him too.

While this scenario may be good enough for sociologists, psychologists and lawyers, it is far and away “…beneath the dignity of proper philosophy….”
—————

I do not see how that gets you out of the pickle you're in.

Oh gosh. That is in dire need of argumentative support. I have no reason to believe that that's true, as written. Bald assertion is inadequate.
— creativesoul
It's not all that hairless: — Vera Mont

I cannot help but to laugh. This smacks of irony. Assertions have no hair. "Bald assertions" are what we call exclamations that assume precisely what's in question regardless of whether or not they are accompanied by cogent argument. They're bald because they're unaccompanied.

They are bald, not necessarily due to being unjustifiable, but rather for not having been argued for, yet. It's possible, I suppose, that your position rests upon some solid ground.

Do you have a cogent argument for how it becomes the case that any creature could begin thinking about their own previous thought and belief? All timekeeping presupposes that.

As best we can tell, time keeping practices were existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices. There is a difference between knowing what time I expect someone to arrive and knowing someone has. The latter is 'fully' in the moment. The former is existentially dependent upon having already been so. Dogs are always in the moment and unreflective. I've known some superbly expressive ones replete with wonderful temperament. Some have been absolutely amazing. Astounding even. Yet they remain creatures that cannot think about their own thoughts and beliefs, because they have no way of picking them out of this world to the exclusion of all else.

Knowing about one's own expectation requires having them. Having expectation does not require knowing that one does. The dog has expectations. Knowing what time one is expected to arrive is knowing about one's own thought and belief. Dogs do not.

When we think about what time we expect an arrival, we pick out the time.

Knowing someone has arrived is not knowing what time an arrival is expected. The latter is a metacognitive endeavor. The former is not. The former is about the one arriving. The latter is about the time. The dog doesn't think about its own thought and belief. The dog doesn't think about the time. The dog thinks about the one(s) arriving. Expectation is belief about future events.

The dog can acquire an anticipatory demeanor by virtue of correlations they draw between different things. These things could be called common elements of past ritual. Sounds. Sights. Tastes. Smells. Regularly occurring events. Becoming part of a routine requires the passage of time. It does not require knowing about the fact that one is part of a routine. The dog can think/believe that their human is about to arrive because the arrival has been well practiced.

The dog doesn't think about its own expectation. Expectation is belief about future events.

To think about one's own expectations, one must first have thought and/or belief, for there must be first something to think about, and a way of thinking about it. Then, and only then, can a capable creature begin to think about their own expectations. Dogs don't do that.

All expectation consists of belief about future events.

How far off into the future one contemplates is determined strictly speaking solely by virtue of one's time keeping practices. The dog doesn't look forward to Thursday, for it has no clue about which days are. No clue whatsoever. Thursdays can be very special days for the dog, but not to... the dog.

Avoiding anthropomorphism requires knowing what sorts of things are meaningful and how they become so... to ourselves and any other creatures capable of forming, having, and/or holding meaningful thought and/or belief. Knowing how things become meaningful is knowledge of paramount importance.

It allows us to know that the dog has no clue, no thought, no belief - whatsoever - about what time they expect someone to arrive. Their expectations are not arranged by them in timely fashion or manner.

The dog practices timekeeping in exactly the same way humans did before the invention of clocks — Vera Mont

Oh gosh. That is in dire need of argumentative support. I have no reason to believe that that's true, as written. Bald assertion is inadequate. Bald assertion conflicting with known relevant facts is completely unacceptable.

I want you to think about that for a few minutes. Humans charted stars, planned voyages, recorded seasons and all sorts of other things long before inventing clocks. We were drawing correlations between weather patterns and their own lives long before anyone figured out how to make mechanical gears with the 'perfect' number of teeth for our purposes.

Planning routines, instead of just being a part of them, is a time keeping practice. Dogs don't do that.

Dogs can be taught to wake up humans at a certain time. When this or that happens. That's not timekeeping. That's behaving as one is taught to behave. It's rational. It involves an unconscious autonomous sense of time. Waking up someone at the right time is rational.

Dogs do not think about their own expectations as a subject matter in their own right. When we think about what time we're expecting a loved one, stranger, friend, foe, and/or family member to arrive we're thinking about our own thought and belief. We're isolating our own expectations by virtue of naming and descriptive practices. That is to think about one's own thought and belief. Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires first having them, then becoming capable of isolating them as a subject matter in their own right.

Dogs cannot do that.

Is learning how to open a gate or door by observation alone possible by a creature completely incapable of thinking?
— creativesoul

Opening a gate is possible by observation... — Mww

No thought? No belief? No expectation? What, on earth, could mindless observation be? What is it to observe something that one does not believe is there?

Knowing others open gates is something that plenty of other creatures are capable of acquiring. This allows the creature to carefully watch. This shows innate interest. Curiosity. We can most certainlly watch that happen, in the right sorts of circumstances given the right sorts of creatures.

The subject is involved in a series of events. The subjects under consideration do not know that they are part of a routine. They do not know that they are participating in ritual. In order to see oneself as a subject matter in and of itself, one must be capable of drawing a distinction between themself and their own life. Doing that, at a bare minimum, requires naming and descriptive practices.

...but It is impossible to say apodeitically whether a creature incapable of thinking learns anything, whether by observation or otherwise. — Mww

Is it?

Thoughtless learning? Belief less learning? Learning without meaningful connections? Learning how to open a gate... without believing they can... without thinking about it... without drawing correlations between opening the gate and getting out?

Learning how to open a gate always includes a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. Dogs can want to reach the other side of a gate. They can know it's possible by watching it happen. They can want to get out, watch others doing so, and learn how to do it themselves, and then... they do so.

Performing a task grounded in observation alone could be mere mimicry, which does not necessarily support what it is to learn.

Not sure if that ever a bad thing, in this context. We're talking about what counts as thinking... and then, what counts as rational thinking

Some mimicry is learning how to behave(in the sense of learning what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behavior). Other mimicry isn't.

Learning how to open a gate by watching others do it results in a practically pure form of mimicry. Doing exactly what needs to be done in order to open the gate. The necessity of thought and belief seems apparent enough now, right? The dog wants to open the gate.

The striking singular difference between human minds and most(arguably all) other minds is that humans draw and maintain the meaningful distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief. Our own thought and belief(along with meaning, truth, and falsehood) are only discovered via language use. Other animals cannot think about their own thought and belief as a subject matter in its own right. Hence, they have no idea how to tell the difference between their own true and false beliefs. They cannot take account of them unless they pick them out of the world to the exclusion of all else. That cannot be done without naming and descriptive practices.

Learning how to open a gate is rational behavior practiced by a thoughtful creature. Not all gate openers know that they just learned how to open a gate. Zeke didn't think about the fact that he was opening a gate. He just opened it. Zeke was an old dog of mine, and dogs that are opening gates are an elementary constituent part/element of the gate opening facts/events, as they happen. Dogs do not take account of themselves and everything happening around them as it happens. They know what's happening sometimes, but they do not think about their knowledge of that. They think about what they're doing, what they're in the middle of. They think about distal objects and themselves. They think by virtue of drawing meaningful correlations between different things.

The dog knows when the human is about to arrive, and it is perfectly rational in doing so... but it does not know what time the human is expected to arrive.
— creativesoul
Because he doesn't know the names humans have artificially given the hours and minutes of the day. Okay. — Vera Mont

Are you having a conversation by yourself, for yourself, and to yourself?

"Okay." ???

No, the dog knows when their human is about to arrive but has no clue what time the arrival happens because the dog doesn't practice timekeeping. You neglect some very important distinctions. That much has become clear.

Dogs do not have that.
— creativesoul
I wonder how you know this... — Vera Mont

I know other things, and "this" follows from those things.

I wanted to mention something prior to retiring for the night.

When I said "language less" I meant without naming and descriptive practices. There is no clear lines to be drawn between language less creatures and our pets, for they are not language less. Not at all, actually. There's good reason domestication changes animals drastically, aside from the shrinking of the gene pool which is the function of the aim of breeding for specific traits.

There's overlap between language less animals and us. Our pets.

This overlap matters here, in these sorts of discussions, for not all dogs and cats and birds have drawn correlations between our language use and other things. Some have. Pets are socialized by us with us. It matters. Language has helped, as best I can tell, in helping to provide better means for pets to become rational to a greater extent than their cousins.

an argument against naturalism. — wonderer1

God made no such thing...

:razz:

Knowing what time a particular person is expected to arrive is to pick that time out from the rest. The dog does not do that. The dog knows when the human is about to arrive, and it is perfectly rational in doing so... but it does not know what time the human is expected to arrive.

The expectation belongs to the dog. Dogs are not capable of thinking about their own thought and belief. — creativesoul

Knowing what time the human is expected is knowledge about one's own expectations. Dogs do not have that.

What's in question is whether or not dogs can look forward to Thursdays despite having no knowledge whatsoever that any given day of their life is a Thursday. — creativesoul

The same applies to the five o'clock train.

I don't know how to disengage without seeming rude. — Vera Mont

I wouldn't take it as rude. Asking for clarity may help you to understand, should you want to.

Knowing what time a particular person is expected to arrive is to pick that time out from the rest. The dog does not do that. The dog knows when the human is about to arrive, and it is perfectly rational in doing so... but it does not know what time the human is expected to arrive.
— creativesoul
I just don't follow the distinction here — Vera Mont

Read the next bits.

You know I'm not going to be goaded into that mess.

:wink:

Is learning how to open a gate or door by observation alone possible by a creature completely incapable of thinking?

But, I emphasize, the description of an action provided by the agent in language may be an important criterion for us, but it is not decisive in all circumstances. — Ludwig V

I would concur.

The agent may be lying or misrepresenting the action for various purposes. — Ludwig V

Sure.

Or the agent may not be recognizing how we might see it - what is just banter to the agent, may be a serious slur to us. — Ludwig V

Yes. Interpretation is a very interesting process. It is entwined with understanding. When someone draws the same correlations between the language use that we do, they interpret correctly, and... understand us.

Which reminds me that I ought check with the readers more often than I do. Always appreciate your 'tone', by the way. Model. Thank you.

It is even possible that the agent may be wrong - deceiving themselves. — Ludwig V

Sure. I'm not fond of 'self-deception' but that's an aside having to do with the inability to tell oneself that they believe something that they do not, or vice versa.

Trauma is another matter altogether. Coping mechanisms and all that.

Hmmm, this isn't the place for it, but there seems to be a remarkable difference between how we treat "meaning". I'm nihilistic, as mentioned heretofore. Where there is no creature capable of drawing correlations between different things, there can be no meaning. When something is meaningful, it is always meaningful to a creature capable of attributing such.

I say that not to argue, compare, or nitpick, but rather to offer you a bit of argumentative ground for the position I'm arguing from/for. Perhaps it will help you to understand where I'm coming from, so to speak.

:smile:

Jeez! You guys get a room, will ya?