But for the other half we’re right back where we started: if humans disappear, the information remains but is untranslatable by an intelligence that may not know how English attains to its meanings. In other words, we can translate ancient Egyptian into English, French, Swahili....whatever, because both are developed by humans, but both English and Egyptian meanings would be inaccessible to some rationality that doesn’t use a perception/conception correspondence system for its meanings. It follows logically that that of which the meaning is unknowable is therefore meaningless, which is the same as having no meaning.
Am I properly addressing your concern? — Mww
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. — S
Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S
You seem to be assuming something along the lines that time is how time is measured. I do not agree with that. And I think that it's true to say that hours would pass, even if no one measured the passing of time, and even if no one existed to measure the passing of time. Time is objective in that sense. — S
The question is meaningless, because "Exist" and "Real" aren't metaphysically defined.
We tend to believe in our metaphysicses too devoutly. — Michael Ossipoff
Ok, then I would answer the second question as the first: the meaning, in the sense I assume you are talking about, would be retained, because there is nothing given sufficient to remove it, but that meaning must remain unknowable. — Mww
Going beyond this, we must inevitably be presented with the paradox of retaining meaning that has no meaning, which is inescapable whenever humans disappear but human meaning is sometime thereafter presented as being in question. To ask if a thing retains its meaning presupposes an event where the question is examined but makes no allowance for who is asking. — Mww
Rocks don't exist though. — Echarmion
They're just a certain configuration of atoms. Which also don't exist, because they're a certain configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons. Which also don't exist...
So far as our current understanding goes, distinct objects are an illusion. If everything is merely collapsed quantum waveforms, it seems a small step to idealism. Without the observer, whatever appears to us as collapsed waveforms vanishes, leaving no rocks behind. This doesn't seem all that absurd. — Echarmion
If the word "rock" was all that remained from the English language, and any related languages, how would it mean anything? Where would it's meaning reside? — Echarmion
It's not a question of whether time would pass, it's a question of who would determine that an hour had past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Who would say... — Metaphysician Undercover
You are assuming that there would be such a point in time, and that it makes sense to ask if there'd be a rock at that point in time. But there would be no such point in time, because a point in time is what human beings determine, so the question makes no sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
.”The question is meaningless, because "Exist" and "Real" aren't metaphysically defined.
.
We tend to believe in our metaphysicses too devoutly.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Firstly, I didn't even use those words.
.Secondly, I don't believe that you didn't understand what I meant.
.And thirdly, even if you didn't understand what I meant, it doesn't follow that what I said was meaningless.
However I don’t know what you mean by “There is…” — Michael Ossipoff
A metaphysical or ontological question or statement is meaningless if it uses one or more terms that aren’t metaphysically or ontologically defined. — Michael Ossipoff
Ok, I get it. Shoot an object into space, it goes on and on and on, ad infinitum, never interrupted, never examined. The meaning of it and all it’s parts conforms to the conceptions of its creators.
What’s the point? The end game? — Mww
No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin with. — S
In short, you believe that time is subjective. — S
That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Someone presents an argument. The argument is complex, and not explicitly presented in its entirety. I'm not interested in finding out the rest of the argument - the part which isn't immediately clear to me. Therefore, it's not an argument. (Therefore, it's not my problem!). — S
If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that already. Arguments have premises ]and conclusions that follow from the premises. So for something to be an argument, it's a requirement that at least some statement in the set of claims follows from at least one other statement in the set of claims. — Terrapin Station
Then I don't see how they are really saying anything different other than using two different terms to refer to what stimulates our senses - "material" and "mental". So it really comes down to what the distinction is between those two things. What makes "material" different from "mental" if they both behave the same way in stimulating our senses?Not really. Just as the realist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by material things, and so evidence of external-world rocks, the idealist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by mental things, and so evidence of other minds. — Michael
You said that idealists use senses as well, so I still don't see a distinction. You're still using your sense experiences as evidence of "mental" things.The idealist will say that using sense experiences as evidence of material things is as mistaken as using sense experiences as evidence of magic or supernatural things. I don't see any contradiction or inevitable solipsism in this. — Michael
And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe.You might be reading that into it, but I can only keep repeating that I don't at all believe that there's anything "special" about it or anything to say about comparative uniqueness or anything like that. You don't have to believe me, but I'll keep telling you. ;-) — Terrapin Station
Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right?What happened to this subthread, by the way:
"Employs it in any manner. However you want to think of it.
"Do you think that people do not use meaning in some manner?" — Terrapin Station
And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe. — Harry Hindu
Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right? — Harry Hindu
And that is what I keep pointing out - that you have a synonym to refer to the mind/not-mind distinction, but no equivalent synonym to refer to the planet/non-planet, and all the other is/is-not distinctions.I use lots of synonyms/synonymous phrases for things like logical entailment (implication, following, etc.) versus irrelevance (non sequitur, doesn't follow, arbitrary, etc.) ,because that's a common topic in philosophy, too. Things we talk about all the time tend to have a lot of synonyms or synonymous phrases. — Terrapin Station
Of course I do. People are aware of cause and effect, and therefore aware of meanings. I'm the one saying that meaning exists in AND outside of minds. You say meaning only exists in minds.Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.