The actuality you provided wasn't in your head, it was on the forum. — Harry Hindu
Right, you're saying what you did independent of what I thought you did. Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? It seems to me that you're correcting me - informing me of what really is the case, independent of anyone else's view. If you're not correcting me, then what are you doing - just letting us know what you think? So what? Why should I care what you think if what you think only works for you?I said that I actually didn't give an explanation or definition. — Terrapin Station
Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? — Harry Hindu
I just wrote: "if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously)"
How would that be independent of anyone's view? — Terrapin Station
Where is your explanation or definition - only in your head, or is it out on the forum right now? When we point to your explanation, do we point to your head, or at the screen? Is the screen or your head existing independent of anyone's view of it? — Harry Hindu
It depends on what you're referring to and how you're referring to it. The marks on the screen are objective, obviously. But they have no meaning objectively. You can refer to the marks on the screen as an explanation--that's a shorthand way of saying "These are the marks that I assign the sort of meaning to that I call an 'explanation'" — Terrapin Station
Sure the do have a objective meaning. You typed them, didn't you? — Harry Hindu
Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? How do we communicate?You can't literally type a meaning. You can only produce marks on a screen or paper or whatever. Those marks aren't literally meaning. They don't literally contain or encode etc. meaning, either. Meaning isn't a property that we can find in them. Meaning is a way that we think about them. — Terrapin Station
Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? — Harry Hindu
LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? How can we even say that the copies are the similar? They are different CDs that contain the same information. So again, how does two separate entities acquire the same copy, and what does it even mean to say it is a copy if the meaning of "copy" and "difference" is up to the individual? Why would we agree that my CD is a copy of yours if meaning is different for both of us? You aren't addressing the important question of how different entities can acquire similar views of meaning if we are as different as you seem to imply. You actually seem to imply that we don't live in a shared world at all.First, literally, we must come to different meanings, because numerically distinct things can not be identical. That's just like saying that two copies of the "same" Beatles CD have to literally be different.
Like the copies of the Beatles CD, though, the meanings we come to could be as similar as those copies are. — Terrapin Station
LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? — Harry Hindu
Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? How can that be if meaning is produced by how individuals think? I should be able to interpret your words how I mean them.Wait--Is there some reason to believe that I do not believe there are objective processes? — Terrapin Station
Because you can't be consistent or acknowledge your inconsistencies. Failure to communicate would be the result of the world you think we live in. I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims.This is what we call a failure of communication, by the way. — Terrapin Station
Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? — Harry Hindu
Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? — Harry Hindu
I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims. — Harry Hindu
If the information in the CDs is the same, — Harry Hindu
So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? If there are patterns of behavior that exist independent of, and prior to my application meaning, then isn't that saying those patterns are objective for anyone else to observe and come to the same conclusions? Why should it matter if the pattern of behavior is exhibited by a human being, ant, tree, planet, star or the entire universe?Sure, insofar as other people are applying meaning to them. That would be independent of the meaning you're assigning. — Terrapin Station
Sure it is. Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said?Wtf? I'm asking you a question re why you'd think I'd not believe that there are objective processes. What's the answer to why you'd think I'd not believe that there are any objective processes?
Asking you a question isn't saying something. It's asking you a question. — Terrapin Station
It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please?I explained this already. You didn't comment on it. — Terrapin Station
It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless.It's not literally the same. Again, I'm a nominalist. — Terrapin Station
So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? — Harry Hindu
Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said? — Harry Hindu
It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please? — Harry Hindu
It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless. — Harry Hindu
1) So, deduction first, testing later?
2) So, we have the issue of what the mind can reason and deduce itself to in terms of conclusions. But then we also must have access to whatever we need to test direclty, physically. And we would need the technology, presumably necessary to do those tests. And we would need to know what technology to create that would aid us in those tests.
There seem to be a lot of contingent factors. And anyone saying they are sure, seems to be speculating wildly. — Coben
If the premise had been, “can reason and logic explain that which is present to human observation or mere thought” I wouldn’t have been so quick to jump. The human cognitive system, re: reason, is a relational system, re: logical, therefore it is by means of a methodology based on reason and logic a human should ever claim to know anything at all.
I see no reason to suspect you do not accept that physical science is grounded by pure reason, at least in its theoretical domain, which all science must be at some point. Whether the laws which justify our understanding of the world inhere in the world and are merely discovered, or are rationally determined a priori in response to the affect of the world on our sensibility, is sufficient to demonstrate the absolute necessity for pure reason with respect to the human’s ultimate seeking after knowledge.
Nevertheless, in a certain sense, you are correct, insofar as nothing whatsoever a consciously interactive human ever does, excepting pure reflex or sheer accident, is not immediately preceded by the thought of it, which is the epitome of reason and logic, however rational/irrational, logical/illogical it may be. — Mww
How would we ever know that we have simulated all natural phenomema?
It's a different question than asking if we could understand the model, isn't it? — Harry Hindu
sp. in other words could we hold all the ideas involved in an all encompassing model? I doubt it, but I think it's speculative either way.You're thinking too much like a scientist lol. I'm not considering any contingencies or potential unsurpassable technological barriers... just posing the question of whether the human mind has the potential to grasp an all-encompassing model. — staticphoton
sp. in other words could we hold all the ideas involved in an all encompassing model? I doubt it, but I think it's speculative either way — Coben
Then how about answering both questions as separate items? — Harry Hindu
So for you, "meaning" is only a causal mental phenomenon, but that doesn't seem to apply to how we commonly use the term, "meaning", or "means".I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.
But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."
Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part. — Terrapin Station
But the only answer you'd get would be your own associations you make with my pattern of word-use. You'd never understand my reasons - according to your view they would be your reasons.Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know. — Terrapin Station
I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same. — Terrapin Station
For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?", — Harry Hindu
There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. — staticphoton
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
By "everything in the universe" I meant the set of actual physical laws that govern the universe, so poor wording on my part. — staticphoton
As Popper convincingly showed, scientific theories, including those concerning "laws of nature" can never be deductively or empirically verified as either necessary or everlasting. — Janus
I think that if you label something as necessary (or not), you should also clarify what it is necessary for, that way we can be on the same page. — staticphoton
Everlasting... considering the only thing constant about scientific theories is that they keep evolving, everlasting is not something that particularly comes to mind when describing scientific theories. So I'm with you on that one. — staticphoton
In my opinion the scientific method is not a particularly exclusive choice for understanding the universe (mainly due to its self imposed limitations), and I don't for a minute believe the boundaries of reason are fenced by the scientific method. — staticphoton
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.