In a good way, you kind of remind me of my cat. You push lots of buttons to see what happens. She pushes objects around with a sort of focus and curiosity. — macrosoft

:blush:

Meaning occurs only in individual's heads. It can't be shared in any manner. It's something inherently mental. — Terrapin Station

For example, we nominalists will often say something like "It's two copies of the same CD." We don't mean that it's literally the same, — Terrapin Station

Hm. "We"? So the meaning of "It's two copies of the same CD" is shared, but not shared.

Perhaps it would be better to think of meaning as not being in one head or both, but as something that is constructed by folk as they make use of language in going about their lives.

@Posty McPostface relaxing at home.

And wallowing.

So the meaning of "It's two copies of the same CD" is shared — Banno

Where is that coming from?

Perhaps it would be better to think of meaning as not being in one head or both, but as something that is constructed by folk as they make use of language in going about their lives. — Banno

If "better" for you amounts to "being wrong about how this works," sure, then that would perhaps be better for you.

Perhaps it would be better to think of meaning as not being in one head or both, but as something that is constructed by folk as they make use of language in going about their lives. — Banno

This seems like a good approach. It does justice to our experience of a strange kind of shared space.

Posty McPostface relaxing at home. — Banno

Posty is fun. Where is @Posty McPostface?

If we say that meaning is not really shared, then we seem to be trying to impose precisely on the shared space of meaning. We use persuasive speech to chop down a tree in that space, namely the 'illusion' in this shared space that there is such a shared space.

Clearly the 'space' being contemplated is not like the space in an empty garage. It's more like what-it-is-to-be-networked mysterious by a facility with language that may exceed our own grasp of it within or for this same facility. In one jargon we can place this what-it-is-like-to-be-networked within an individual brain. This gels well with some of our other narratives. On the other hand, there mere attempt to do so happens within this shared space, raising serious issues with an otherwise natural placing of this experience in the particular brain.

Just as neurons work to together to form a brain, so brains might be understood to work together to form something more than just lots of individual brains in isolation. The human in isolation is an abstraction. Our basic state is a networked state, an interpersonal state.

I speculate that our dominant visual sense misleads us sometimes. We see gaps between brains and underestimate their interconnectedness. We see gaps between written words and ignore how interdependently they function.

Still here. But, with nothing to say.

Ah, shucks. Push around some objects! <smiles>

Here's a question for you. How would it affect philosophy if our primary access to the world was through the ear? [It's my understanding that we are dominantly visual creatures.]

Here's a question for you. How would it affect philosophy if our primary access to the world was through the ear? [It's my understanding that we are dominantly visual creatures.] — macrosoft

I don't know honestly. Do androids dream of electric sheep? What is it like to be a butterfly? What exactly is a 'qualia'? Does the computer in the Chinese room understand what it is processing?

I don't know honestly. Do androids dream of electric sheep? What is it like to be a butterfly? What exactly is a 'qualia'? Does the computer in the Chinese room understand what it is processing? — Posty McPostface

All beautiful questions.

I like computer science, and my initial position was that computers could never experience qualia. But then I reflect that all of us start as the fusion of tiny sperm and egg cells. Are these conscious? At what point and how does this biological stuff become able to think of itself as biological stuff? And if it can be done with burning bags of water who walk on sticks made of milk, then maybe it can be done in other kinds of material. My avatar is an artificial neural network, a research focus. These are very fascinating. What they 'know' is not easily localized. Could we build one with the right materials in 10,000 years so that it wakes up? I don't know. Maybe.

I'd say that reality is mysterious. And yet we have a tendency (myself very much included) to pose as knowing-it-all and finding-it-all-boring or finding-it-all-obvious. That's why I like your string of difficult questions as a response.

On the hearing/seeing issue, I think we might have a more sophisticated sense of time if we listened more to human discourse and looked at clocks less.

Above you see as a whole a sentence. So it is instantaneously present. But if you read it you have to move through time. What you have already read hangs above the word 'presently' being read with an expectation of what is to follow. What you have read already constrains your interpretation of what you read next. What you continue to read, however, inspires a reinterpretation of what you have already read. The past leaps ahead and the future leaps behind. The present might be said to be this leaping behind and ahead.

Does this time of reading/hearing have wider application? Is this more generally existential time? If the beings of the world are meaningful in terms of language, it would seem that being itself is caught up in this 'existential' time which is not clock time. (Heidegger-influenced thought, of course.)

I try to keep my list of needs short. Guess that makes me a Stoic like Marcus Aurelius, the most famous Stoic of all.

Needs:

1 - oxygen

2 - physical warmth & shelter from the elements

3 - sleep

4 - water

5 - food

6 - safety

7 - a purpose for living

7 - a purpose for living — hks

So, that seems to be my problem with starting this whole thread here.

Is that a need or a want?

In my opinion definitely a need.

Most people need to work to survive.

Take away that need, and then you enter the world of the rich. They don't need anything.

So they need to find something to do with their lives.

Like I said, try visiting a homeless shelter, and a pet store. See if you are interested in helping animals or people. There is also the Red Cross.

In my opinion definitely a need. — hks

Ah, an opinion. I've got those too. :)

Everybody does.

Everybody does. — hks

Hmm, having a purpose in life can be fulfilled; but, I digress.

I believe some clarification is needed. To whom is this "Wants and Needs" addressed?

Does it refer to you being alive or does it refer to you being human?

I believe some clarification is needed. To whom is this "Wants and Needs" addressed? — NuncAmissa

Anyone really. Not going to pick out or typify anyone here.

What was the definition of wants and needs? Is it exclusively material?

What was the definition of wants and needs? Is it exclusively material? — NuncAmissa

It can be material or spiritual depending on how you view things.

From those definitions, we can assume that whatever makes a person feel whole is a necessity. I believe Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a great answer to this.

A first approximation...

Think in terms of conditionals. If your goal is to feed your family, then you need food. There are no instances of one without the other. SO in a strict sense, need implies necessity.

Want does not imply necessity. I want money in order to purchase the food I need; but I could also grow my own or steal.

Of course, hyperbole leads us to say it is a need when it isn't.

Of course, hyperbole leads us to say it is a need when it isn't. — Banno

What do you mean by that @Banno?

From those definitions, we can assume that whatever makes a person feel whole is a necessity. I believe Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a great answer to this. — NuncAmissa

Well, I can't argue with that. I think you and Maslow already hit the nail on the head with this one.

I would need to disagree with you here.

If an object or concept is necessary to attain one's need, then it goes that the said object is a necessity is not merely a want. In your example of money to buy food, I would argue that money is necessary to gain this food. After all, you still need money to buy the origins of the food you are to eat.

If an object is necessary and thus essential in the process of gaining this certain necessity, then the said object is a necessity. However, I must concede that this object is not necessary by its own, but is only necessary by its use or properties. (You need money to buy food. So money is a necessity.)

but I could also grow my own or steal. — Banno

Stealing is a morally problematic. To steal shouldn't be an alternative in the first place. It should only become a reasonable act when situations are dire. And as far as I know, need for money still exists whether you steal or not.

No more than that one might claim to need a steak when one only wants it.