So when you say that ‘paintings and visual arts don’t mean anything because only words have meaning’, in my opinion you are trying to contain the meaning of all your experiences to a particular value structure that you believe to be universal (ie. words) - and so anything that cannot be contained within words is declared ‘meaningless’. — Possibility

Yes, exactly! And No, completely!!! I'm saying, again, I'm not sure, that "meaning" means words. Paintings are not insignificant, or unimportant, they just don't mean anything. And that's the frustration of not having defined "meaning" back at the beginning.

So let's do it now:

• What is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
• The definition of a word
• The thing one intends to convey especially by language
• Significant quality
• Something intended
• The logical connotation of a word or phrase
• Importance or value
• What something expresses or represents
• The thing, action, feeling, idea, etc. that a word or words represent
• The special importance or purpose of something

Some phrases:

• The meaning of life
• What's the meaning of this?!!!
• What do you mean?
• What does this word mean?
• What does Hegal mean when he talks about "desein?"

None of this seems particularly satisfying to me.

At least you can disagree without being disagreeable. — Noah Te Stroete

@s is a sweet little red spotted toad. He used to be mean. Now he's cute and nice.

Also - I am perfectly capable of being disagreeable.

Have you met S? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you.

I tend to value @Andrew4Handeland @JosephS’s insights. That’s my persuasion. However, @S would say that I am a wishful thinker.

By the way, go fuck yourself, S. Piece of shit. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, @S and I are close personal friends. And yes, he is a piece of shit.

Although, in this situation, I'm not sure how that matters. I don't question @JosephS's and @Andrew4Handel's approach to this because I am a crusty old materialist. I just think their romantic views distract from a serious understanding of what is going on.

And it is a mystery because, as opposed to -- gravity, economics, sociology or psychology -- our self awareness resists an explanatory reduction. — JosephS

I disagree. Again, it's nothing mysterious. It's only not fully understood. The scientific tools for looking at it closely are relatively new. Our self-experience and self-importance clouds our perceptions and understanding.

“Meaning” has different meanings according to different contexts/uses. A lot of differing opinions in this thread, and I suspect that is due to the different contexts/uses. Most if not all of the posts give “true” accounts of meaning (or meaninglessness). We just have to be humble enough to acknowledge that our posts may not exhaust the meaning of “meaning.” — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, although I was also whining in frustration that poor definition of terms has made this discussion less productive than it could have been.

I'm trying to interpret this in a way which is not grossly misspoken.

I understand that there have been efforts to de-emphasize the nature of consciousness (qualia), suggesting that it is illusory. I am not a researcher in the field but have an abiding interest in the topic and looking to my personal library have books I own and read (pop science all) from Dennett, Ramachandran, Pinker, Churchland, Tononi, LeDoux and Penrose. Now, as a layman, I find it very hard to swallow that all of these words (and so many more) have been written regarding a topic which is 'no great mystery'.

Is there a means to interpret your glib reflection on the topic that would jibe with my experience that it is one of, if not the, central mysteries of human existence? — JosephS

Science is full of subjects that are under study but which are not fully understood. Consciousness is one of those. It's not a "mystery," it's a subject that requires further study. I think an understanding of consciousness seems to be much more important than it really is because it is so close to home for all of us. It is right at the heart of how we see ourselves. Things that are about us seem more significant. We want to believe our innermost, intimate experiences are mysterious.

Would you argue that any form of representation has meaning (including art, photographs, etc.)? — Noah Te Stroete

That was the point I was trying to make at the museum. As I indicated, I'm not sure it's true. This is one of the questions that is hard to get a handle on because the terms of the discussion - the meaning of the word "meaning" - are not well defined.

Other disciplines, unrelated to physics, also successfully use statistics. Hence, physics uses statistics. — alcontali

Yes, of course. I overstated my point for emphasis. What I was trying to get across is that my understanding of how the physical universe works is closely related to my understanding of how statistics works. As I said, statistics is not just an empty structure we fill in, it has it's own meanings.

A major question considered in mathematical Platonism is: Precisely where and how do the mathematical entities exist, and how do we know about them? Is there a world, completely separate from our physical one, that is occupied by the mathematical entities? How can we gain access to this separate world and discover truths about the entities? One proposed answer is the Ultimate Ensemble, a theory that postulates that all structures that exist mathematically also exist physically in their own universe. — alcontali

It's always struck me that there is only one place for those mathematical entities to exist - the mind of God. A belief in Platonic ideals and a belief in God are equivalent.

NB. All the above will remain 'meaningless' to you unless it triggers 'an intention to act' in you, e.g. to follow up the references. If you stick to the futile quest of 'defining meaning', it means we have mererly engaged in a bit of social dancing which seems to be the principal activity of 'philosophers'. — fresco

Well, your explication triggered an intention to act on my part. Maybe I'll come back to ask questions after I've checked your references.

Math is "meaningless", i.e. devoid of semantics, because it only seeks to deal with syntax, i.e. the bureaucracy of formalisms that govern the abstract, Platonic world of mathematics. — alcontali

Sure, I guess, maybe. Maybe not entirely. I don't believe that the universe is, somehow, mathematics as some do, but ever since I started learning how to express ideas mathematically in high school, my understanding of reality has had a strong mathematical flavor. Change is calculus. Physics is statistics. Math is not all form and no content.

The best I can offer is what all attribution of meaning consists of and/or requires. According to current convention, all theories of meaning presuppose symbolism.

So...

At a bare minimum, all attribution of meaning(all meaning) requires something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing a mental correlation, association, and/or connection between the two. — creativesoul

Last week a friend and I visited the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston. We got in an interesting discussion with one of the guides there. I said, although I'm not certain it's true, that paintings and other visual arts don't mean anything because only words have meaning. She and my friend disagreed.

Do you agree?

All the things you say are true. My point is that none of these things is unknown in the sense that the nature of dark energy or the existence of extra-terrestrial life is unknown.

...and you think/believe that I've not? — creativesoul

I don't think you were clear enough laying out what you were trying to say. I was confused. The discussion was muddled.

There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap. — Andrew4Handel

I think that's what I don't get. What's the big deal? What explanatory gap? If you have trouble grasping how the mechanics and electronics of our minds turn into feelings, perceptions, and thoughts, that doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. Do you doubt that deer or chimpanzees have most of those same experiences? Do you think chimps see images in their minds? Do sheep have movies playing in their heads the way we do? Seems likely to me they do. And that isn't consciousness, it's just awareness. Consciousness is something added on top of that.

Or one sense that covers/exhausts them all... — creativesoul

No doubt that all the aspects of "meaning" I mentioned have something in common. It's not as if all the meanings of "meaning" are unrelated. But still, I think getting our words right at the beginning is important.

You seem to be using the word "meaning" in at least three different senses:

• Meaning as the definition of a word
• Meaning as the interpretation of a set of ideas
• Meaning as significance.

They all seem to get mashed up together. I think things would have been clearer if you had defined your term better at the beginning.

Hmm, were reaching peak plasma concentrations of fermented grapes, I see. — Wallows

This paragraph from "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues"

This sentence is made of lead (and a sentence of lead gives a reader an entirely different sensation from one made of magnesium). This sentence is made of yak wool. This sentence is made of sunlight and plums. This sentence is made of ice. This sentence is made from the blood of the poet. This sentence was made in Japan. This sentence glows in the dark. This sentence was born with a caul. This sentence has a crush on Norman Mailer. This sentence is a wino and doesn't care who knows it. Like many italic sentences, this one has Mafia connections. This sentence is a double Cancer with a Pisces rising. This sentence lost its mind searching for the perfect paragraph. This sentence refuses to be diagrammed. This sentence ran off with an adverb clause. This sentence is 100 percent organic: it will not retain a facsimile of freshness like those sentences of Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe et al., which are loaded with preservatives. This sentence leaks. This sentence doesn't look Jewish... This sentence has accepted Jesus Christ as its personal savior. This sentence once spit in a book reviewer's eye. This sentence can do the funky chicken. This sentence has seen too much and forgotten too little. This sentence is called "Speedoo" but its real name is Mr. Earl. This sentence may be pregnant. This sentence suffered a split infinitive - and survived. If this sentence has been a snake you'd have bitten it. This sentence went to jail with Clifford Irving. This sentence went to Woodstock. And this little sentence went wee wee wee all the way home.

Somebody stop me please. @Baden, ban me before someone gets hurt.

"Hill Street Blues," that neutrino there (no, not that one, the one right next to it), metaphors, the word "equanimity," sticking your hands in fans for fun, money, consciousness, the Tao, chump change, giggle - the word and the act, "Ancillary Justice," verisimilitude, Lech Walesa, flapjacks, getting old, penises, blood cells, the New York Stock Exchange, not working, sex, ratiocination, Mohs' scale, peace, waking up from a bad dream and realizing you didn't skip class all semester and you don't have final exams, ridiculous lists of random wonderful things. More to come?

the person who responds to calamity and disaster and loss and abandonment wiht a shrug on his shoulder — god must be atheist

That's not right. It's acceptance, not indifference.

happiness occurs when a chance event turns out to be more rewarding than expected. — god must be atheist

I don't think that's right either.

I wonder how much of happiness is a matter of temperament. Some's got it and some's don't. A whole lot of people on this forum don't. Western philosophy and culture - religion - don't provide a clear route to peace, although I'm sure many would disagree. Philosophy doesn't tend to draw happy people.

Going off on a tangent, I believe that Confucianism is the philosophy that leads one to the sanest and equanimous society, which then leads to happiness and joy. — Wallows

The word I use when I think about happiness is "peace." Buddhists talk about an end to suffering. I guess a Christian would talk about grace. I think those are in the same neighborhood as equanimity. And, yes, not the same as happiness, but as you seem to indicate, a prerequisite.

To me, happiness is taking pleasure from the world. That's why being at peace is so important - bad things are going to happen. That doesn't mean that the world is not a wonderful place. It's so neat. Fun. Funny. All those quarks swirling around, gravity waves, sex, people, corned beef sandwiches, cognitive dissonance, plaster, Robert Crumb, "Heart of Darkness," @TimeLine, natural selection, the letter "q," my friends Richard and Gail, sex, gnomes, philosophy, a galaxy far far away, pudding, me, myself, I, the word "geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung," death. Most of all, my children.

I forget, did I mention sex?

That was Dora, not Leonora. — frank

I looked them both up. Leonora was much cooler.

It strikes me that any artistic endeavor where the meaning comes first and the work follows along later is likely to be unsatisfying. I like surrealism. It's fun to look at and interesting to try to understand the culture it grew up in and the philosophy behind it. But I've never been moved by any surrealistic art.

I noticed that often when I appeal to common sense, people will want some background reference, or statistical or other evidence to support an opinion. — god must be atheist

I have to assert here that these demands by other users strike me as odd. If I make an opinion, why do I need to cite statistical evidence, or by a quotation from a by me critiqued classic thinker, once I show my opinion reasonable by either logic, or by applying common sense. These demands are baffling for me, and perhaps the reason they come is the way I present my stances: maybe my opinions come across as stated facts. — god must be atheist

Some, many, most? discussions on the forum are built from poorly presented facts, undefined or poorly defined terms, and unsubstantiated claims. I don't mean this as a reference to you. Expecting people to clearly state their positions and the basis for them is not unreasonable. It's at the heart of what philosophy is. As for common sense - it's just one of those phrases like "a priori" or "self-evident" that are most accurately translated as "seems to me."

What kind of success do you believe consciousness studies have had? — Andrew4Handel

There are hundreds of neuroscience studies about the nature, scope, behavioral effects, and experience of consciousness. These have gotten more specific and detailed with the development of cognitive science techniques - PET scans, MRIs. Specific brain activity can be associated with specific mind activity - memory, emotion, thought, perception. This information has been used to try to understand the functional processes that go to make up consciousness. The one source I can steer you toward is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. I don't like the book much and I'm not sure if I buy his conclusions, but I found it a very plausible example of what a neuroscience description of consciousness might look like.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. (Chalmers 1995: 212)

I copied this out of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is David Chalmers's description of the "hard problem of consciousness," which I guess is why people think that consciousness is such a mystery. I must admit I don't get it. To me, this seems like an old Cheech and Chong routine. Two stoned guys who are overwhelmed and awed by the taste of Doritos and the music of the Grateful Dead.

This is an artist's statement from one of Leonora Carrington's exhibitions. It's a soft and kindly "fuck you with all your machinations." — frank

And the point is.....?

Denying that the application of neural networks to data is science is rather arbitrary, it's just often bad science, where people use the algorithms instead of thinking. — fdrake

Which is, as I noted earlier, also very true of other kinds of statistical modeling.

For example I cannot know how many grains of sand are on a beach or how many stars are in the universe — Andrew4Handel

This is not true. I just looked up an estimate on the web that says there are 1 EE 21 stars. It would be relatively easy to figure out the number of grains of sand on a beach - do an accurate survey of the surface. Figure out the bottom of the sand layer using test pits or seismic geophysics. Measure the average specific gravity of the grains and porosity of the sand using geotechnical methods. Then calculate the number of grains. Of course our estimates will have significant uncertainty, but knowledge we use every day does too.

However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns — Andrew4Handel

You are mixing up types of things here, making for a sloppy argument.

• The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery.
• Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement.
• As for God, I think that's a funny mixture of both fact and metaphysics.
• I guess ditto for the afterlife.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, which is all we can do if we want to choose, which often we must, such as to go or not to church. Tough to sit on a fence, but it seems that's what has to be done, as agnostic. — PoeticUniverse

I assume we are talking about Richard Dawkins. I don't know what his basis for the 1 in a quadrillion probability is, but he is a notorious shill for atheism. His hatred for religion overshadows every statement he makes on the subject. I write this as someone who has no particular religious beliefs.

I think the only things that are impossible are logical contradictions.

There are things that will probably never happen but are not ruled out by the current laws of physics.

A square circle is definitionally impossible. But a a massive square is not impossible but may be physically implausible — Andrew4Handel

I think I agree that nothing is impossible when it comes to whatever reality exists outside our minds. As for logical contradictions, they aren't possible or impossible. Logic is just a method for manipulating symbols. And the possibility of a squared circle is just a matter of definition - a circle is the set of points in two dimensions equidistant from a single point. A square is a four-sided, two-dimensional geometrical figure with four straight, equal sides and four equal angles. Saying you can't square the circle is like saying you can't dog the cat.

Who are we talking about? — Michael

@Baden - didn't you hear, he finally banned himself.

Sometimes we say that we're cold, meaning we feel cold. Other times we say it's cold, meaning that something feels cold. This can vary from individual to individual. Three people are in the same room. One says it's hot, another that it feels cold, and a third that it's just fine. And this can vary for an individual. You got outside into the hot sun and then come back into the room, and now it feels cool when it was warm before.

This sort of perceptual relativity was one of the things that motivated the ancient skeptics. — Marchesk

Is this really the source of any confusion? If I say "I'm cold." You generally know I mean "I feel cold." If I pick up a beer or if I'm outside and say "It's cold, I generally mean the temperature of the beer or the air is below about 40 degrees F. Just because there's a lot of play about whether to use 40 degrees F or 32 degrees F, doesn't mean there's really any confusion. People in Florida may think it's cold when it's 50 degrees while people in Alaska are running around in short sleeves when it's 35.

Instead, one could adopt the language of I'm cold, and say I'm sweetened upon eating a ripe orange, or I'm reddened upon seeing a red apple. — Marchesk

I'm not sweet, the orange is. I don't feel sweet, I taste something sweet. I'm not red, the apple is. I don't feel red, I see something red. I guess I don't get the point you're trying to get across.

big data means anyone can find fake statistical relationships, since the spurious rises to the surface. This is because in large data sets, large deviations are vastly more attributable to variance (or noise) than to information (or signal). It’s a property of sampling: In real life there is no cherry-picking, but on the researcher’s computer, there is. Large deviations are likely to be bogus. — alcontali

I'm fine with this. I have no trouble believing that many, most?, predictive models generated using data mining are spurious, but that ought to be self-correcting. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. I use simple statistics at my work on a regular basis. I know enough about the methods to understand how easy it is to misunderstand and misuse them and how unsophisticated my understanding is. @fdrake is our resident statistician. When he explains some of the intricacies of a statistical analysis I can see three things - 1) he knows what he's talking about, 2) I don't, and more significantly 3) most scientists and other professional data users are more like me than him.

Spurious statistics have been around for a long time.

Not all predictive modelling is inaccurate. Still, the mere ability to predict future values should not be included in the definition of scientific method. — alcontali

I would say that, if I can generate predictions of the behavior of complex systems on a consistent basis, i.e. significantly better than chance, I have applied a method that models the actual real-world conditions that lead to that behavior. Keep in mind I am talking about an expansive view of what constitutes a model. I don't just mean a complex numerical computer model that allows predictions of the behavior of complex phenomena. "F = ma" is a model.

Let's examine the cartoon version of the scientific method:

• Observe the phenomena I am interested in. Collect data.
• Based on that data, generate hypotheses that might explain my observations.
• Test my hypothesis empirically. Make more observations. Perform experiments.
• Use the data collected to verify or falsify my hypotheses.
• Repeat as needed.

What you call "predictive modeling" I call "generating hypotheses." The discussion of Einstein and the eclipse of Mercury is a good example of this.

The scientific method should only cover experimental testing. You must be freely able to choose the input I to feed into the theory F in order to receive output O, i.e. O = F(I). In other words, we must demand that the experimental tester demonstrates causality. He must be able to change I in order to produce changes in O. — alcontali

No. The theory that you feed your input into is a model just as much as the technical analysis of stock markets you decry.

Especially in the current climate of rampant scientism, it is a necessity to deny scientific status to as much predictivity-seeking activity as possible. Denying scientific status to mere predictive modelling neatly expels activities such as stock-price prediction out of the epistemic domain of science. — alcontali

Although no one has mentioned it, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop - using your argument to undermine the credibility of climate science.

Agreed, but charlatans, such as the ones in the stock market, must not be able to repurpose that capacity to claim scientific status. Most physics is obviously beyond reproach. — alcontali

If it works, they're not charlatans. I doubt they care whether you are willing to designate what they do as science. If it doesn't work, they are good scientists with more work to do, bad scientists, pseudo-scientists, or maybe, as you indicate, charlatans.

Only a part of my mind is philosophical. Another part wants to gossip. There may be several different personalities instantiated in my single brain, and right now the personality that wants to beat the guy while he’s down (probably because of a personal slight) is at the fore. Don’t ruin our fun! — Noah Te Stroete

A number of people have been banned whom I like and have enjoyed being on the forum with. I won't argue the need, but we shouldn't gloat. Let it rest.

Self-important windbag. — Wayfarer

Hey, if you get rid of all the self-important windbags, there'll be no one left, except me and @S. Personally, I consider myself an important windbag. As for S, he reduced his presence by almost 90% when he changed his name. I guess that makes him a self-effacing windbag.

On a more serious note, the moderators do what the moderators do. This is a good forum and they get a lot of the credit. Banning people for the good of the forum is, I guess, necessary. But gloating over it - speaking ill of the banned - is unbecoming and pointless. A gracious silence or a bit of regret would be more philosophical.

If I answer the question correctly, can I join Mensa?

I was waiting for that. You didn't disappoint.
But who was Popeye, really ? — Amity

Of course I was joking, but not completely. First - Popeye's explanation is as good as any of the others presented here. Second - It underscores how philosophy obscures things that are right out in the open. And third - I like to remind everyone how cute and funny I am.

“I AM WHAT I AM.” — Comite invisible

This is nothing new. This issue was fully addressed by that great American philosopher P.T.S. Mann in the 1930s.

So, who are you ? — Amity

So, who is T Clark? Let's see:

• At a far distance, he is, just as we all are, and, as BC has noted, as everything else is too, an illusion.
• A little closer to home - the T Clark that can be spoken is not the eternal T Clark.
• In that same vein, we can just point to him, as if he were the moon.
• Closer yet - As you might guess, being who he is a pain in the ass. Do you think anyone would be this way on purpose? When he was 13, he realized that it wasn't going to get any better, so he'd better get used to it.
• He's tried, to be a good, normal person. Tried and tried and tried. As much as anyone I've known, he is what he seems to be. What you see is what you get. This is him, right here, no, over here. Look at him damn it.
• Ok, now. Right up close. He is his own experience of himself which, of course, is an illusion. So we're back where we started.
• Also, the 2017 winner of the Nobel Prize in Skitsnack, which he shared with @Bitter Crank. No money. No trip to Stockholm. The citation read "What a couple of assholes." According to Google, the Swedish word for "asshole" is "asshole. Who says America hasn't contributed anything to world culture other than Bob Dylan.

There's no trick to this. There's no big mystery. That's what philosophy is all about - making the simplest things in the world complicated and mysterious.

I'll now say that the Nobel Committee was full of Swedish shit — Bitter Crank

I looked it up - skitsnack. I don't have any real objection to giving Dylan high accolades, even the Nobel Prize in songwriting. But it's not lichchurchur. I can't believe there's not some great Malawian poet or Thai novelist who deserves the recognition before the committee stretches the definition to allow entry to an American celebrity.

Hey, wait a minute - I just remembered - Dylan is from Minneapolis, isn't he! Always rooting for the hometown boy.