Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Magnus Anderson]

The pixels on your monitor are arranged to look like English letters. It's all just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize.

These aren't characters or symbols. This isn't a sentence. This isn't a statement. This is just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize as English letters, sentences statements and language.

Your brain is interpreting it all as characters, symbols, sentences, statements, language.

That's like saying "Skepdick is not a human being, he's just a meaningless combination of atoms."

Again, you have a very serious issue with language.

When we say that something is X, we're saying that that thing can be represented with the symbol X. If a combination of atoms can be represented with the symbol "Skepdick", then that combination of atoms is Skepdick.

And by the way, stop misquoting me. I never said that a statement is merely a string of characters. This isn't the first time you've done this.

The meaning of a statement (which is in your head) is what really matters.

Stop misquoting me.

These aren't characters or symbols - your brain is recognizing characters.
This isn't a sentence - your brain is interpreting it as a sentence.
This isn't a statement - your brain is interpreting it as a statement.

Nonsense peddled by arrogant morons ( such as yourself. )

Every single person who imagines winged horses is doing it! If you have imagined it - it exists!

Perhaps you mean that nobody has ever reified winged horses into something concrete? Sure.

Unicorns aren't mental objects, dummy, so you can't reify them. But you can subjectivize them, i.e. erroneously think that they are subjective things even though they are objective things. That's what you're doing.

Then what is it? Reify one and show me.

There is no need for that. All you have to do is understand the concept attached to the term "winged horse". All you have to do is to learn English language.

A winged horse is a horse that has wings. A horse is an animal. An animal is not a concept. Thus, a winged horse is not a concept. It's not that difficult. All you have to do is to stop being so arrogant.

Of course it exists. Where does it exist? In my imagination. That's the unicorn I'm talking about.

That's because you're changing the definition of the word "unicorn" to "a concept of a horse that has a horn". When people say "Unicorns exist", they are not saying "Concepts of a horse with a horn exist". They are saying "Horses with a horn exist". You are equivocating.

Oh. Ok. Where do they exist?

It does not matter where they exist, dummy. When are you going to stop pointlessly repeating yourself? The point is that they are two different statements saying two different things. What exists and what does not exist is completely irrelevant. It is YOU who erroneously believes that it is important, and if you want to move this discussion forward, you will have to prove that. Will you ever do that? YOU WON'T.

Am I not part of society?!? At least one person in society was convinced. ME!

I am sure you believe yourself to be the entire universe.

Why are you asking me? You used it - you tell us.

To show us how the meaning of a word is discovered.

I am going to repeat myself.

"Skepdick is a worm."

What does the word "worm" stand for in this statement? Does it stand for Skepdick himself? Does it stand for something in my head? If it stands for something in my head, doesn't that mean you're something inside of my head?

Moving on.

Given a word, how do we discover its meaning? How do we discover the meaning of the word "worm" in my statement "Skepdick is a worm"?

Don't you see how you are playing a pointless game here? You always end up with a recursive question.

In other words, clarification is a pointless game to you. You don't want to clarify your position. You don't want to expose your reasoning. All you want to do is attack, question, destroy.

What do you mean by "meaning"? Looks like you know exactly how to use the word "meaning". So you know what it means TO YOU.

What I mean by it is irrelevant. That's the entire point -- to tell us what it means TO YOU.

And it looks to me as if you are using the word "meaning" in exactly the same way I would use it. So we are probably using it in exactly the same way.

So meaning means meaning and we both know what it means.

It looks to YOU, retard. And given that you are a retard, it can't be taken as fact.

Can you explain to us what you mean by "meaning" or do you prefer to demolish this place with your bullshit instead?

Would you rather ask "WHERE?" once again?

*sigh* that's fucking stupid! Do you think you can step up to your own challenge?

Expose the reasoning process by which you recognize this color. N.B I am NOT asking you to tell me what this color is (I already know that answer).
I am asking for your reasoning process as to how you arrive at the answer.

What an utter and complete imbecile.

Yeah but you used a bunch of undefined terms to define "define".
Now go ahead and define the undefined terms you introduced in the definition of "define".

Not every term has to be defined. Only those that would lead to problems if left undefined, e.g. those that are misunderstood or merely not understood by others or those that lead to equivocation.

Which ones do you want me to define and why?

[Skepdick]

The pixels on your monitor are arranged to look like English letters. It's all just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize.

These aren't characters or symbols. This isn't a sentence. This isn't a statement. This is just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize as English letters, sentences statements and language.

Your brain is interpreting it all as characters, symbols, sentences, statements, language.

That's like saying "Skepdick is not a human being, he's just a meaningless combination of atoms."

And that's exactly right. From a physics perspective all I am is a bunch of attoms in a particular configuration.

You recognize particular configurations of meaningless atoms as "human".

Again, you have a very serious issue with language.

And you have a very serious issue with pattern-recognition and assigning meaning to all your sensory inputs.

When we say that something is X, we're saying that that thing can be represented with the symbol X.

You can represent anything with any symbol. Instead of using "human" represent yourself with "yrwuwehgrj".

If a combination of atoms can be represented with the symbol "Skepdick", then that combination of atoms is Skepdick.

Ddoesn't matter what symbols you represent me with. What matters is what the symbols mean.

If you represent me with "hduiwere" instead of "Skepdick" then what does "hduiwere" mean?

These aren't characters or symbols - your brain is recognizing characters.
This isn't a sentence - your brain is interpreting it as a sentence.
This isn't a statement - your brain is interpreting it as a statement.

Nonsense peddled by arrogant morons ( such as yourself. )

Why is this confusing you? If you look closely at your monitor these aren't letters or symbols - these are just pixels.

It's just black and white dots that look like letters.

Unicorns aren't mental objects, dummy, so you can't reify them.

Of course they are mental objects. We can and we have reified them as all sorts of things. Toys. Children's books. Animations.

But you can subjectivize them, i.e. erroneously think that they are subjective things even though they are objective things. That's what you're doing.

Where does an objective unicorn exist? Show me one.

There is no need for that. All you have to do is understand the concept attached to the term "winged horse". All you have to do is to learn English language.

I understand the concept. Where is the reification of the concept?

A winged horse is a horse that has wings. A horse is an animal. An animal is not a concept. Thus, a winged horse is not a concept. It's not that difficult. All you have to do is to stop being so arrogant.

I am not arrogant. Where is this winged horse?

When people say "Unicorns exist", they are not saying "Concepts of a horse with a horn exist". They are saying "Horses with a horn exist". You are equivocating.

Where do horses with horns exist?

If they only exist in imagination then they are concepts.
If they exist outside of imagination - show me one.

It does not matter where they exist, dummy.

It matters to me. I want to know what you are talking about; and where it is, before we can continue with this dialogye.

Learn to communicate, manchild.

When are you going to stop pointlessly repeating yourself?

I have never pointlessly repeated myself. My repetition has a very clear point: I want to know what you are talking about; and where it is. I want to know what you are talking about; and where it is, before we can continue with this dialogye.

It is YOU who erroneously believes that it is important

Go fuck yourself. I am not playing that game with you.

It's you who erroneously believes that it is not important. If I don't know what you are talking about and where it is - then I can't follow the conversation.

, and if you want to move this discussion forward, you will have to prove that. Will you ever do that? YOU WON'T.

I just did. You don't get to decide what's important to me.

It's my turn to speak. I've used my turn to ask a question. If it wasn't important I wouldn't have asked it.

Learn to communicate, manchild.

I am sure you believe yourself to be the entire universe.

If that were true I'd just read your mind. Instead I am stuck having to talk to an imbecille manchild who doesn't know how to communicate effectively.

To show us how the meaning of a word is discovered.

OK. So you are saying words have meaning.

Where is it?

Don't you see how you are playing a pointless game here? You always end up with a recursive question.

In other words, clarification is a pointless game to you.

Could you clarify which definition of "clarify" is the clearest?

You don't want to clarify your position. You don't want to expose your reasoning. All you want to do is attack, question, destroy.

Bullshit. There are limits to expression. Depending on the information that needs to be communicated at any given time in a dialogue the exact same idea; or meaning can be worded in many different ways.

Some ways are better at driving the point home than others. Depending on context.

What I mean by it is irrelevant. That's the entire point -- to tell us what it means TO YOU.

Quit telling me my questions are irrelevant.

Your judgments of irrelevance are irrelevant to me.

It looks to YOU, retard. But you are a retard, so it has no value.

OK, then we aren't using the words the same way

So what's the meaning of value; and do you value meaning?

Can you explain to us what you mean by "meaning" or do you prefer to demolish this place with your bullshit instead?

That's a fucking stupid game you are playing.

Could you explain to us what you mean by....

Can you explain to us what you mean by "meaning".

What an utter and complete imbecile.

Of course you are. You challenge me with challenges you yourself can't complete.

Not every term has to be defined. Only those that would lead to problems if undefined, e.g. those that are misunderstood or merely not understood by others or those that cause someone to equivocate.

I agree, but undefined terms could mean anything and everything - it's like air escaping through a puncture. All the meaning escapes if you have undefined terms in your definition.

So please, capture your entire meaning by leaving no term undefined.

Which ones do you want me to define and why?

To avoid meaning escaping into the void - leave no term undefined.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK,

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone eer head of an FSK

There are loads of talk on this issue. e.g. frameworks, paradigms, perspective, point of view, model dependent realism and the likes.
The concept of FSR [Realization] or FSK [Knowledge] is an improvements of past ideas.
That is one of the major intent and objectives of philosophy, i.e. to promote continuous improvement in the presentation of concepts and ideas of reality.

[Sculptor]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK,

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone ever heard of an FSK

There are loads of talk on this issue. e.g. frameworks, paradigms, perspective, point of view, model dependent realism and the likes.
The concept of FSR [Realization] or FSK [Knowledge] is an improvements of past ideas.
That is one of the major intent and objectives of philosophy, i.e. to promote continuous improvement in the presentation of concepts and ideas of reality.

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.

[Sculptor]

You are just making an arse of yourself as usual

I'm always an ass. It's my name, you retard.

I am just making an even bigger ass of you.

Skeptic the gift that keeps in giving.

[Magnus Anderson]

And that's exactly right. From a physics perspective all I am is a bunch of attoms in a particular configuration.

You are indeed a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. Noone is disputing that. But you're also Skepdick. You aren't one or the other. You are both. You can be represented by the name "Skepdick" just as much you can be represented by the expression "a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration". One isn't more true than the other. They are both equally true descriptions of who you are. They merely describe different aspects of who you are.

You recognize particular configurations of meaningless atoms as "human".

We call them "human", sure, just like we call them "particular configuration of atoms".

You can represent anything with any symbol. Instead of using "human" represent yourself with "yrwuwehgrj".

Yes and your point is?

If you look closely at your monitor these aren't letters or symbols - these are just pixels.

They are both. They are letters AND collections of pixels. They aren't one or the other.

It's just black and white dots that look like letters.

They don't look like letters, they ARE letters.

Of course they are mental objects. We can and we have reified them as all sorts of things. Toys. Children's books. Animations.

They aren't mental objects.

Where does an objective unicorn exist? Show me one.

Nowhere.

I understand the concept. Where is the reification of the concept?

Winged horses do not exist and they do not have to exist in order for the term "winged horse" to mean what it means -- a horse that has wings.

I am not arrogant.

Arrogant people do not perceive themselves as arrogant.

You are extremely arrogant.

Where is this winged horse?

Nowhere.

Where do horses with horns exist?

Nowhere.

( How do readers of this discussion enjoy the never-ending series of pointless questions? It must be very enjoyable to read. )

If they only exist in imagination then they are concepts.

They do not exist in anyone's imagination. It's impossible for them to do so.

Only imaginary winged horses can existing in imagination but we're not talking about imaginary winged horses.

If they exist outside of imagination - show me one.

They don't exist anywhere in the world.

You are shamelessly repeating yourself.

You are a man of ZERO standards. A complete and total loser.

What you have to do is to prove your ridiculously stupid claim that "Every word has a real life example". You won't do that, because you can't, so instead of that, you will spend all of your time making up all sorts of equally retarded excuses.

It matters to me. I want to know what you are talking about; and where it is, before we can continue with this dialogye.

Why should anyone care about what matters to you? Is it because you're a manbaby? What if you want to give me a blowjob? Should I allow you to drop on your knees? Should I please your stupid homosexual whims?

Learn to communicate, manchild.

You're a very sad part of existence. Like really, really sad. You're so wretched it's unbelievable.

I have never pointlessly repeated myself.

There he goes again.

I want to know what you are talking about

You're doing it the wrong way.

If I don't know what you are talking about and where it is - then I can't follow the conversation.

You can follow it, you just don't know how, and instead of asking for guidance, you are doing the arrogant thing of sticking to your delusions and tirelessly reasserting them.

I just did.

When? Quote yourself.

You challenge me with challenges you yourself can't complete.

Endless excuses to avoid what needs doing.

I agree, but undefined terms could mean anything and everything - it's like air escaping through a puncture. All the meaning escapes if you have undefined terms in your definition.

So please, capture your entire meaning by leaving no term undefined.

You are asking for stupid things, and once again, proving how seriously retarded you are.

Your level of mental retardation is unprecedented.

There is no place for people like you on proper philosophy forums ( this isn't one, so you're allowed to enjoy your golden shower. )

To avoid meaning escaping into the void - leave no term undefined.

A dumb request, retard.

[Skepdick]

And that's exactly right. From a physics perspective all I am is a bunch of attoms in a particular configuration.

You are indeed a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. Noone is disputing that. But you're also Skepdick. You aren't one or the other. You are both. You can be represented by the name "Skepdick" just as much you can be represented by the expression "a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration". One isn't more true than the other. They are both equally true descriptions of who you are. They merely describe different aspects of who you are.

I can also be represented by the expression "I". What's yourt point? They don't describe diferent aspects of me.

They are different interpretations of me using different reference frames/interpretation frameworks.

You recognize particular configurations of meaningless atoms as "human".

We call them "human", sure, just like we call them "particular configuration of atoms".

Just like we call them matter; or energy; or quantum phenomena.

The description is not the described.

Yes and your point is?

My point is that there's no relationship between the symbols and that which is being symbolized.

They are both. They are letters AND collections of pixels. They aren't one or the other.

If you want to be pedantic - they are neither. It's all interpretation. Interpretations all the way down!

It's just a bunch of atoms emiting light.
Err, I mean a quantum system emitting photons.

Errr, I don't even know what I mean because I don't know why I am interpreting. From any perspective or point of view.

They don't look like letters, they ARE letters.

No, they aren't. Your brain recognizes/interprets the pixels as letters.

They aren't mental objects.

They are the reifications of mental objects.
If those mental objects didn't exist - neither would the reifications.

Cause and effect.

Where does an objective unicorn exist? Show me one.

Nowhere.

Contradiction. You just spoke about something which doesn't exist.

Cause and effect.

What caused the language "objective unicorn"?

Winged horses do not exist and they do not have to exist in order for the term "winged horse" to mean what it means -- a horse that has wings.

So something which doesn't exist is causing you to type the symbols "Winged horses" on your keyboard?

Wow! An uncaused cause!

I am not arrogant.

Arrogant people do not perceive themselves as arrogant.

Non-arrogant people don't perceive themselves as arrogant either.

You are extremely arrogant.

No, I am not. You may feel that way about me, but that's not a reflection of me - that's a reflection of your feelings about me.

Where is this winged horse?

Nowhere.

Contradiction.

Where do horses with horns exist?

Nowhere.

Contradiction.

( How do readers of this discussion enjoy the never-ending series of pointless questions? It must be very enjoyable to read. )

I am sure the readers also enjoy watching uncaused language appear before their very eyes.

You just typed "horses with horns". What caused you to type it? Nothing?
Why did you type it? Errr uhh, ehh. No reason.

Your fingers must have a mind of their own....

If they only exist in imagination then they are concepts.

They do not exist in anyone's imagination. It's impossible for them to do so.

Then how are you talking about them?

Only imaginary winged horses can existing in imagination but we're not talking about imaginary winged horses.

If you were talking about a non-imaginary winged horses you'd show me one.

If they exist outside of imagination - show me one.

They don't exist anywhere in the world.

Contradiction. You are talking about them - they exist in your head.

You are shamelessly repeating yourself.

You are a man of ZERO standards. A complete and total loser.

You don't like the standard of non-contradiction?!?!?

Imbecille.

What you have to do is to prove your ridiculously stupid claim that "Every word has a real life example".

Why would I prove such a stupid claim? I am not even making it.

Why should anyone care about what matters to you?

Because that's how dialogue works, you fucking cretin. You are talking to me but you don't care what matters to me?

Go fuck yourself!

Is it because you're a manbaby? What if you want to give me a blowjob? Should I allow you to drop on your knees? Should I please your stupid homosexual whims?

What if your mother had a penis? Would you still be here?

Stop being a fucking imbecille.

Learn to communicate, manchild.

You're a very sad part of existence. Like really, really sad. You're so wretched it's unbelievable.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but your feelings are not a reflection of me.

I want to know what you are talking about

You're doing it the wrong way.

No, I am not. Quit moralizing - you lack the intellect or the sound judgment.

If I don't know what you are talking about and where it is - then I can't follow the conversation.

You can follow it, you just don't know how, and instead of asking for guidance, you are doing the arrogant thing of sticking to your delusions and tirelessly reasserting them.

OK. I don't know how to follow a self-contradictory conversation.

I am asking for guidance. GUIDE MY IMAGINATION TO WHERE THE UNICORN IS! Is it in our galaxy? In another galaxy? On Earth? In your mind?

WHERE IS IT?

I just did.

When? Quote yourself.

Then.

You challenge me with challenges you yourself can't complete.

Endless excuses to avoid what needs doing.

Great! Quit with the excuses and lead the way.

Do what needs doing.

You are asking for stupid things, and once again, proving how seriously retarded you are.

Your level of mental retardation is unprecedented.

And your level of projection is world class.

A dumb request, retard.

Why is it dumb? Is it because you can't express your thought process for what meaning is? Is it because language has some problem you can't seem to overcome? What's the problem? Why can't you do what needs to be done?

[Magnus Anderson]

I can also be represented by the expression "I". What's yourt point?

The point is that you are BOTH Skepdick AND a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. You are NOT one OR the other.

Just like we call them matter; or energy; or quantum phenomena.

The description is not the described.

I am not saying the description is the described. I am saying that when we say "X is Y" we're saying "X can be represented by the symbol Y". "This guy right here is Skepdick" means "This guy right here can be represented with the symbol Skepdick". Noone is saying that you're the symbol Skepdick itself.

If you want to be pedantic - they are neither.

That's not being pedantic, that's being idiotic.

They are BOTH letters AND collections of pixels.

It's just a bunch of atoms emiting light.
Err, I mean a quantum system emitting photons.

Errr, I don't even know what I mean because I don't know why I am interpreting. From any perspective or point of view.

You KNOW what you mean because it is YOU who decides what you mean, not the thing that you're trying to accurately describe.

Everyone knows what "Unicorns have a horn" means because they understand English language not because they observed unicorns. They udnerstand what each word in the sentence means, i.e. what concept is attached to it, as well as how each word is combined to create the final meaning of the sentence. There is no need to know ANYTHING other than the language that the speaker is using.

No, they aren't. Your brain recognizes/interprets the pixels as letters.

Yes, your brain THINKS they are letters . . . that does not mean they are not letters. And to think otherwise is to contradict yourself.

So something which doesn't exist is causing you to type the symbols "Winged horses" on your keyboard?

Nah. You're confusing the meaning of a symbol with its cause. Actually, that's the main thing we disagree on. All other disagreements follow from it.

The meaning of a symbol is decided entirely by the language that the speaker is using.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone ever heard of an FSK

There are loads of talk on this issue. e.g. frameworks, paradigms, perspective, point of view, model dependent realism and the likes.
The concept of FSR [Realization] or FSK [Knowledge] is an improvements of past ideas.
That is one of the major intent and objectives of philosophy, i.e. to promote continuous improvement in the presentation of concepts and ideas of reality.

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.

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].

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.

[Skepdick]

I can also be represented by the expression "I". What's yourt point?

The point is that you are BOTH Skepdick AND a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. You are NOT one OR the other.

The point is that I am not ANY of my descriptions.

I am NOT Skepdick - that's just a name.
I am NOT a bunch of atoms - I am more than that.
I am NOT a biological system - that's just another description.

I am NOT a linguistic construct.
I am NOT definable.

I am not saying the description is the described. I am saying that when we say "X is Y" we're saying "X can be represented by the symbol Y". "This guy right here is Skepdick" means "This guy right here can be represented with the symbol Skepdick". Noone is saying that you're the symbol Skepdick itself.

I am NOT a representation.

If you want to be pedantic - they are neither.

That's not being pedantic, that's being idiotic.

Maybe. But I am the lesser idiot in this dialogue for sure.

They are BOTH letters AND collections of pixels.

They are NEITHER letters NOR a collection of pixels.

Those are merely descriptions of them. You are projecting that meaning onto them.

You KNOW what you mean because it is YOU who decides what you mean, not the thing that you're trying to accurately describe.

if I don't know WHY I mean then I don't know WHAT I mean.

WHY am I describing? I don't know. Shy does this mean "an atom" and not a "quantum system"?
WHY am I describing myself? Why do I mean "Skepdick" and not "a bunch of atoms"?
WHY am I even speaking?

Language without a "Why?" is meaningless.

Everyone knows what "Unicorns have a horn" means because they understand English language not because they observed unicorns.

There you are. Confusing the representation (the English language) for the represented.

WHERE is that which the English expression "Unicorns have a horn" describes?!?

If it's NOWHERE then it's not in anybody's mind.
So there's no shared meaning.
So there's no language.

Contradiction!

They udnerstand what each word in the sentence means, i.e. what concept is attached to it, as well as how each word is combined to create the final meaning of the sentence. There is no need to know ANYTHING other than the language that the speaker is using.

SO how do you know that you know the language? What if you think you know English but you are mistaken?

You keep confusing the representation for the represented.

Yes, your brain THINKS they are letters . . . that does not mean they are not letters.

It means exactly that. They are not anything other than what they are. I don't know what they are, but we describe them as letters.

And to think otherwise is to contradict yourself.

I am not contradicting myself. I am pointing out that you are constantly projecting meaning onto a meaningless world.

You are projecting the meaning "letters", "words" and "sentences", and "symbols" and "meaningful" onto this meaningless light emitting from your screen.

Nah. You're confusing the meaning of a symbol with its cause.

Am I? So what caused you to define the meaning of the symbol "unicorn"?

Actually, that's the main thing we disagree on. All other disagreements follow from it.

The meaning of a symbol is decided entirely by the language that the speaker is using.

And that's entirely our disagreement indeed. You think that language represents meaning.

You think "you" represents you. It doesn't.
You only referes to you.
You are not a representation!

[Sculptor]

There are loads of talk on this issue. e.g. frameworks, paradigms, perspective, point of view, model dependent realism and the likes.
The concept of FSR [Realization] or FSK [Knowledge] is an improvements of past ideas.
That is one of the major intent and objectives of philosophy, i.e. to promote continuous improvement in the presentation of concepts and ideas of reality.

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.

[Magnus Anderson]

The point is that I am not ANY of my descriptions.

"You are Skepdick" does not mean "You are the symbol Skepdick".

It means "You are something that can be represented by the symbol Skepdick".

I am not saying the description is the described. I am saying that when we say "X is Y" we're saying "X can be represented by the symbol Y". "This guy right here is Skepdick" means "This guy right here can be represented with the symbol Skepdick". Noone is saying that you're the symbol Skepdick itself.

I am NOT a representation.

Who said that you are?

They are NEITHER letters NOR a collection of pixels.

Those are merely descriptions of them. You are projecting that meaning onto them.

A letter is NOT a symbol "letter".

A collection of pixels is NOT a symbol "collection of pixels".

You're doing that thing you keep accusing others of.

You are confusing the map with the territory.

There you are. Confusing the representation (the English language) for the represented.

You're accusing of your own guilty ( otherwise known as "projection". )

I don't know what they are, but we describe them as letters.

You can't conclude that they can be represented with the word "letter" if you don't have an idea about what they are.

You are projecting the meaning "letters", "words" and "sentences", and "symbols" and "meaningful" onto this meaningless light emitting from your screen.

Noone is projecting anything.

All I'm saying is that when we say "That thing is a letter" we're saying "That thing can be represented with the word letter". Noone is saying "That thing is the word letter".

You don't understand English language.

Nah. You're confusing the meaning of a symbol with its cause.

Am I?

Yes, you are.

So what caused you to define the meaning of the symbol "unicorn"?

Irrelevant. The only relevant question is, "What's the definition of the symbol unicorn?"

And that's entirely our disagreement indeed. You think that language represents meaning.

You think "you" represents you. It doesn't.
You only referes to you.
You are not a representation!

Again, the word "me" isn't me. Noone is saying that.

[Skepdick]

The point is that I am not ANY of my descriptions.

"You are Skepdick" does not mean "You are the symbol Skepdick".

It means "You are something that can be represented by the symbol Skepdick".

I can't be represented by any symbols. Not even the symbol "I".

I am only using the symbol for referencing. What am I referencing with the symbol "I"? Myself!
What am I referencing with the symbol "myself". The exact same thing I am referencing with the symbol "I".
What is that? It's THAT which I am. What am I? I am me! Can't do any better than that with language. Sorry!

It's safe to say that I am not pointing at anything that doesn't exist with that symbol. And that's all there is to it.

I am not saying the description is the described. I am saying that when we say "X is Y" we're saying "X can be represented by the symbol Y". "This guy right here is Skepdick" means "This guy right here can be represented with the symbol Skepdick". Noone is saying that you're the symbol Skepdick itself.

I am NOT a representation.

Who said that you are?

You are saying it! Apparently something can be represented with the word "symbol"?

What is that something and where is it?

They are NEITHER letters NOR a collection of pixels.

Those are merely descriptions of them. You are projecting that meaning onto them.

A letter is NOT a symbol "letter".

Then what does "symbol" symbolize?
Where is the symbolized?

A collection of pixels is NOT a symbol "collection of pixels".

You're doing that thing you keep accusing others of.

You are confusing the map with the territory.

No, I am not. The confusion is originating from you.

You think I am talking about the territory. I am, of course, but I am only talking about avery very very very tiny speck of the territory.

My map. Which is in my head.

There you are. Confusing the representation (the English language) for the represented.

You're accusing of your own guilty ( otherwise known as "projection". )

No, I am not.

WHERE in the teritory is that which the English language represents?

I don't know what they are, but we describe them as letters.

You can't conclude that they can be represented with the word "letter" if you don't have an idea about what they are.

They can be represented with ANY word. That's the damn point. You can even represent them with the word "unicorn" if you want.

But the representation is NOT the represented.

What does the word "representation" represent?

You are projecting the meaning "letters", "words" and "sentences", and "symbols" and "meaningful" onto this meaningless light emitting from your screen.

Noone is projecting anything.

I know!

The noone who is projecting is YOU.
The ANYTHING that is being projected is whatever you think this means.

All I'm saying is that when we say "That thing is a letter" we're saying "That thing can be represented with the word letter". Noone is saying "That thing is the word letter".

So what are you representing with the word "thing"? WHERE is it?

You don't understand English language.

Lets suspend judgment on that, shall we?

Nah. You're confusing the meaning of a symbol with its cause.

Am I?

Yes, you are.

No, I am not.

What caused the symbol "meaning"?

So what caused you to define the meaning of the symbol "unicorn"?

Irrelevant. The only relevant question is, "What's the definition of the symbol unicorn?"

So what caused you to ask this question?

Again, the word "me" isn't me.

OK. So what does the word represent?

Noone is saying that.

Correct again. Noone is saying it. And that noone is you.

WHAT are you? You are you! That's circular.

WHERE are you?.... Locate yourself in time.

[Magnus Anderson]

I can't be represented by any symbols. Not even the symbol "I".

Then noone can talk about you, something that is -- or at least, something that should be -- clearly false.

Apparently something can be represented with the word "symbol"?

What is that something and where is it?

The word "letter" can be represented with it.

Then what does "symbol" symbolize?

You have to explain to us what meaning you attach to the word "symbolize". You won't do that, you have your own excuses. But I'm just saying what you're supposed to do. You also have to explain the relevance of your question. Noone is going to answer a question they perceive as irrelevant.

If you're asking "What's the meaning of the word symbol?" where by "meaning" you mean "the set of all things, both existing and non-existing, that can be represented with a symbol", then the answer is "any portion of reality that is used by someone to communicate something".

They can be represented with ANY word. That's the damn point. You can even represent them with the word "unicorn" if you want.

That's true but irrelevant.

So what are you representing with the word "thing"? WHERE is it?

What caused the symbol "meaning"?

So what caused you to ask this question?

Irrelevant questions.

[Skepdick]

I can't be represented by any symbols. Not even the symbol "I".

Then noone can talk about you, something that is -- or at least, something that should be -- clearly false.

And yet here we are talking abot me.

Maybe what you are doing is not representing me?
Maybe what you are doing is refering to me?

Apparently something can be represented with the word "symbol"?

What is that something and where is it?

The word "letter" can be represented with it.

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.

That's just language manipulation games.

Show me what the symbol "representation" represents.
And if you can't show it then refer to it.

Where is it?

Then what does "symbol" symbolize?

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

Only after you explain what meaning you attach to your entire sentence.

You won't do that, you have your own excuses.

It's not an excuse - I am a follower, not a leader.

Show me what meaning you attach to the word "meaning".

But I'm just saying what you're supposed to do.

Sorry, I don't understand what youre request means. Show me what to do, please.

You also have to explain the relevance of your question. Noone is going to answer a question they perceive as irrelevant.

Explain why I have to explain that.

If you're asking "What's the meaning of the word symbol?" where by "meaning" you mean "the set of all things, both existing and non-existing, that can be represented with a symbol as dictated by the language that one is using", then the answer is "any portion of reality that is used by someone to communicate something".

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.

Just point to it already! WHERE is that which symbol "symbolizes" ?

They can be represented with ANY word. That's the damn point. You can even represent them with the word "unicorn" if you want.

That's true but irrelevant.

What are you representing with the symbol "relevant"? I hope it's not other words. because that makes it meaningless.

Irrelevant questions.

I know where the questions are. First they were in my head. And now they are on our screens.

But where is this "irrelevance" you are speaking about? I guess it's nowhere. Like everything else you talk about.

Nothing. Nowhere. Said by nobody.

And that nobody is you.