RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


xssve -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 6:02:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

In order for communication to occur, you do need a medium, in this case, the intrwbz, a common language, or mode, the ASCII characters set, the Indo-Anglo/European language, letter/symbols (a set of meta symbols, eidetic memory) in mutually recognizable letter combinations that signify abstract concepts (word/concepts, a set of common lexical symbols, lexical memory), formed into readable sentences (syntactical memory) capable of being interpreted through analogous mutual experience (episodic memory).


You have merely described the machinery of communication here. Had I everything you have specified at my disposal, the outcome would not be communication. It's like a recipe that omits the the role of the cook - outcome is zero. Something further is needed.

At a minimal level, that something is two humans and the series of agreements they must make to enable all the machinery you have described above to perform its role. Without human participation and agreement nothing happens ... the machinery listed remains idle, the ingredients remain precisely that - ingredients.
Keep reading.




tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 6:22:19 AM)

quote:

However, the statement at issue was:

Art and semiotics teach us that anything can be a symbol/sign for anything else


No goal post shifting please.

What was under discussion was:
your specific claim that meaning "inheres" in representation (made in post #193). I took issue with your claim in post # 194 and proposed that the relationship between meaning and representation was arbitrary. I asserted that the only relationship between representations and their meanings was "the meaning(s) humans agree to invest in/ascribe to that object/sign"

I'm pleased you now seem to agree that "some signs are indeed arbitrary" until some unspecified degree of complexity is reached. This argument seems to hinge on the claim, in the last paragraph of the post, that humans won't accept some representations/symbols. To put that just slightly differently, the argument goes humans won't agree on a shared meaning for some representations/symbols. No human agreement = no meaning, you are telling us.

Here, you appear to have conceded the most important part of my claim - human agreement is the critical factor when meaning is ascribed to representations. The only outstanding issue is whether the relationship is entirely or somewhat arbitrary.

Universal agreement is not necessary for symbols to work. In fact most of the time universal agreement is absent. All that's required for communication to happen is that the two people involved (the transmitter and the receiver) agree. In theory, for an image of a snow tire to represent a penis, all that is needed is for the concerned parties to agree and then it works. Whether the rest of the world agrees with that interpretation or not is irrelevant. For communication to happen between those people, a snow tire can represent a penis as long as they agree it can.

Moving away from your rather extreme strawman, far and away the most common system of representation used in the world today is language. It is also the dominant form of communication. Here meaning has no relationship with its representation (letters and words and sentences), except for those rare words we call onomatopoeic. For most of the communication that occurs in the world today, the relationship between representation and meaning is arbitrary. One commonality across all those diverse languages and sounds and meanings is humans agree on how to understand the symbols, to ascribe meaning to them.

However I am glad that you have come to recognise the critical role humans play in formulating meaning.






eihwaz -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 1:55:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here meaning has no relationship with its representation

[8|]




Kirata -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 3:11:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

However, the statement at issue was:

Art and semiotics teach us that anything can be a symbol/sign for anything else

No goal post shifting please.

I object to this characterization of my response. You had stated previously...

Art and semiotics teach us that anything can be a symbol/sign for anything else - there is no necessary relationship between the object/sign and its meaning/significance other than the meaning(s) humans agree to invest in/ascribe to that object/sign. There is nothing intrinsic to the sign '+' that signifies addition. The only thing that links the two is our shared agreement to interpret '+' in a agreed specific way.

Note the plus sign example you used to illustrate the claim that anything can stand for anything because there is no necessary relationship. In the post I responded to, you repeated both the claim and the plus sign example:

Thus there is no inherent relation between representations and their meanings. If there is, as you claim, please point out the inherent relation between addition and its representation (the + sign). And how addition inheres in this sign '+' while at the same time 'inhering' to "plus" and "and" while managing to avoid inhering to "as well as' or "on top of".

I think it is disingenuous to characterize my response as "shifting goalposts" for addressing this claim, which you repeated in the post to which I replied and which forms part of your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In theory, for an image of a snow tire to represent a penis, all that is needed is for the concerned parties to agree... Moving away from your rather extreme strawman...

In reality, anything can be a symbol for anything only if you are functionally impaired. And that is not a straw man. The human brain is not a blank slate that one can cavalierly ignore when proposing and defending theories.

K.





tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 4:30:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here meaning has no relationship with its representation

[8|]


Why is your avatar an owl (owls are said to be blind) when you are so eagle eyed?

That should have read......Here meaning has no inherent relationship with its representation.

Thanks for pointing out my error.




tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 5:06:13 PM)

quote:

think it is disingenuous to characterize my response as "shifting goalposts" for addressing this claim, which you repeated in the post to which I replied and which forms part of your argument.


Anyone can go back and read from post #193 on and decide for themselves what was at stake.

Post #193 was where you made your "meaning inheres in its representation" point first. I took issue with that in the very next post - the one you claimed you couldn't understand (post # 197) but which you seem to comprehend now. Or so you now claim. You appear to be more or less abandoned your initial position and are now only contesting the extent of arbitrariness involved in symbol selection.

I'm sure the sceptics here will agree that smokescreens are useful for camouflaging retreats.

quote:

In reality, anything can be a symbol for anything only if you are functionally impaired. And that is not a straw man. The human brain is not a blank slate that one can cavalierly ignore when proposing and defending theories.


Well no. There may be good reasons to select symbols that seem intuitively as far away as one can get from the meaning they convey. A spy or military code might be examples. Possibly any code that, for whatever reason, requires encrypting might be relevant here.

To a certain extent we are talking across each other.

My consistent position is that for communication to occur, only the parties involved need agree on the meanings of the symbols they employ for that communication to work. Therefore there is no inherent relationship between symbolic representations and their meanings. Your position seems to be that for a symbolic representation to gain widespread/universal acceptance, other criteria come into play. Whatever merits or demerits your position may have, it in no way negates my position.




tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 7:27:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

In order for communication to occur, you do need a medium, in this case, the intrwbz, a common language, or mode, the ASCII characters set, the Indo-Anglo/European language, letter/symbols (a set of meta symbols, eidetic memory) in mutually recognizable letter combinations that signify abstract concepts (word/concepts, a set of common lexical symbols, lexical memory), formed into readable sentences (syntactical memory) capable of being interpreted through analogous mutual experience (episodic memory).


You have merely described the machinery of communication here. Had I everything you have specified at my disposal, the outcome would not be communication. It's like a recipe that omits the the role of the cook - outcome is zero. Something further is needed.

At a minimal level, that something is two humans and the series of agreements they must make to enable all the machinery you have described above to perform its role. Without human participation and agreement nothing happens ... the machinery listed remains idle, the ingredients remain precisely that - ingredients.
Keep reading.


I'm struggling to find any sense in your position xssve.

Previously, you insisted that "what actually happens when communication happens is physics and biology, what else can it be?" (xssve post # 169) ie. it's entirely a matter of internal physical/biological events within the human body.

Now, you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the decisive role that humans must perform in order for communication to happen, or to agree that successful communication depends upon direct human involvement.




Kirata -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 10:53:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You appear to be more or less abandoned your initial position...

Do I appear so? How very odd. I've repeated it twice. Must I do so in every post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There may be good reasons to select symbols that seem intuitively as far away as one can get from the meaning they convey.

there is no inherent relationship between symbolic representations and their meanings.

In the above, I have excerpted without comment two declarative statements from your post for comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

My consistent position is that for communication to occur, only the parties involved need agree on the meanings of the symbols they employ for that communication to work.

We have no difficulty understanding a series of representations depicting an army approaching a shore, boarding ships, travelling across the sea, debarking their ships, and engaging in battle, even though the parties to the communication are millenia apart in time.

Other symbolic representations communicate their meaning through the correspondences they embody, again with no need for any prearranged agreement between the parties involved: a halo or radiance around the head of a figure, for example.

The neat little formulations you present simply won't hold up unless you specify such limiting conditions as to render them trite. It is hardly a coup of academic perspicacity to offer the wisdom that two people who want to talk need to agree to speak the same language.

K.





tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 11:18:10 PM)

In the end it's pretty simple. It's just like the paper cash in your wallet. On its own paper cash not worth a razoo. The paper and ink it consists of isn't worth more than a cent or two at best. That is it's inherent value. But cash money works because we all agree to take it at its face value.

The same principle is operative with representations and meanings. They work only whenever people agree they work.




Kirata -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 11:22:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In the end it's pretty simple. It's just like the paper cash in your wallet. On its own it's not worth a razoo. The paper it's printed on isn't worth more than a cent or two....

And when it comes to the US dollar, it's face value ain't doin' much better. [:D]

K.




HannahLynHeather -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/27/2011 11:27:43 PM)

quote:

Now, you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the decisive role that humans must perform in order for communication to happen, or to agree that successful communication depends upon direct human involvement.
what's the decisive human role when two fucking tom cats meet in an alley? cause they sure as fuck get to communicating in a hurry.




tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 12:04:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In the end it's pretty simple. It's just like the paper cash in your wallet. On its own it's not worth a razoo. The paper it's printed on isn't worth more than a cent or two....

And when it comes to the US dollar, it's face value ain't doin' much better. [:D]

K.



Indeedies ... please but don't despair, I'm happy to offer you say 25c in the $ on all the paper US currency you can bring me!

Is that an offer too good to refuse or what? [:D]




juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 12:01:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

Now, you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the decisive role that humans must perform in order for communication to happen, or to agree that successful communication depends upon direct human involvement.
what's the decisive human role when two fucking tom cats meet in an alley? cause they sure as fuck get to communicating in a hurry.

As far as we know the cats didn't lay around in the alley with each other afterwards, they didn't each wonder what the other was thinking. The female cat wasn't worried about the male cat not calling her the next day. The male cat wasn't trying to think up an explanation when they female cat asked him "what he was thinking about" afterwards.

The cats just fucked, parted ways, and neither one them was probably concerned about what the sex meant to the other..[:D]




Musicmystery -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 12:04:23 PM)

Readers of this thread might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgO4UDrwm8

Tolle on the problems of reaching enlightenment




Arpig -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 12:23:21 PM)

Ummmmmm...Julia, she referred to two tom cats. I think it was all the caterwauling, growling and posing they do that she was referring to. While not a conversation, it is without a doubt a form of communication. [;)]




juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 12:26:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Ummmmmm...Julia, she referred to two tom cats. I think it was all the caterwauling, growling and posing they do that she was referring to. While not a conversation, it is without a doubt a form of communication. [;)]



Maybe they were gay toms?

Animals communicate... the meanings they put on such communication is something that we have thus far been unable to measure.

When we look at chimps that have been taught sign language, they show an ability to use symbolic thought, even draw pictures, etc




tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 2:08:45 PM)

Whatever their sexual preferences(and far be it from me to pass judgement on that), tom cats definitely don't engage in human communication ('cept in Disney cartoons [:D]).




juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 6:28:51 PM)

They engage in cat communication...

I will say though, animals can communicate with humans... birds can even use our words to communicate with us, for example, they can can count the number of things and tell us how many there are. They can tell us the shape of something, and the color, too. They are using human words to tell us that they see an object, and if it is big, small, also....




juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 7:38:50 PM)

quote:

We have no difficulty understanding a series of representations depicting an army approaching a shore, boarding ships, travelling across the sea, debarking their ships, and engaging in battle, even though the parties to the communication are millenia apart in time.


I am trying to decipher your position here, and I will have to say I agree with Tweaky. It is not certain what is going to be communicated millenia apart. For me a representation of Washington on his boat crossing the Potomac is going to be widely different from what people who may have never heard of Washington are going to think of it. Most Americans would have a definite idea apart from the actual representation of a man leading an army into battle when looking at such a representation. It means our freedom, the sacrifice we made for it, the continuance of our nation, the precariousness of our freedom, etc etc etc... in a 1000 years from now it might just look like a weirdly dressed dude on a boat leading a military charge.

Things mean what we decide they do. That meaning is communicated at multiple levels, and the context of those meanings are very important. The reason why I posted the work of Geertz earlier was that he thought that meaning always had layers of culturally specific contexts, and one had to be a member of a culture to really get all the nuanced meanings of any symbolic communication. Gestures, images, words, the ordering of words, etc etc etc, can never be fully understood by outsiders unless that outsider immerses themselves into another culture... and even then meaning will be lost...


Now, you are free to disagree with that, but it makes sense to me as someone who has had more than one instance of assuming that someone "understood" me because it seemed like my meaning was something that could not possibly be misunderstood.


We never know whether or not we are truly being understood when we communicate with another...

I think this thread took a very different turn than I imaged it would or intended it to, which tells you how I thought people would understand the OP. I thought of meaning in the terms of "what is the meaning of life" or "What is the deeper meaning of the reality we experience"... instead others understood the thread differently than I intended... which was fine by me because it was interesting nonetheless... but still, it tend to show how we think we are communicating one thing, and we are actually communicating another. Communication is a nebulous sort of endeavor at its most basic level. It is why existing along with others can be very hard, even when it should be easy. I quit expecting to be understood a long time ago, and I shoot for understanding others these days... it makes life easier and more rewarding for me...




Kirata -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/28/2011 10:48:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

We have no difficulty understanding a series of representations depicting an army approaching a shore, boarding ships, travelling across the sea, debarking their ships, and engaging in battle, even though the parties to the communication are millenia apart in time.

I am trying to decipher your position here, and I will have to say I agree with Tweaky. It is not certain what is going to be communicated millenia apart. For me a representation of Washington on his boat crossing the Potomac is going to be widely different from what people who may have never heard of Washington are going to think of it.

I have to agree that that this is one of those situations where tweakabelle's thesis applies. If you are going to equate a single picture with a "series of representations" depicting in sequence an unfolding story, then we have not yet agreed to speak the same language.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625