For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
You have no premise - so you have no argument.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:56 pm Nothing you've claimed is a problem for anything I've argued. Do you not see that?
Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:58 pmYou have no premise - so you have no argument.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:56 pm Nothing you've claimed is a problem for anything I've argued. Do you not see that?
That's not how logical arguments work...creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:00 pm Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?
It is a language because it was meaningful. All language is existentially dependent upon shared meaning.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:57 pmBut you do need to know what meaning IS for you to be able to assert that "all language is meaningful". Else it's a tautology.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:55 pm I need not know what all language use means in order to know that it is all meaningful. To argue otherwise is untenable... as it requires omniscience.
Is Meoritic script language? Is it meaningful? It was meaningful.. no longer. It's still a language!
Meaning is not a necessary condition for "language", therefore not all language is meaningful.
Charming.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:01 pmThat's not how logical arguments work...creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:00 pm Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?
I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.
Correct. Your pre-suppositiong are trivially falsifiable as is your taxonomy.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:03 pmCharming.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:01 pmThat's not how logical arguments work...creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:00 pm Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?
I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.
You do need to have a valid objection.
Yes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols (represented as bits - which are physical things) computers process information, make decisions and have a causal effect on reality. That is significant.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:11 pm All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.
That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.
Got one?
Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:13 pmYes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols computers have causal effect on reality. That is significant.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:11 pm All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.
That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.
Got one?
The EXPERIENCE of being driven by a robot from A to B is not meaningful to you? It sure is meaningful to me. Without it becoming a sing/symbol.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:18 pm Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.
Computers are not creatures. Therefore nothing is meaningful to the computer. It is meaningful to you and me. There's no exception here.
Drawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:13 pm Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.
Yes. It's meaningful. And it's not language. It's utility.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:21 pmDrawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:13 pm Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.