Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:47 pm Logic, mathematics, and language do not exist ontologically (materially or physically).

You just said that they do.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:03 pm Programs are physical

Do you deny the fact that me uttering the English phrase "Google, turn on the lights" is the direct cause of the lights in my house actually turning on?

If my language does not exist materially/physically/ontologically, then how the fuck did the light turn on?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:53 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:03 pm Programs are physical as implemented in physical memory and digital logic, but the programming language only has meaning to human consciousness.

That can't be true. I just told my home automation system to turn on the lights in my living room.

It understood exactly what I mean. So my words have a consequential/empirically verifiable effect on reality.

That's like - real. Or something?

If you think a machine programmed to respond to certain sounds is understanding a language you do not know what a language is. Just because they call methods of programming digital devices, "language," does not mean they are languages in the epistemological sense. They call some computer problems "bugs." Do you really think they are insects?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:53 pm If you think a machine programmed to respond to certain sounds is understanding a language you do not know what a language is.

Which is precisely why I asked the ontological question. And I observe that you dodged it.

If the meaning of my words is not ontological, then what caused the lights to turn on?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:03 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:47 pm Logic, mathematics, and language do not exist ontologically (materially or physically).

You just said that they do.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:03 pm Programs are physical

Do you deny the fact that me uttering the English phrase "Google, turn on the lights" is the direct cause of the lights in my house actually turning on?

If my language does not exist materially/physically/ontologically, then how the fuck did the light turn on?

It wasn't your language, it was certain sounds the digital output of an A to D converter was programmed to respond to. When language is used to communicate it is the meaning of the words that are communicated. Your Google program does not know the meaning of a single word you uttered and could have been programmed to perform the same function using the sounds, "wimee, dimee, wappa, doppa," which are sounds with no meaning whatsoever, and no language.

[An A to D converter changes an analog signal (sound) to a digital output so it can be processed by a digital processor. The digital processor in voice controlled devices is programmed to respond to certain digital values represented by the output of the D to A converter. The same method is used in all voice controlled and communication devices, like your cell phone. In the case of the cell phone the digital information is transmitted, along with other digital information in the form of packets of data. At the receiving end, the other information in the packet is stripped off and the digital information representing the sound is sent to D to A converter (digital to analog) to produce the sound. During the whole process, there is no language.]

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:58 pm Which is precisely why I asked the ontological question. And I observe that you dodged it.

I'm sorry, I did not see the previous post. Please see what will now be my previous post.

I've programmed these things, by the way, and have been involved in their design.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:15 pm When language is used to communicate it is the meaning of the words that are communicated.

Begging the question. What do you think the English sentence "Turn on the lights" means then?

Is it not the intention behind the words which give them meaning?

If the intention behind the words is not the meaning of those words, then I guess it begs another question: What is meaning?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:15 pm [An A to D converter changes an analog signal (sound) to a digital output so it can be processed by a digital processor. The digital processor in voice controlled devices is programmed to respond to certain digital values represented by the output of the D to A converter. The same method is used in all voice controlled and communication devices, like your cell phone. In the case of the cell phone the digital information is transmitted, along with other digital information in the form of packets of data. At the receiving end, the other information in the packet is stripped off and the digital information representing the sound is sent to D to A converter (digital to analog) to produce the sound. During the whole process, there is no language.]

I am well aware of how all of those systems work. Thank you very much for the unnecessary lesson. But you really are deflecting from the issue at hand.

So I shall state it again. In the physical/material world we subscribe to the principle of cause-and-effect.

Me uttering the words "Google, turn on the lights" was the cause.
The lights actually turning on was the effect.

The exact mechanism by which this happens is of no concern. Something ontological triggered a chain of events which caused the lights to turn on.
If my words aren't ontological, then you really need to answer this question: WHAT caused the lights to turn on?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:12 pmyadda yadda ..bla bla ...bla

Reality is reality, but it can be manipulated, I cursed god's name and in less than 1 h, got 1 black cats on my ass!!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:15 pm every conscious perception I have is the conscious experience of matter. There is nothing else to perceive.

Well... if "all is matter" then you could as well say "all is consciousness" or "all is gobbledygook".
"Matter" becomes a meaningless word if there is nothing but it (not that this is so wrong, just saying )

I prefer to investigate "reality" with the only means we actually have - with our senses - and then see if what is perceived matches with our conventional way of interpreting perception... do our thoughts and beliefs match with direct experience...?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:24 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:15 pm When language is used to communicate it is the meaning of the words that are communicated.

Begging the question. What do you think the English sentence "Turn on the lights" means then?

Is it not the intention behind the words which give them meaning?

If the intention behind the words is not the meaning of those words, then I guess it begs another question: What is meaning?

I'm afraid I cannot help you if you do not know what words mean. If you wait I intend an article on epistemology which will answer that question, among others, of course. Or you can see an introduction, which does discuss what words mean here.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:57 am I'm afraid I cannot help you if you do not know what words mean.

I didn't ask you for any help. Thea meaning of the sentence "Turn on the lights" is perfectly clear to me. I know what it means because I said it.

I asked you an ontological question: What is meaning?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:35 pm If my words aren't ontological, then you really need to answer this question: WHAT caused the lights to turn on?

I already did answer the question. It was the sounds you made, which are ontological. You can call those sounds words if you like, but to the system they are just sounds. If you don't understand that then you do not know how such systems work.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:02 am It was the sounds you made, which are ontological. You can call those sounds words if you like.

You don't call them words? What do you call the sounds your wife makes?

If she asked you to "Turn on the lights", are those sounds or words?

Why the mental gymnastics?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:59 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:57 am I'm afraid I cannot help you if you do not know what words mean.

I didn't ask you for any help. Thea meaning of the sentence "Turn on the lights" is perfectly clear to me. I know what it means because I said it.

It doesn't matter what the sentence means, because it is only the sound that makes the system perform.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:59 am I asked you an ontological question: What is meaning?

Essentially meaning pertains only to concepts. It pertains to propositions because they are made up of words. Both concepts and propositions are epistemological in nature.
"Meaning," is not an ontological concept and only pertains to the epistemological.

AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:58 pm I prefer to investigate "reality" with the only means we actually have - with our senses - and then see if what is perceived matches with our conventional way of interpreting perception... do our thoughts and beliefs match with direct experience...?

If you think I disagree with that, you misunderstood what I wrote. If you are matching your thoughts to your direct experience, you must be experiencing something, that something is what I refer to as material existence, and you method of investigating it is the right one.