Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Magnus Anderson]

And yet here we are talking abot me.

Which means you're wrong when you say "I can't be represented by any symbol".

Maybe what you are doing is not representing "me"?

I am representing you.

When I say "You're a combination of atoms", I am representing you with the term "a combination of atoms".

A representation can either be accurate or inaccurate, but in each case, it is a representation.

In this case, it's an accurate representation. You can also be accurately represented with "Skepdick", "man", "human being", "forum member" and many other symbols.

But you can also be inaccurately represented. For example, you can be inaccurately represented with the word "unicorn" if by "unicorn" we mean "a horse with a horn on its forehead". Since you're not a horse at all, let alone one with a horn, the representation is an inaccurate one.

Sure, you can assign any meaning you want to any word you want, but once you use a word in a sentence, its meaning is set in stone and you can't change it. Whatever you meant by "unicorn" when you said "I am a unicorn" is what you meant by it. There is no changing the meaning of a spoken word. Next time you use the word "unicorn", you can give it a different meaning, but you can't go back to an earlier point in time and change what you meant when you said something.

Trying to change the meaning of a spoken word, or more specifically, trying to deceive people into thinking that a spoken word meant something other than what it really meant, is a word game. It's commonly used to save one's face, to preserve one's reputation. But it can also be used for any number of different reasons.

So, if you think that the fact that we can ascribe any meaning to any word before that word is spoken means that we can never inaccurately represent anything with any word, then you're wrong.

All you are demonstrating is that any symbol can stand in for any other symbol.
Any one word can be replaced by any other word.

Yes, but only BEFORE it is spoken / written / communicated / shared. After that event, its meaning is set in stone and you can't change it. ( You can only lie about it. )

You have to explain to us what meaning you attach to the word "symbolize".

Only after you explain what meaning you attach to the words "meaning", "explain" and "attach" without regressing into a vicious circularity.

Why do I have to do that? Are you saying that you don't understand what I mean by "meaning", "explain" and "attach"?

If you show me what you are representing with the symbol "meaning" then I'll know what you mean by "meaning" and then I can do what you ask of me.

The word "meaning" denotes the set of all things, both existent and non-existent, that can be represented with the associated symbol.

For example, the word "cat" has a concept attached to it that establishes that the word can only be used to represent physical objects that look certain way, You are not allowed to use it any other way without first changing the concept that is attached to it. As such, you can't use it to represent thing such as tables, chairs, trees, etc. Why? Because the attached concept prohibits it.

So many undefined symbols in your attempt to explain the meaning of "symbol"

You keep going backwards...

You aren't defining it. You are UNDEFINING it.

In other words, you understood nothing. But you don't want to put it that way. You just want to destroy any possibility of resolution.

[Skepdick]

And yet here we are talking abot me.

Which means you're wrong when you say "I can't be represented by any symbol".

No, I am not. Why did you leave the other part of what I said?

I can't be represented by a symbol, but I can be refered to by a symbol.

Maybe what you are doing is not representing "me"?

I am representing you.

OK. So so what does your word "you" represent ?

When I say "You're a combination of atoms", I am representing you with the term "a combination of atoms".

SO you are representing the word "you" with the words "a combination of atoms"?

What does "you" represent?

A representation can either be accurate or inaccurate, but in each case, it is a representation.

OK, but what is being represented by the representation?

In this case, it's an accurate representation. You can also be accurately represented with "Skepdick", "man", "human being", "forum member" and many other symbols.

That's so many contradictions in one sentence! I can't do this with you. Learn to communicate, manchild!

I can't be represented by ANY symbols.
I can't only be refered to WITH symbols.

But you can also be inaccurately represented.

If I can't be represented by ANY symbols then it trivially follows that ALL representations are inacurate. This needs not saying.

For example, you can be inaccurately represented with the word "unicorn" if by "unicorn" we mean "a horse with a horn on its forehead". Since you're not a horse at all, let alone one with a horn, the representation is an inaccurate one.

That makes no sense. Didn't we recently agree that words can represent anything?

Why can't I be represented by a "a horse with a horn on its forehead"?
If sentences can represent, then that sentence can represent ANYTHING.Even me.

But I can't be represented with symbols.
I can only be refered to with symbols.

So you are contradictins yourself.

Sure, you can assign any meaning you want to any word you want

So when are you going to tell us what meaning you've assigned to the word "meaning"?

but once you use a word in a sentence, its meaning is set in stone

What is the meaning of the word "meaning" that you "set in stone"?

and you can't change it.

Why not? If you can assign meaning to the term "meaning" then you can also re-assign meaning to the term "meaning".

Whatever you meant by "unicorn" when you said "I am a unicorn" is what you meant by it.

Whatever did you mean by "meaning"?

There is no changing the meaning of a spoken word.

OK, so tell me what you mean by "meaning". Set it in stone and lets see if that's true.

Trying to change the meaning of a spoken word, or more specifically, trying to deceive people into thinking that a spoken word meant something other than what it really meant, is a word game. It's commonly used to save one's face, to preserve one's reputation. But it can also be used for any number of different reasons.

Stop playing games. Set the meaning of "I" in stone. Define it! Define/represent yourself.

So, if you think that the fact that we can ascribe any meaning to any word before that word is spoken means that we can never inaccurately represent anything with any word, then you're wrong.

Sorry. I can't navigate around your viciously circular reasoning.

What is being represented as an "accurate representation" here?

What is "accurate" about the representation "I"? It's just a fucking letter!

Yes, but only BEFORE it is spoken / written / communicated / shared. After that event, its meaning is set in stone and you can't change it. ( You can only lie about it. )

BEFORE it is spoken/written/communicated/shared bt WHOM?

If somebody in 2500 BC set the meaning of "unicorn" in stone, and now you are using it differently to them - are you lying about what "unicorn" means?

Why do I have to do that? Are you saying that you don't understand what I mean by "meaning", "explain" and "attach"?

No, I am saying that you can't explain what you mean by "meaning".

The word "meaning" denotes the set of all things, both existent and non-existent, that can be represented with the associated symbol.

Woah! Woah! Woah! Woah!!!!! How do you denote non-existence ?

To denote a non-existence is for something that doesn't exist to CAUSE a denotation to exist.

Nothing can't cause something. That's a contradiction.

Why do I have to keep explaining that to you?

For example, the word "cat" has a concept attached to it that establishes that the word can only be used to represent physical objects that look certain way, You are not allowed to use it any other way without first changing the concept that is attached to it. As such, you can't use it to represent thing such as tables, chairs, trees, etc. Why? Because the attached concept prohibits it.

What are you representing with the symbol "prohibits"? I don't understand.

In other words, you understood nothing. But you don't want to put it that way. You just want to destroy any possibility of resolution.

Resolution? You don't want any resolution, you muppet.

You just want to ignore all of your contradictions.

[Magnus Anderson]

Read the entire post before responding to it, moron.

To denote a non-existence is for something that doesn't exist to CAUSE a denotation to exist.

No. That's your own delusion.

[Skepdick]

Read the entire post before responding to it, moron.

To denote a non-existence is for something that doesn't exist to CAUSE a denotation to exist.

No. That's your own delusion.

Not mine. Yours. You want me to read your ENTIRE post while you nit-pick symbols? You fucking imbecille.

What caused you to denote something which doesn't exist?

[Magnus Anderson]

What caused you to denote something which doesn't exist?

Do you ever get tired?

[Skepdick]

What caused you to denote something which doesn't exist?

Do you ever get tired?

Do you ever acknowledge error?

[Magnus Anderson]

I can't be represented by a symbol

Prove it.

[Skepdick]

I can't be represented by a symbol

Prove it.

Logic. Law of identity.

A representation of me is not me.

Q.E.D

[Magnus Anderson]

A representation of me is not me.

You can be a symbol too.

A symbol is a portion of reality that is used by someone to communicate something to someone else ( even if that someone else is that someone's future self. )

If I wanted to, I could use you as a symbol. I could, for example, say that Skepdick is a symbol that can only be used to represent horses that have a horn. In that case, whenever I point at you, that would mean that I am saying something about horses that have a horn.

But I could also expand the definition of the symbol that is you to include such things as yourself. I could say, "Skepdick is a symbol that can only be used to represent horses that have a horn and Skepdick himself". That would make you a homological symbol, i.e. the kind of symbol that can represent itself. A well-known example would be the word "word".

So the above isn't strictly true. But it is true in the sense that a representation of you that isn't homological is not you. That's true but it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because "You can be represented by symbol S" does not mean "You are symbol S". A symbol does not have to be identical to the symbolized -- it does not even have to resemble it in any way, shape or form -- in order to be able to represent it.

People who think otherwise are recovering naive realists. All anti-realists are recovering naive realists.

[Skepdick]

A representation of me is not me.

You can be a symbol too.

Exact same reasoning. Law of identity.

I can't be anything other than myself.
Therefore I am NOT a symbol.

If I wanted to, I could use you as a symbol. I could, for example, say that Skepdick is a symbol that can only be used to represent horses that have a horn. In that case, whenever I point at you, that would mean that I am saying something about horses that have a horn.

I have no idea what you are saying.

I am not a symbol.
"Skepdick" is a symbol.

Are you confusing words for reality again?

But I could also expand the definition of the symbol that is you to include such things as yourself. I could say, "Skepdick is a symbol that can only be used to represent horses that have a horn and Skepdick himself". That would make you a homological symbol, i.e. the kind of symbol that can represent itself. A well-known example would be the word "word".

So the above isn't strictly true. But it is true in the sense that a representation of you that isn't homological is not you. That's true but it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because "You can be represented by symbol S" does not mean "You are symbol S". A symbol does not have to be identical to the symbolized -- it does not even have to resemble it in any way, shape or form -- in order to be able to represent it.

People who think otherwise are recovering naive realists. All anti-realists are recovering naive realists.

You are a not-so-recovering logocentrist.

"Logocentrism" is a term coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the early 1900s.[1] It refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality.

[Magnus Anderson]

I can't be anything other than myself.
Therefore I am NOT a symbol.

That's a pretty bad application of the law of identity.

If you're a symbol, that does not mean you're not yourself.

I have no idea what you are saying.

That might be the problem.

I am not a symbol.
"Skepdick" is a symbol.

You can be turned into a symbol.

Absolutely anything can be turned into a symbol.

Are you confusing words for reality again?

No, you're just not paying attention. You're too lazy.

[Skepdick]

That's a pretty bad application of the law of identity.

If you're a symbol, that does not mean you're not yourself.

You can be turned into a symbol.

That's pretty bad comprehension of logic.

If I can be turned INTO a symbol.
Then I am NOT a symbol.

You are transforming me into something other than what I am.

[Magnus Anderson]

If I can be turned INTO a symbol.
Then I am NOT a symbol.

You're not a symbol in the present moment. But you can be a symbol in the future moment.

You are transforming me into something other than what I am.

Not really.

If you change your profession, do you stop being Skepdick?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conceptualising abstract concepts is a human skill that is natural.
Whilst you can build frameworks to examine them, the they are prior.

Simply consdier.
Meat and potatoes are differnt things, but huamsn have had a concept of "food" without any need for a framework.

Yes, humans conceptualizes, perceives, knows and describes things based on specific human based Frameworks and system.

I think you are a contrarian for the sake of it.

Before the above, there is a prior process of 'realization' via a Framework and System of Realization [FSR]
Before meat and potatoes are conceptualized as "food" they must be 'realized' as real within a Framework and System of Realization [FSR].

duh no.

This FSR is too complex for you to understand because you are blinded by the obvious view of a mind-independent reality [Hume 'condemned'] which is fundamentally illusory albeit critically necessary.

You have just massively contrdicted yourself.
You have responded to abstract conceptss that I have used.
THen you insist that anstract concepts cannot exist without a fomral FSR.
Then you say I am too stupid too complex for you..
Fuck off silly boy.

As usual you don't have anything substantial to respond.
Seriously, suggest you read this re Hume;

Fictions of the Imagination
Fictions in Hume’s Science of Man
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5a
The “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5b
The Philosophical Fiction of Double Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5c
The Philosophical Fiction of an Underlying Substance
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5d

[Iwannaplato]

If I can be turned INTO a symbol.
Then I am NOT a symbol.

You're not a symbol in the present moment. But you can be a symbol in the future moment.

You are transforming me into something other than what I am.

Not really.

If you change your profession, do you stop being Skepdick?

At what point has one changed to not be the same? If you marry, have kids and change jobs, are you the same person/thing?
If our relations have nothing to do with identity (and I don't mean aren't signs of who we are) then we are like objects.
Along the lines of the Doctrine of Internal Relations

The doctrine of internal relations is the philosophical doctrine that all relations are internal to their bearers, in the sense that they are essential to them and the bearers would not be what they are without them.

Perhaps that doctrine is going too far.
Though I think the terror of exile and shunning in traditional societies in the past shows that most of us at least think it is a matter of degree.