attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:11 pm
"Understand" - I am not sure we can continue to BOTHER conversing using language if you see it as meaningless.
In fact, what to you does it MEAN LESS than?
This is called a strawman. I don't think I am going to engage it beyond the minimum necessity.
Spoken language is for communication. Not ontology. Ontology is for ontology. In the context of ontology "consciousness" is meaningless until you have an ontological model for consciousness.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:11 pm
"Understand" - I am not sure we can continue to BOTHER conversing using language if you see it as meaningless.
In fact, what to you does it MEAN LESS than?
This is called a strawman. I don't think I am going to engage it beyond the minimum necessity.
Language is for communication. Not ontology. Ontology is for ontology. In the context of ontology "consciousness" is meaningless.
Can you make the word become the thing? That's physics/engineering, not language.
It's by no means a strawman. You ARE stating that language is meaningless. One cannot address the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence without some form of communication - between each other and to ones self...it requires using language.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:19 pm
It's by no means a strawman. You ARE stating that language is meaningless. One cannot address the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence without some form of communication - between each other and to ones self...using language.
And you are the one who's tripping up over me saying it, and ignoring the problem of ontology.
There are descriptive uses of language and prescriptive uses of language.
Realizing an engineering design is prescriptive use of language. We prescribe ontologies, by turning a bunch of atoms into a thing we call 'transistor'.
Much like if we are to re-create consciousness, we would have to arrange a bunch of matter into a thing we would identify as 'consciousness'
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:19 pm
It's by no means a strawman. You ARE stating that language is meaningless. One cannot address the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence without some form of communication - between each other and to ones self...using language.
And you are the one who's tripping up over me saying it, and ignoring the problem of ontology.
There are descriptive uses of language and prescriptive uses of language.
Realizing an engineering design is prescriptive use of language. We prescribe ontologies, by turning a bunch of atoms into a thing we call 'transistor'.
Much like if we are to re-create consciousness, we would turn a bunch of atoms into 'consciousness'
So you under_stand that language has meaning - a purpose?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:23 pm
So you under_stand that language has meaning - a purpose?
You are equivocating 'meaning'.
To the person who writes the words - there is some meaning. Even if that meaning is only intent.
To the person who reads the words - no meaning can be inferred unless an intent can be inferred also.
What is the purpose of the sentence "Hurgen wurgen shmurgen"?
This is rock-bottom of philosophy. Can we just assume nihilism and move on? Everything is meaningless, except the meaning we ascribe to it.
It's ultimately a simple case of requiring definitions - translation. If you put that into a compiler you'd get an error, unless the programmer of the compiler had attributed some logic to correctly compile it to binary in the desired way - similar goes for someone learning a new language.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:30 pm
It's ultimately a simple case of requiring definitions - translation. If you put that into a compiler you'd get an error, unless the programmer of the compiler had attributed some logic to correctly compile it to binary in the desired way - similar goes for someone learning a new language.
OK! So lets use the programming/programmer/compiler analogy. What is the meaning of a computer program written in Assembler/Bytecode/Punch card?
There are two schools of semantics. Operational semantics and denotational semantics.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:30 pm
It's ultimately a simple case of requiring definitions - translation. If you put that into a compiler you'd get an error, unless the programmer of the compiler had attributed some logic to correctly compile it to binary in the desired way - similar goes for someone learning a new language.
OK! So lets use the programming/programmer/compiler analogy. What is the meaning of a computer program written in Assembler/Bytecode/Punch card?
There are two schools of semantics. Operational semantics and denotational semantics.
I am trying to adhere to operational semantics. Denotational semantics are just grammar/syntax.
This is what I am trying to suck out of you! The words you used is that language is MEANINGLESS -Meaning Less than what? to you what is above language that us mere humans typically converse in?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:35 pm
This is what I am trying to suck out of you! The words you used is that language is MEANINGLESS - to you what is above language that us mere humans typically converse in?
Denotational semantics are meaningless. They reduce down to grammar! Philosophical language games/linguistics.
Operational semantics are meaningful.
They MEAN LESS than the concepts that gave birth to that language.
Which only leaves us with the problem of "How do you externalise/manifest your concepts into reality?"
Language is only one way.
Engineering is another.
Painting.
Drawing.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:35 pm
This is what I am trying to suck out of you! The words you used is that language is MEANINGLESS - to you what is above language that us mere humans typically converse in?
Denotational semantics are meaningless. They reduce down to grammar! Philosophical language games/linguistics.
Operational semantics are meaningful.
They MEAN LESS than the concepts that gave birth to that language.
Which only leaves us with the problem of "How do you externalise/manifest your concepts into reality?"
Language is only one way.
Engineering is another.
Painting.
Drawing.
Creating!
I'll tell you what they MEAN LESS than - the etymology that they are supposed to have arrived from.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:40 pm
I'll tell you what they MEAN LESS than - the etymology that they are supposed to have arrived from.
Etymology is not prescriptive. How a word evolved needs not be the way I use it.
In fact. I have the habit of adjusting my language to my interlocutor. So if I say X to you it may mean something different than me saying X to somebody else.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:40 pm
I'll tell you what they MEAN LESS than - the etymology that they are supposed to have arrived from.
Etymology is not prescriptive. How a word evolved needs not be the way I use it.
I have a question.
Suppose I asked 1000 people to toss a coin - all the coin have heads and tails.
I state, that at least 90% of those coins will result in tails, because God exists, and 'it' will make it so.
Well over 900 of the coins turn up tails.
Is this any form of evidence? If so what is it called? Statistical by some account..
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:46 pm
I have a question.
Suppose I asked 1000 people to toss a coin - all the coin have heads and tails.
I state, that at least 90% of those coins will result in tails, because God exists, and 'it' will make it so.
Well over 900 of the coins turn up tails.
Is this any form of evidence? If so what is it called? Statistical by some account..
Not to me. "God" is whatever made your coins biased.
But this too is my bias speaking. I EXPECT the coin to be fair. And I EXPECT that there be some explanation for why they aren't.
Whatever that explanation is becomes "God"
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:46 pm
I have a question.
Suppose I asked 1000 people to toss a coin - all the coin have heads and tails.
I state, that at least 90% of those coins will result in tails, because God exists, and 'it' will make it so.
Well over 900 of the coins turn up tails.
Is this any form of evidence? If so what is it called? Statistical by some account..
Not to me. "God" is whatever made your coin biased.
Let's say we can determine there was no bias. - hang on if God made the coin biased - then there is GOD!
