[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is literally all I’m looking for:
A: “In Ananatidarica, there are no ducks.”
B: “What’s a duck?”
A: “A type of animal, a swimming bird with a broad flat bill.”[/quote]
Unfortunately the first statement never happened. My first statement was that there was no such thing as ducks. You cannot follow up with what’s a duck?[/quote]
Not at all. Your first claim was that on this particular worldview (physicalism), there is no meaning. Ananatidarica is physicalism, ducks are meaning. The analogy is as tight as they come.[/quote]
No, because Antarctica and the rest of the universe aren’t mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Ananatidarica. As in, “the country of no ducks.”
But anyway. That has nothing to do with the point. Please pay attention to this:
You claim that on Physicalism, there is no meaning.
Are you saying something with this claim? Do you intend to convey information?
If so, you are being asked to clarify a term in your claim.
Either you can do that, or you can’t, in which case I’d love to stop explaining this to you.
You used more physically undefinable essences to define self. I know of no physical property known as brain-ness (not to mention thing is another method of saying self). What constitutes a brain? Brain, like a person, is in constant physical flux what is your boundary?. Is a photon entering a brain part of the brain? What if it hits an electron or what if it passes through? Is the cerebral fluid part of the brain? How many neurons can I remove before it stops being a brain? How many synopsis are required for a belief? If there were a brain outside of a body it wouldn�¢??t qualify? If synapses are required for you to define belief, it then only exists as a process and can�¢??t be said to exist at any one instance of time?
[/quote]
A brain is not physically undefinable. Stuffing a bunch of marginally interesting Phil 101 study notes into a single paragraph is not going to change anything about this discussion as it stands. You claim that under X, there is no Y. I ask what Y is, and you freeze up. Refer to my previous two posts.[/quote]
Because itâ??s not answerable. If I were to throw in the transience of time and space there are even more unanswerable questions.
I’ve actually attempted to discuss MY beliefs (separate from the discussion on physicalism) on things like meaning, but you’ve been avoiding those parts of my posts.
You used more physically undefinable essences to define self. I know of no physical property known as brain-ness (not to mention thing is another method of saying self). What constitutes a brain? Brain, like a person, is in constant physical flux what is your boundary?. Is a photon entering a brain part of the brain? What if it hits an electron or what if it passes through? Is the cerebral fluid part of the brain? How many neurons can I remove before it stops being a brain? How many synopsis are required for a belief? If there were a brain outside of a body it wouldn�??�??�?�¢??t qualify? If synapses are required for you to define belief, it then only exists as a process and can�??�??�?�¢??t be said to exist at any one instance of time?
[/quote]
A brain is not physically undefinable. Stuffing a bunch of marginally interesting Phil 101 study notes into a single paragraph is not going to change anything about this discussion as it stands. You claim that under X, there is no Y. I ask what Y is, and you freeze up. Refer to my previous two posts.[/quote]
Because it�?�¢??s not answerable.[/quote]
It’s not answerable?
You claim that on X, there is no Y, and you cannot manage a single word about what “Y” is? You cannot explain what information your claim is even attempting to convey? Are you kidding?
If so, then your claim is absurd, and is rejected from the outset.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is literally all I’m looking for:
A: “In Ananatidarica, there are no ducks.”
B: “What’s a duck?”
A: “A type of animal, a swimming bird with a broad flat bill.”[/quote]
Unfortunately the first statement never happened. My first statement was that there was no such thing as ducks. You cannot follow up with what’s a duck?[/quote]
Not at all. Your first claim was that on this particular worldview (physicalism), there is no meaning. Ananatidarica is physicalism, ducks are meaning. The analogy is as tight as they come.[/quote]
No, because Antarctica and the rest of the universe aren’t mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Ananatidarica. As in, “the country of no ducks.”
But anyway. That has nothing to do with the point. Please pay attention to this:
You claim that on Physicalism, there is no meaning.
Are you saying something with this claim? Do you intend to convey information?
If so, you are being asked to clarify a term in your claim.
Either you can do that, or you can’t, in which case I’d love to stop explaining this to you.[/quote]
No meaning would imply it’s existence, that there is something for a person to lack. I’m saying that if physicalism is true, “meaning” is nonsense. You then ask me to define something I just claimed is nonsense. When I say it’s nonsense, I’m not saying that it lacks it. Lacking is a quality in itself. I’m saying it is undefinable jiberish.
You used more physically undefinable essences to define self. I know of no physical property known as brain-ness (not to mention thing is another method of saying self). What constitutes a brain? Brain, like a person, is in constant physical flux what is your boundary?. Is a photon entering a brain part of the brain? What if it hits an electron or what if it passes through? Is the cerebral fluid part of the brain? How many neurons can I remove before it stops being a brain? How many synopsis are required for a belief? If there were a brain outside of a body it wouldn�??�??�??�?�¢??t qualify? If synapses are required for you to define belief, it then only exists as a process and can�??�??�??�?�¢??t be said to exist at any one instance of time?
[/quote]
A brain is not physically undefinable. Stuffing a bunch of marginally interesting Phil 101 study notes into a single paragraph is not going to change anything about this discussion as it stands. You claim that under X, there is no Y. I ask what Y is, and you freeze up. Refer to my previous two posts.[/quote]
Because it�??�?�¢??s not answerable.[/quote]
It’s not answerable?
You claim that on X, there is no Y, and you cannot manage a single word about what “Y” is? You cannot explain what information your claim is even attempting to convey? Are you kidding?
If so, then your claim is absurd, and is rejected from the outset.[/quote]
I was talking about your brain, not the x and y. and again, lacking is a completely different thing than what I said.
You assume there are other places that have ducks. But in my case that means you assume there are actually non physicalistic places which is to say you are assuming physicalism isn?t true. Which is to contradict writing from the physicalist perspective, which is what I did. If there are no ducks in Antartica, and Antartica is the extent of the universe, then ducks don?t exist. If that is the stance, I cannot describe the physical characteristics of a duck, because there is no such thing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No meaning would imply it’s existence, that there is something for a person to lack. I’m saying that if physicalism is true, “meaning” is nonsense. You then ask me to define something I just claimed is nonsense. When I say it’s nonsense, I’m not saying that it lacks it. Lacking is a quality in itself. I’m saying it is undefinable jiberish.
[/quote]
You simply don’t have this right.
In order for me and in order for you to weigh the claim that meaning does not obtain on physicalism, “meaning” must convey some particular information.
Try it this way:
A: “On physicalism, there is no god.”
B: "To what do you refer when you say “god”?
A: “The extraphysical, omnipotent, omniscient creator of all.”
It is that simple. And this knot you have yourself in is entirely illegitimate and unnecessary. Just do what I did above, but substitute “meaning” and tell me what the hell it is.
You have literally asked me whether I agree that “meaning is nonsense on physicalism.” Surely you can understand that you must intend to convey information by using the term “meaning,” and surely you understand that I literally could not answer until I knew what that information was.
Otherwise, again, your claim is rejected and that’s the end of it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No meaning would imply it’s existence, that there is something for a person to lack. I’m saying that if physicalism is true, “meaning” is nonsense. You then ask me to define something I just claimed is nonsense. When I say it’s nonsense, I’m not saying that it lacks it. Lacking is a quality in itself. I’m saying it is undefinable jiberish.
[/quote]
You simply don’t have this right.
In order for me and in order for you to weigh the claim that meaning does not obtain on physicalism, “meaning” must convey some particular information.
Try it this way:
A: “On physicalism, there is no god.”
B: "To what do you refer when you say “god”?
A: “The extraphysical, omnipotent, omniscient creator of all.”
It is that simple. And this knot you have yourself in is entirely illegitimate and unnecessary. Just do what I did above, but substitute “meaning” and tell me what the hell it is.
You have literally asked me whether I agree that “meaning is nonsense on physicalism.” Surely you can understand that you must intend to convey information by using the term “meaning,” and surely you understand that I literally could not answer until I knew what that information was.
Otherwise, again, your claim is rejected and that’s the end of it.[/quote]
I’ve given my belief about meaning and attempted to lead you in an explanation of that belief. You keep ignoring it.
But for the sake of argument, pick one:
-what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification;
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No meaning would imply it’s existence, that there is something for a person to lack. I’m saying that if physicalism is true, “meaning” is nonsense. You then ask me to define something I just claimed is nonsense. When I say it’s nonsense, I’m not saying that it lacks it. Lacking is a quality in itself. I’m saying it is undefinable jiberish.
[/quote]
You simply don’t have this right.
In order for me and in order for you to weigh the claim that meaning does not obtain on physicalism, “meaning” must convey some particular information.
Try it this way:
A: “On physicalism, there is no god.”
B: "To what do you refer when you say “god”?
A: “The extraphysical, omnipotent, omniscient creator of all.”
It is that simple. And this knot you have yourself in is entirely illegitimate and unnecessary. Just do what I did above, but substitute “meaning” and tell me what the hell it is.
You have literally asked me whether I agree that “meaning is nonsense on physicalism.” Surely you can understand that you must intend to convey information by using the term “meaning,” and surely you understand that I literally could not answer until I knew what that information was.
Otherwise, again, your claim is rejected and that’s the end of it.[/quote]
I’ve given my belief about meaning and attempted to lead you in an explanation of that belief. You keep ignoring it.[/quote]
I am not using tactics here or anything like that: I never saw, or didn’t recognize, a single sentence even approaching resemblance to what you’re describing here.
No, that isn’t how this works. You made the claim, you need to figure out what information you intend it to convey.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No meaning would imply it’s existence, that there is something for a person to lack. I’m saying that if physicalism is true, “meaning” is nonsense. You then ask me to define something I just claimed is nonsense. When I say it’s nonsense, I’m not saying that it lacks it. Lacking is a quality in itself. I’m saying it is undefinable jiberish.
[/quote]
You simply don’t have this right.
In order for me and in order for you to weigh the claim that meaning does not obtain on physicalism, “meaning” must convey some particular information.
Try it this way:
A: “On physicalism, there is no god.”
B: "To what do you refer when you say “god”?
A: “The extraphysical, omnipotent, omniscient creator of all.”
It is that simple. And this knot you have yourself in is entirely illegitimate and unnecessary. Just do what I did above, but substitute “meaning” and tell me what the hell it is.
You have literally asked me whether I agree that “meaning is nonsense on physicalism.” Surely you can understand that you must intend to convey information by using the term “meaning,” and surely you understand that I literally could not answer until I knew what that information was.
Otherwise, again, your claim is rejected and that’s the end of it.[/quote]
I’ve given my belief about meaning and attempted to lead you in an explanation of that belief. You keep ignoring it.[/quote]
I am not using tactics here or anything like that: I never saw, or didn’t recognize, a single sentence even approaching resemblance to what you’re describing here.
No, that isn’t how this works. You made the claim, you need to figure out what information you intend it to convey.[/quote]
Okay, certain beliefs about things don’t really work in sentence format. I’ll try. It is basically a non-physical quantity that describes a characteristics of the essence we label thing-ness. It is a value that ranks the importance of essences. It is importance as a quantity beyond the physical nature of an essence.
But I’m running into language barrier because ideas like quantity imply physicality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, certain beliefs about things don’t really work in sentence format. I’ll try. It is basically a non-physical quantity that describes a characteristics of the essence we label thing-ness. It is a value that ranks the importance of essences. It is importance as a quantity beyond the physical nature of an essence.
But I’m running into language barrier because ideas like quantity imply physicality.
What is gravity?
[/quote]
Gravity is why I don’t jump off of buildings.
As for your definition – thank you. That really is all I was looking for. I have to think about it some and have work to do, so I will respond either tonight or tomorrow.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, certain beliefs about things don’t really work in sentence format. I’ll try. It is basically a non-physical quantity that describes a characteristics of the essence we label thing-ness. It is a value that ranks the importance of essences. It is importance as a quantity beyond the physical nature of an essence.
But I’m running into language barrier because ideas like quantity imply physicality.
What is gravity?
[/quote]
Gravity is why I don’t jump off of buildings.
As for your definition – thank you. That really is all I was looking for. I have to think about it some and have work to do, so I will respond either tonight or tomorrow.
[/quote]
Meaning is why I don’t jump into physicalism.
I’m coding while having this discussion and I’m trying to determine if that has some trippy meaning.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, certain beliefs about things don’t really work in sentence format. I’ll try. It is basically a non-physical quantity that describes a characteristics of the essence we label thing-ness. It is a value that ranks the importance of essences. It is importance as a quantity beyond the physical nature of an essence.
But I’m running into language barrier because ideas like quantity imply physicality.
What is gravity?
[/quote]
Gravity is why I don’t jump off of buildings.
As for your definition – thank you. That really is all I was looking for. I have to think about it some and have work to do, so I will respond either tonight or tomorrow.
[/quote]
Meaning is why I don’t jump into physicalism.[/quote]
Good answer.
And I’m writing as we go. So, each of us is creating a new and separate world in some way, and in doing so is supplying it with meaning…nope, the brain can’t handle that right now. Back tomorrow.