I’d love maths and science to have an explanation for everything; but perhaps some things are ineffable. Perhaps maths, for all its fundamental beauty, is the scaffolding rather than the building. — Chris Hughes
7
OK - but it doesn't mean importance either. The meaning of Shakespeare’s writing is in his mind. Mind/consciousness produces meaning. There's no agreement on how this happens. — Chris Hughes
Mind/consciousness produces meaning. — Chris Hughes
– but it just seems wrong, doesn’t it? The first sentence or two, maybe – but the whole thing? Maybe some things will never happen by chance, even in infinty. — Chris Hughes
Then there’s the origin of DNA. Scientists say it can be explained by random chemical events occurring over a very long time. There are several different theories as to how this might have happened, but none of them sounds remotely plausible. As with the randomly reproduced Shakespeare, it just seems impossible. — Chris Hughes
The works of Shakespeare exist because they have meaning. — Chris Hughes
That meaning comes from human consciousness and its medium, language. The unique sequence of six million characters comprising that product of meaning could never be reproduced by chance, I’d suggest. — Chris Hughes
Again, I’d suggest that meaning is never the product of random processes. — Chris Hughes
And linking to abiogenesis - I just read about an experiment in constructing simple cells from inorganic elements. The idea was to create a solution containing 90 elements necessary for a very simple cell, along with lipids to create the necessary cell membrane. Stochastically/statistically, it was completely improbable (impossible) that any containers would form containing all 90 elements. Nevertheless, they did form. What happened was that some containers formed with zero elements, while others formed with the requisite 90 elements. This can be explained if there is an attractor governing (representing?) a stable system state corresponding to the existence of the "cells". i.e. the elements have an "affinity" for one another in some complex, but measurable/calculable sense. Overriding stochastic behaviour.Like the 'strange attractor' towards which a dynamic system tends to evolve? Yes, I hadn't thought of that. — Chris Hughes
Hey Brian what's your take on 'the stream of consciousness'? — 3017amen
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.