|
| |
z_____is_meaning_a_human_construct
|
|
|
|
I guess you'll say no, it is not?
|
060328
|
| |
... |
|
|
dipperwell
|
i think it's a construct, but who's to say human?
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
|
z_for_zendetta!
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
verifiably, it is a human construct. potentially, it is the construct of any cognition with sufficient ability for the task.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
(z_is_for_zendetta)
|
how is it verifiable? some meaning may be verified as a human construct but that does not mean all meaning is a human construct. it seems fully_preposterous to assert that you have verified all, or even most instances as being humanly constructed.
if all meaning is built from other meanings, etc, how do we arrive at the first meaning? synthesis from nothingness, mental or otherwise, seems unlikely.
if all meaning can be verified as a human construct, please, verify it for us here!
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
zeke
|
by verifiably i mean rooted in empirical evidence or observation of repeatable events. my primary assumption is that meaning occurs during cognition and that it is an action, not a thing.
if you are willing to accept certain givens (as i am), such as the idea that cognition exists in yourself and/or in others, then the lack of empirical evidence of meaning occurring elsewhere indicates that if it exists outside cognition, we have yet to detect it. i am inclined to believe that this is because it is not to be found outside of the cognitive process. that cannot be proven, being a negative.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
perhaps i should have use observably instead of verifiably.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
|
ok. that's more tenable.
i suspect that in our inner associative worlds, the political boundaries of "meaninglandia" vary considerably; this means, one point for you.
however, as my cat possesses cognition and is capable of meeting all qualifiers you have listed, meaning can be said to be also constructed by a cat; one point for me.
perhaps your point is that meaning is something constructed during/by-the sentient?
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
intendee
|
during sentience /// by the sentience
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
regarding your cat, i quote myself from above: "...potentially, it is the construct of any cognition with sufficient ability for the task." that would depend upon how one defines meaning, cognition, sufficient and task. for me, meaning is reserved for symbols, not for signs. by this i mean that some degree of abstract representation must be present in the process in order to mean something. for me, a pavlovian bell elicits no meaning, were as a diagram does. a bell heard by a cognitive entity with is sophisticated enough to create significance can be understood at the symbolic level in infinite variety.
i love my cats and constantly change my opinion about their level of cognition. they are definitely sentient at but i am not inclined to say that they use symbolic reasoning.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
see: the_meaningfulness_of_life regarding the roots of meaning.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
also see: signal_and_noise
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
blah blah blah entre nos
|
given the feline larynx and the shortage of opposable thumbs, how would your cat go about demonstrating symbolic reasoning? why is symbolic reasoning a prerequisite for meaningfulness? you seem to have a very specific set of expectations regarding what constitutes meaning and what does not; this is fine, but given that others' meanings differ, it seems probable that more expansive definitions of "meaningfulness" become less dependent upon humans for construction. not all is demonstrable, nor is all (or even most) observable.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
zeke
|
generalized thinking produces vague conclusions.
my criteria are a starting place. limitation of variables is often useful in critical thinking. so, if it cannot be observed (and reported repeatedly and consistently), then it is usually not fair game for critical analysis.
so, if my cat can design rat traps in his head, but cannot communicate about the experience, and i cannot observe anything which indicates the same, then i must assume (until otherwise convinced by evidence) that he cannot. that is not the same as proof that he is incapable of engaging in the creation of meaning. once again, you cannot prove a negative. i see no value in allowing for uncertainty (for now) where no evidence to support it has been produced (to my knowledge).
why is this so difficult?
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
zeke
|
regarding the connection between symbolic reasoning and meaningfulness is implicit (to me). an assertion: a symbol is to meaning as a sign is to reaction. a symbol is anything which is interpreted to represent a concept. a sign is an observable condition associated with an object or event. meaning is the ideation enacted constitutes a concept. a reaction (in this context) is a response to stimulus which is informed by observation but not by ideation.
thank you for the challanges, this is fun.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
zeke fixes his mistakes
|
the connection between symbolic reasoning and meaningfulness is implicit (to me). an assertion: a symbol is to meaning as a sign is to reaction. a symbol is anything which is interpreted to represent a concept. a sign is an observable condition associated with an object or event. meaning is the ideation enacted which constitutes a concept. a reaction (in this context) is a response to stimulus which is informed by observation but not by ideation.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
thank you as well!
|
i guess one of the differences between us is that i (for my part) see "no value" in NOT allowing for uncertainties................. which is not to say that i cannot understand the arguments in favor of allowing otherwise. i contradict myself, yes; i find truth in paradox, also yes.
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
sidenote
|
i have disagreed with you many a time, "z", but i have agreed with you as many a time more. i think i love you. hee hee.......... platonically of course!
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
oneiros_blue
|
i'm not going to read this cuz its retardly too long, but i'll say meaning is as valid as justice, and they are all side affects (... intentionally not side effects) of human beings
|
060329
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
A SONGALONGADONGABONGA TO ALLABALLABALLABALL THOSEDFIBIGUYAKANANANANA GAAGGAGA IF YOU WANT PUUMISH U WANT U KOMOONINGIGI U ASSASSSUUUU JINGAHANGIDI AMANIMONOLOMITH HAMMAMADAMAKARAMITH TUYUMUDUMULUMUNUTH DIMINIMINIMITH!
|
070601
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
i did not post the above blathe.
|
070604
|
| |
... |
|
|
REAListic optimIST
|
meaning appears to me to be a synergistic process involving the interaction of one's experience, one's disposition, and the agents, objects, and processes of one's environment.
one's disposition is the culmination of one's genetic makeup, one's mindset, and one's interpretation and volition.
in this way, one can simplify by controlling for or limiting agents, and the same goes for the variables considered when representing disposition, however one at least attempts to account for unobservable phenomenon through the act of interpretation, which allows for influenced narrative, however provable the facts must be.
addressing the question of the boundary between human consciousness and other consciousness, the core question appears to be: are you a nihilist? If you believe that other humans experience and share in the creation of meaning, then why is there a line drawn at dolphins and monkeys? if you can converse with a monkey in sign language, is meaning a human construct?
for me, the answer would have to be that no, meaning is not entirely owned by humans, whether it simplifies the rigidity of thought, or not. I can see the usefulness of making that assumption as long as it is a temporary assumption taken alongside analysis not making that restrictive assumption.
now, you may ask my assertion as to the source of that creation of meaning outside humans, and it's as mysterious as the existence of meaning itself. you have highlighted the strength of your stance, and that is that you are saying you know what created meaning, it was humans. i, however, would assert that meaning is a sense like touch, only sensed and sometimes created by our brains, and that brains outside the human variety sense and create meaning as well because there appear to be foreign constructs of meaning when i enter the world of cats, for instance. i have found myself playing dog-like games with a group of dogs.
maybe i'm just a dumb ape, though, incapable of constructing or understanding meaning. in which case, disregard this blathe.
|
070604
|
| |
... |
|
|
zeke
|
i have already admitted above that cognition is not an on or off binary state, but shades of degrees exist in the animal kingdom. that monkeys can engage in sign language is news to me, i have only heard of gorillas doing so. gorillas are not monkeys. they are apes, and like all apes, they share a lot of our genome. they are not human, but aside from chimps, they are our closest living relatives. i would definitely say that they are capable of symbol use, but whether they engage in that use in the wild, i do not know.
cats, however, do not seem to use symbols. as i say above, i love my cats (remus and romulus) but i do not think that they are capable of creating meaning as i define it.
as i said in my first post to this blathe:
verifiably, it is a human construct. potentially, it is the construct of any cognition with sufficient ability for the task.
|
070607
|
| |
... |
|
|
weirdo
|
why do a test then ?
wots wrong with you people ?
|
070607
|
| |
... |
|
|
They call me Truth
|
this is very interesting. I have never really thought about that before. Or maybe I have in a different way.
|
080410
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
how so?
|
080410
|
| |
... |
|
|
They call me Truth
|
I always talk about perception is relative , and I figure that relates to meaning being a human construct. Our perceptions are different because we interpret things differently. Things resonate in different ways among people.
Isn't this someone indirectly suggesting that meaning is a construct.
If it doesn't, I still agree with the notion.
|
080410
|
| |
... |
|
|
z
|
see: negative proof (in wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
|
080819
|
