What is meaning? What is its relationship to phenomenality?

[hypnagogue]

The issue of meaning has popped up a couple of times recently in the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, and I think it's substantial enough to merit its own discussion.

What is meaning? As a first pass, it seems reasonable to define meaning in terms of representation. In turn, the notion of representation seems to imply a system for which something is represented. Here, then, is a tentative definition:

An object or event X has meaning for an agent A just in case A takes X to represent some other object or event Y.

The terms "agent" and "takes X to represent" remain somewhat ambiguous. The latter might be specified, for instance, either in terms of belief ('A believes that X represents Y') or action ('A behaves as if X represents Y,' or even 'A behaves as if X is Y.').

I am particularly interested here to investigate the link, if any, between meaning and phenomenality. On the plausible definition given above, phenomenality is not necessary for meaning. A zombie's mental life would feature just as much meaning as ours, even though a zombie is not p-conscious by definition. For instance, a stop sign would have just as much meaning for a zombie as for a human. Just like a human, the zombie would take the stop sign to represent a command to stop a moving vehicle. Of course, a zombie would not have the attendent subjective experience of meaningfulness, but on the definition given above, the qualitative component of meaningfulness is not an essential aspect of meaning.

 

[Pensador]

Hypnagogue,

I think you are absolutely correct in saying that phenomenality is not necessary for meaning. Instructions in a computer program have meaning, so much so that programming languages fail to translate or execute meaningless statements.

That said, meaning in aesthetics is particularly complex. For instance, colors usually have a sort of aesthetic meaning that can't be expressed in language (unless you consider art a language in itself). You said a stop sign means the same thing for a zombie as it does for us, but I'm inclined to believe we have a reason for painting stop signs red, while zombies would not respond differently to a green stop sign. That is, there's something intrinsic to our perception of red besides linguistic and cultural conventions.

Also, in music some tone intervals are clearly interpreted as "happy" or "sad" by most listeners, but no one knows why abstract mathematical relationships are capable of having that kind of meaning. Again, this is independent of cultural conventions, as far as I know.

Because of aesthetics, I feel inclined to think zombies cannot be perfectly equivalent to sentient people, modern philosophers notwithstanding. The very notion of zombie in folk usage reflects that: zombies don't have aesthetic experiences, and they appear and behave as such, with their steely eyes and lack of moral values.

So to answer your post, I think the full meaning of meaning is somewhat elusive. We can understand meaning from a logical/linguistic perspective, the same perspective which allows people to create computer languages. But the aesthetic aspect of meaning is quite far from being understood, and it's a very important component of it.

 

[hypnagogue]

I think you are absolutely correct in saying that phenomenality is not necessary for meaning. Instructions in a computer program have meaning, so much so that programming languages fail to translate or execute meaningless statements.

On the definition of meaning I gave above, a key component is the system or agent for which some object or event has meaning. I believe we must take into account the context afforded by a given agent to evaluate something's meaning, because it's not plausible on a definition of meaning that incorporates representation that things just have some sort of inherent meaning.

With that in mind, I believe that computer instructions are certainly meaningful for us, as human cognitive agents. But we are also phenomenally conscious, so it's not clear that the fact that we view computer instructions as meaningful can tell us much about meaning in the absence of phenomenality.

For the sake of argument, we can suppose that simple computer programs are not phenomenally conscious, and I think this is what you were trying to get at: that we can demonstrate that phenomenality is not necessary for meaning by appealing to computers or computer programs as agents that are not phenomenally conscious, but for which instructions nonetheless have meaning. However, I'm not sure that all computers/computer programs, as such, fit the bill.

Your example of ill-formed computer instructions seems more like an issue of syntax than semantics, when regarded from the computer's point of view. Certainly, a program will only function 'properly' when it is given syntacticly 'well-formed' instructions (notice that the words in scare quotes are human-imposed norms). However, it seems implausible to suppose that a simple computer program would take its instructions to be representative of anything; it seems more like a type of 'dumb' causal chain that operates on certain human designed specifications.

This is not to say that no computer could find anything meaningful. For instance, a suitably designed artificial intelligence computer could find things meaningful, according to the definition I provided. It's certainly a subtle and difficult question about where the boundaries and gradients between syntax and semantics lie, and one could come up with different proposals based on different interpretations of the initial definition of meaning that I provided. However, I think the case of instruction syntax for simple computer programs is extreme enough that we can plausibly say that instructions are not meaningful for simple programs, according to the definition of meaning I proposed above.

You said a stop sign means the same thing for a zombie as it does for us, but I'm inclined to believe we have a reason for painting stop signs red, while zombies would not respond differently to a green stop sign.

Zombies are structurally and behaviorally identical to humans, though, by definition of what it means to be a zombie. So to the extent that humans have reason for painting stop signs red, zombies have equivalent reasons. If perceiving red triggers some sort of 'warning!' or 'caution!' mechanism in humans, it does the same in zombies. All that is different is that a stop sign qualitatively looks something like this[/color] for a human, but does not qualitatively look like anything for a zombie.

Because of aesthetics, I feel inclined to think zombies cannot be perfectly equivalent to sentient people, modern philosophers notwithstanding. The very notion of zombie in folk usage reflects that: zombies don't have aesthetic experiences, and they appear and behave as such, with their steely eyes and lack of moral values.

Zombies would not have steely eyes or lack of moral values to any greater or lesser extent than humans, by definition. They would also value art and so on to the same extent that we humans do, again, by definition. The only difference is that in humans, art has some sort of phenomenal presentation, while it has none for zombies.

So on balance, you are more or less claiming that zombies are metaphysically impossible; there is some sort inseperability between some qualitative experience and some behavior. This constraint of yours seems to necessarily push you either towards some sort of physicalism (i.e., it is logically impossible to have certain mental functions without some sort of illusory, qualitative experience arising) or some sort of interactionist dualism (i.e., it is logically impossible for certain mental functions to be instantiated without some sort qualitative experience to cause them).

So to answer your post, I think the full meaning of meaning is somewhat elusive. We can understand meaning from a logical/linguistic perspective, the same perspective which allows people to create computer languages. But the aesthetic aspect of meaning is quite far from being understood, and it's a very important component of it.

I can understand why you would want to consider some sort of contribution of aesthetics to meaning, but it's still not clear to me that such contributions could not be instantiated in zombies.

 

[Philocrat]

The issue of meaning has popped up a couple of times recently in the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, and I think it's substantial enough to merit its own discussion.

What is meaning? As a first pass, it seems reasonable to define meaning in terms of representation. In turn, the notion of representation seems to imply a system for which something is represented. Here, then, is a tentative definition:

An object or event X has meaning for an agent A just in case A takes X to represent some other object or event Y.

The terms "agent" and "takes X to represent" remain somewhat ambiguous. The latter might be specified, for instance, either in terms of belief ('A believes that X represents Y') or action ('A behaves as if X represents Y,' or even 'A behaves as if X is Y.').

In philosophy the notion of meaning is very wide and extensively controversial. Partly because meaning is a multi-disciplinary notion - that is, it cuts across several philosophical disciplines. In philosophy there are many papers by Russell, Frege, Strawson, Kripke, Donnellan and countless Langauge and anaylitical philosphers that directly confront this notion of meaning - e.g Russell's Theory of description . What I mean is that meaning cannot be defined in one context for there are many contexts that one has to examine in other to do justice to it. For example, there are some metaphysically vexing problems with meaning in Propositional Attitude context (such as in belief context). Philosophers have a problem with propositional attitude sentences with regards to meaning such as these ones that you specified: 'A believes that X represents Y' 'A behaves as if X represents Y. When you read their papers thoroughly you will understand why. You do not have to agree with them, but it is controversial in general.

I am particularly interested here to investigate the link, if any, between meaning and phenomenality. On the plausible definition given above, phenomenality is not necessary for meaning. A zombie's mental life would feature just as much meaning as ours, even though a zombie is not p-conscious by definition. For instance, a stop sign would have just as much meaning for a zombie as for a human. Just like a human, the zombie would take the stop sign to represent a command to stop a moving vehicle. Of course, a zombie would not have the attendent subjective experience of meaningfulness, but on the definition given above, the qualitative component of meaningfulness is not an essential aspect of meaning.

The question is whether consciousness can be progrmmed into a zombie, given that the zombie is scientifically improvable or programmable. And there is the issue of evaluating the evolutionary value of consciousness in the grand scale of things or life in general. If you ask me "can consciousness be programmed into machines?", my answer would be a capital 'YES'. Can we? Oh yes, we can!

 

[hypnagogue]

In philosophy the notion of meaning is very wide and extensively controversial.

Right; I certainly don't pretend to have given a complete or non-problematic account of meaning. That's why I portrayed my effort as a tentative first pass.

The question is whether consciousness can be progrmmed into a zombie, given that the zombie is scientifically improvable or programmable.

That's not the question at all. For one thing, we cannot program anything 'into' a zombie, because zombies do not exist. They are hypothetical entities that some philosophers believe are logically possible; certainly no one seriously considers them to be nomologically possible (possible in our world). Furthermore, if zombies did exist in our world, they would be physically identical to us humans (by definition), so I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about programming anything into a zombie. What would it mean to program something into a human? Perhaps it makes sense on some level, but it doesn't seem to be the best choice of words.

 

[Pensador]

On the definition of meaning I gave above, a key component is the system or agent for which some object or event has meaning. I believe we must take into account the context afforded by a given agent to evaluate something's meaning, because it's not plausible on a definition of meaning that incorporates representation that things just have some sort of inherent meaning.

I believe your position is quite mistaken. It's not a given agent that affords context; if you don't have the context which provides meaning to a statement, you can't arbitrarily create that context yourself. Context can be given either by the language itself or by the phenomena the language refers to; it certainly can't be given by the conscious agent in the language, except in the few cases where language refers to subjective phenomena.

With that in mind, I believe that computer instructions are certainly meaningful for us, as human cognitive agents. But we are also phenomenally conscious, so it's not clear that the fact that we view computer instructions as meaningful can tell us much about meaning in the absence of phenomenality.

The point I was trying to make is that meaning can exist in the absence of phenomenality. Once a language becomes sophisticated enough, you can create concepts that refer to the language itself rather than to anything the language refers to (let's call those 'meta-concepts'). Any computer is perfectly capable of understanding meta-concepts. Moreover, we understand meta-concepts in exactly the same way computers do. Words like "not", "and", "more", and so on, do not bring any images to mind. We reason about those concepts completely in the dark, so to speak.

Your example of ill-formed computer instructions seems more like an issue of syntax than semantics, when regarded from the computer's point of view.

Not at all. A computer will not refrain from executing a statement such as 2/0 not because it contains a syntax error, but because it has no meaning.

I think what you are failing to see is that computers did not come out of nothing, they were created by people. Computers are the embodiment of our ways of thinking, just like voice recorders are the embodiment of our ways of speaking. As such, computers provide a wonderful opportunity to look at our own minds from an objective perspective. The fact that some people don't recognize themselves in the workings of a logical machine only means they don't understand how the machine was created.

Certainly, a program will only function 'properly' when it is given syntacticly 'well-formed' instructions (notice that the words in scare quotes are human-imposed norms). However, it seems implausible to suppose that a simple computer program would take its instructions to be representative of anything

That is not the issue. The issue is, does a statement need to represent anything in order to be meaningful to us? And the answer is a clear negative. Gosh, even the question "does a statement need to represent anything" does not represent anything other than meta-concepts.

Zombies are structurally and behaviorally identical to humans, though, by definition of what it means to be a zombie.

I see a huge problem with this zombie thing. Zombies are thought not to have subjective experiences, yet they are also thought to behave as if they have subjective experiences. But you can't simply say "that is the way it is by definition" without justifying it, without addressing complaints that the definition is bogus; that would be sophistry.

I can understand why you would want to consider some sort of contribution of aesthetics to meaning, but it's still not clear to me that such contributions could not be instantiated in zombies.

Of course not, because the definition of zombies is bogus. The problem is that without subjective experiences there is no language and therefore no meaning. Defined the proper way, a zombie is exactly what we are when we are unconscious: we can still move our muscles and talk gibberish, but we cannot possibly behave the same way or have meaningful conversations. Your line of thinking leads one to conclude that subjective experience is just a frill, an unnecessary ingredient of brain activity. I find that notion ridiculous.

 

[Tournesol]

I believe your position is quite mistaken. It's not a given agent that affords context;

An agent is not the ultimate origin of context..

if you don't have the context which provides meaning to a statement, you can't arbitrarily create that context yourself. Context can be given either by the language itself or by the phenomena the language refers to;

..but "language itself" is nothing without an agent.

Not at all. A computer will not refrain from executing a statement such as 2/0 not because it contains a syntax error, but because it has no meaning.

"syntax error" and "meaninglessness" are both interpretations of something causal.

 

[StatusX]

First of all, zombies are logically possible, unless you can find a way to prove the people around you are in fact conscious. You might believe some behavior requires consciousness, but this can only be based on your own subjective data which isn't infallible when trying to describe the objective world. All logically possible means is that there is no logical contradiction in their defintion. For example, an eight headed unicorn is logically possible, but an eight headed unicorn with seven horns is not.

As for the notion of defining meaning. We're essential trying to find the meaning of the word meaning, and it seems self reference might be involved. The problem is that we take a certain intellectual ground for granted, and all our meanings derive from that. For example, if we ran into an alien intelligence, how could we convey information to them? We would need some symbolic system. But first we would need some intellectual grounding to work from, maybe prime numbers. From there we would move up to math, physics, and eventually we might be able to communicate with them as we do with other humans. But how could this be possible without finding some common ground? In other words, there may be some necessary concepts that cannot be defined in any way, but are taken for granted and from which all other concepts are built. The question is what these are, and whether they are unique, or if there are many possible basis sets.

 

[Pensador]

First of all, zombies are logically possible, unless you can find a way to prove the people around you are in fact conscious.

It's perfectly possible to prove that people are conscious, since a person must be conscious to behave in a conscious way. By definition.

What is impossible to prove is that people have the kind of ineffable subjective experience zombies are supposed to lack. But how do we know we have those, if they are truly ineffable? If someone tells you "I have this thing in my head which I cannot describe to you", how would you know what they were talking about, and how would you know you also had it?

Clearly you know you are conscious not because you discovered it from introspection, but because someone told you so. So the claim that it's impossible to tell if people are conscious has no substance: you certainly need other people to know if you are conscious to learn about that fact yourself.

All logically possible means is that there is no logical contradiction in their defintion. For example, an eight headed unicorn is logically possible, but an eight headed unicorn with seven horns is not.

Ah, but there is exactly such a contradiction in the definition of zombies, only it's not as clear to see as in your example. But it's there nonetheless, and the fact that some people can't see the inconsistency doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Doctordick]

Of course not, because the definition of zombies is bogus. The problem is that without subjective experiences there is no language and therefore no meaning. Defined the proper way, a zombie is exactly what we are when we are unconscious: we can still move our muscles and talk gibberish, but we cannot possibly behave the same way or have meaningful conversations. Your line of thinking leads one to conclude that subjective experience is just a frill, an unnecessary ingredient of brain activity. I find that notion ridiculous.

Though I am of the opinion that you have not thought out the consequences of your position as carefully as you should, I agree with most everything you have said.

To discuss the meaning of meaning, we must give meanings to the terms used in the discussion. It should be clear that "meaning" is a component of language. Without meaning, any language is meaningless and without language, meaning does not exist. The purpose of language is communication and the purpose of meaning is communication. So long as any part of that structure is vague in any way, communication fails. What is important when I use a word, symbol or any reference (and yes, art is a language, one of the vaguest languages in existence), that reference brings to the mind of another the same thing it brings to my mind. Once you see that, you begin to see the problem. That problem even occurs within one's own mind; sometimes internal references bring alternate things to mind. That's why we can't even understand our own comprehensions. Actually, I think the advantage of conscious is that we can exist as a separate entity in our own minds and can thus take advantage of this very phenomena.

To quote myself:

One of the excellent consequences of preventing communication is the fact that it is impossible to communicate beliefs from one generation to another. Misunderstandings will invariably occur and, in an attempt to make sense of what they think the previous generation is saying, new unique perspectives will arise. Without that ambiguity I suspect intellectual advancement would soon cease.

That is, accidental discovery of new interpretations of available information is essential to learning. So the imprecise communication between the subconscious and the conscious mind may very well be the source of the great value of having a conscious mind. Now, that's a theory!

The problem, as I see it, is the notion that an explanation restricted to logic and mathematics can account for the whole of NL (as Doctordick seems to be proposing), even as, from an NL perspective, it can't since logic and math is but a subset of it. And of course from a formalist perspective, the formalist perspective itself cannot be justified other than by force. We sure live in dictatorial times.

First, what the devil does "NL" stand for? Secondly, I don't think you comprehend my starting point. You should look at my post on that issue.

The only reason I use mathematics is that I am fairly sure that I will obtain almost universal agreement with any conclusions I can deduce consistent with that field of endeavorer. My problem is that I cannot get anyone to look down that rabbit hole. I have no idea what they are afraid of. At least my approach begins with a set of meanings almost universally agreed upon. Starting from there, I have a procedure which yields exact definition after exact definition perfectly consistent with everything at every point. It is my contention that my approach is the only rational approach to meanings and I am resisted by those who would rather have no approach at all.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . meaning in aesthetics is particularly complex.

I think it's just the opposite; that is, meaning, as an experience, is so simple it defies the complexity needed for any sort of explanation. To clarify a bit more, I don't believe the experience of meaning has any "parts" to it, but rather is a sort of "experiential singularity," and so like its sister qualia, can't be segmented into the parts an intellect requires to formulate a proper definition.

It is my opinion that all the current models of consciousness are missing this “singularity” feature. Out of that unified field emerges offshoot singularities which are likewise indivisible and have forever evaded precise analysis by the intellect (e.g. love, happiness, interestedness, compassion, appreciation, etc.). Logically, the integrated facet would be the seat of individuality and subjectivity, the unique “me” at the core of one’s being.

 

[StatusX]

It's perfectly possible to prove that people are conscious, since a person must be conscious to behave in a conscious way. By definition.

Don't mix up conscious as in "awake" with conscious as in "experiencing." You are experiencing while you dream, so these obviously can't be exactly the same thing, but their similarity can cause confusion.

What is impossible to prove is that people have the kind of ineffable subjective experience zombies are supposed to lack. But how do we know we have those, if they are truly ineffable? If someone tells you "I have this thing in my head which I cannot describe to you", how would you know what they were talking about, and how would you know you also had it?

We can tell others experiences exist, but we can do nothing to convey what they're like. You know red looks like something, but how can you put it into words without simply listing red objects or emotions that accompany red, both of which are completely independent of what the experience itself is like? A zombie would say all the same things, but there would be no accompanying experience. When he says red looks like something, he would be wrong. But when he tries to describe what it looks like, he would do no worse than you.

Clearly you know you are conscious not because you discovered it from introspection, but because someone told you so. So the claim that it's impossible to tell if people are conscious has no substance: you certainly need other people to know if you are conscious to learn about that fact yourself.

In a way, but I think we all know there is something it is like to be us and experience what we do. When we hear the definition of consciousness, we know other people have singled out this phenomenon as well and have invented a word to talk about it. There's no paradox here, if you accept that we can say that we experience but not what it is like.

Ah, but there is exactly such a contradiction in the definition of zombies, only it's not as clear to see as in your example. But it's there nonetheless, and the fact that some people can't see the inconsistency doesn't mean it's not there.

What is it then? Logical, or a priori, possibility is just that there is nothing in the defintions of the words involved that is contradictory. A zombie is an entity that behaves identically to us but does not experience. All experience means is that there is something it is like to be them. Where is the contradiction in these defintions?

Now, it may turn out down the road that we find some law of nature that proves they are impossible. If one did turn up, that would mean they are a posteriori impossible. I believe they are impossible in this sense, but science has yet to provide any evidence either way.

Do you have evidence they are impossible, or is it just your belief? I don't think you do, but even if so, their logical possibility remains.

 

[StatusX]

While typing my last post, I thought of something that actually connected it to this topic. Could it be that the only reason we think of experiences as ineffable is that we totally lack even a fundamental language for describing them? When we ask what it means for something to "look green", we dismiss the question as unanswerable ("you have to experience it to see"). Is this really true, or are we giving up too easily?

 

[hypnagogue]

I believe your position is quite mistaken. It's not a given agent that affords context; if you don't have the context which provides meaning to a statement, you can't arbitrarily create that context yourself. Context can be given either by the language itself or by the phenomena the language refers to; it certainly can't be given by the conscious agent in the language, except in the few cases where language refers to subjective phenomena.

The point is, any given statement does not have meaning unless there is an agent around to interpret it as having meaning, or as signifying/representing something else. The words in a book do not have intrinsic meaning; they are only meaningful when regarded by an agent who understands the language. (Or, they could even be taken to mean something by an agent who does not understand the language; for instance, perhaps the patterns of shapes and colors resembles a visual image of some object for the agent.)

The point I was trying to make is that meaning can exist in the absence of phenomenality. Once a language becomes sophisticated enough, you can create concepts that refer to the language itself rather than to anything the language refers to (let's call those 'meta-concepts'). Any computer is perfectly capable of understanding meta-concepts.

Alright, you seem to be arguing for a more wide-ranging notion of meaning than the one I intended. In my definition, we need an agent to be aware, in some sense, that some sort of representation is going on. (Note that awareness, as I'm using it, does not require phenomenality.) That's a pretty ambiguous issue, and depending on how one interprets the various terms, it might amount to something like you're proposing here. However, I still think it's absolutely essential that we build into the definition some reference to a system for which a given object/event/process/etc. has meaning. Things do not have intrinsic meaning; they acquire meaning in the proper contexts, which must include some sort of system that 'interprets' things in some way or another.

Not at all. A computer will not refrain from executing a statement such as 2/0 not because it contains a syntax error, but because it has no meaning.

Actually, computers refrain from dividing by zero because human programmers explicitly give them instructions to avoid attempting such operations, so it amounts to an ill-formed request. Without such instructions, a program will straightforwardly go about trying to calculate 2/0 according to its particular algorithms (and will probably crash).

The point is, the kind of computers we are accustomed to do not have a concept of what numbers are, or what operations on numbers are. When we feed 2+2 into a calculator and get back 4, it's just a blind causal chain, not very much different in character from dropping a ball or knocking over a set of dominos. Now, obviously it's more complex than that; one could characterize the brain in a similar matter, and obviously we do take things to have meaning. It's not clear exactly what happens in the brain to make this occur, but I do not think it's going out on a limb to say that simple computer programs do not have it, but more complex, AI inspired computers could.

I think what you are failing to see is that computers did not come out of nothing, they were created by people.

I explicitly acknowledged that point several times, and in fact it was the reason I objected to your example. I thought we should consider things from the computer's point of view (if it even makes sense to attribute a point of view to the kind of computers we use today), not from our human point of view, to evaluate the question of the meaning of instructions for a computer.

That is not the issue. The issue is, does a statement need to represent anything in order to be meaningful to us? And the answer is a clear negative.

Please produce a meaningful statement that does not have representational content.

 

[hypnagogue]

I'm responding to this post in two parts: the last to address meaning, and in this response to address the issue of zombies.

I see a huge problem with this zombie thing. Zombies are thought not to have subjective experiences, yet they are also thought to behave as if they have subjective experiences. But you can't simply say "that is the way it is by definition" without justifying it, without addressing complaints that the definition is bogus; that would be sophistry.

The definition is what the definition is. You can argue that zombies are logically impossible, or in other words that the definition is incoherent, which is fine. But if you want to talk about hypothetical beings whose behavior resembles humans' in some respects, but who do not appreciate art and have no moral values and the like, you are not talking about zombies. You are talking about something else.

Of course not, because the definition of zombies is bogus. The problem is that without subjective experiences there is no language and therefore no meaning. Defined the proper way, a zombie is exactly what we are when we are unconscious: we can still move our muscles and talk gibberish, but we cannot possibly behave the same way or have meaningful conversations. Your line of thinking leads one to conclude that subjective experience is just a frill, an unnecessary ingredient of brain activity. I find that notion ridiculous.

Obviously, accepting the logical possibility of zombies presents problems. But rejecting the logical possibility of zombies also presents significant problems. As I said before, if you reject the logical possibility of zombies, then you are essentially claiming that human behavior and human subjective experience are inseparable in a very strong sense. You must either claim that it is logically impossible that certain mental functions/brain activities occur without subjective experience arising, or you must claim that certain mental functions/brain activities cannot occur without subjective experience playing a role in their causal production. The former amounts to some form of physicalism, the latter interactionist dualism. But there are strong arguments that physicalism is not a sufficiently powerful ontology to account for subjective experience, and interactionist dualism rejects the well-founded principle of the causal closure of the physical. So, if you reject zombies, which of these impalatable options are you going to choose?

By the way, it is not the case that accepting the logical possibility of zombies forces us into a kind of epiphenomenalism where subjective experience is just an unncecessary frill. The "A Place for Consciousness" discussion is about a book that demonstrates this notion.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

it seems that in this flow of thought about the idea of meaning, zombies play a key role.

 

[Pensador]

So many interesting replies, too bad I don't have time to address all the issues.

To discuss the meaning of meaning, we must give meanings to the terms used in the discussion. It should be clear that "meaning" is a component of language. Without meaning, any language is meaningless and without language, meaning does not exist. The purpose of language is communication and the purpose of meaning is communication. So long as any part of that structure is vague in any way, communication fails. What is important when I use a word, symbol or any reference (and yes, art is a language, one of the vaguest languages in existence), that reference brings to the mind of another the same thing it brings to my mind. Once you see that, you begin to see the problem.

Langauge is used for communication, but it's also used for thinking. In fact you can't use language to communicate if you don't use it first for thinking, although this is a bit tricky to explain. What needs to be understood is the difference between words and what words refer to, the major difference being that words are arbitrary while their referents are not. For instance, a child may not know the English word for "sun" but she knows a word probably exists, so the child can think about "sun" without even knowing if the word actually exists. So we have those "placeholders" in our minds which are filled with whatever it is that a word stands for, and when we learn the word all we have to do is attach it to the existing placeholder.

I said all that to get to the point that your problem may or may not exist, it really depends on the context you're talking about. If you talk about "the decline of Western society in posmodernistic times", you may have more words than placeholders for them (that is, you learn words without really knowing what they mean); on the other hand, when talking about "the sun rised in the East and sets in the West", the words may be vague but the meaning, at least in my head, is absolutely clear.

So I don't fully acknowledge the existence of the problem you're talking about when it comes to descriptions of the physical world, although I certainly agree it exists in the more abstract domains of human knowledge.

I think it's just the opposite; that is, meaning, as an experience, is so simple it defies the complexity needed for any sort of explanation. To clarify a bit more, I don't believe the experience of meaning has any "parts" to it, but rather is a sort of "experiential singularity," and so like its sister qualia, can't be segmented into the parts an intellect requires to formulate a proper definition.

It is my opinion that all the current models of consciousness are missing this “singularity” feature.

This is really what I was trying to point out when I mentioned aesthetics. I'm glad you seem to agree. We can't create this artificial dichotomy between the physical world and the picture we have in our head, they are the same thing. Stop signs are not simply abstract concepts, they are red hexagonal things which can only have meaning when taken in their entirety. I don't know about others, but I have never seen an abstract stop sign, the kind of which Hypnagogue says zombies are capable of seeing.

We can tell others experiences exist, but we can do nothing to convey what they're like.

Of course we can, that's why we have language.

Logical, or a priori, possibility is just that there is nothing in the defintions of the words involved that is contradictory. A zombie is an entity that behaves identically to us but does not experience. All experience means is that there is something it is like to be them. Where is the contradiction in these defintions?

The contradiction is embedded in the meaning of "behavior" and "experience". Just because you can put a sentence together without offending the rules of grammar doesn't mean the sentence doesn't harbor a contradiction. The problem is that the contradictions can be very hard to see. For instance, Newton's laws of mechanics were contradictory, but those contradictions only showed up 300 years later when they gave rise to the paradoxes which could only be solved by relativity and quantum mechanics. And those, as everyone knows, also give rise to paradoxes of their own.

But physics is a lot easier than philosophy, because we cannot lie to the world. If an equation describes a real physical phenomenon as an undefined mathematical entity, we know the equation must be wrong. Philosophy however doesn't have that luxury; we can go on and on for centuries making logical mistakes and nature will never correct us.

The point is, any given statement does not have meaning unless there is an agent around to interpret it as having meaning, or as signifying/representing something else. The words in a book do not have intrinsic meaning; they are only meaningful when regarded by an agent who understands the language.

Actually, we need to make some distinctions before we can clearly discuss this issue. Words do have some form of meaning; that meaning is given by its relationships with all other words in the language. That kind of meaning is what allows computers to translate many statements from one language to another.

But there's more to words than their relationships to other words, and that is the part of meaning which only exists in the minds of conscious agents. That kind of meaning is what prevents computers from translating most statements from one language to another.

I contend that the second kind of meaning can only exist together with what I'm loosingly calling "aesthetic experiences". A computer, or your zombies, can know that "happiness" is the opposite of "sorrow", but they cannot know why one must be sought and the other avoided.

Try that yourself. Try explaining to your favorite zombie why is it humans spend so much time and energy seeking happiness when sorrow is a lot easier to find.

Please produce a meaningful statement that does not have representational content.

Any statement about language itself qualifies. To take a simple example, "all meaningful English sentences must include a subject and a verb"

By the way, that is the kind of sentence a computer/zombie is perfectly capable of understanding. The grammar checker in your word processor software certainly understands it.

 

[Tournesol]

The contradiction is embedded in the meaning of "behavior" and "experience". Just because you can put a sentence together without offending the rules of grammar doesn't mean the sentence doesn't harbor a contradiction. The problem is that the contradictions can be very hard to see. For instance, Newton's laws of mechanics were contradictory, but those contradictions only showed up 300 years later when they gave rise to the paradoxes which could only be solved by relativity and quantum mechanics.

Newtonian mechanics is not self-contradictory, it is just not
in line with the behaviour of matter.

"Any statement about language itself qualifies. To take a simple example, "all meaningful English sentences must include a subject and a verb"

By the way, that is the kind of sentence a computer/zombie is perfectly capable of understanding. The grammar checker in your word processor software certainly understands it.

Not it doesn't. It *implements* it. A falling rock does not "understand" gravity.

 

[Tournesol]

Before any more wheels get re-invented:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning#Frege.27s_philosophy_of_language

 

[Les Sleeth]

Before any more wheels get re-invented:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning#Frege.27s_philosophy_of_language

I took Hypnagogue's topic to be about the experience of "meaningfulness" that can accompany literal meaning. A zombie could identify the meaning for a word, just like it can recognize the color red. The zombie isn't capable of the phenomenal element which human consciousness does rather effortlessly.

If your link applies, then I've posted to the wrong thread.

 

[Philocrat]

When MULTIPARTITE reality overpowers your comprehension, take out your METAPHYSICAL HAMMER and crack it open. Don't enslave yourself in the stalemate?

Qualia and ALL its relatives can be explained. This is now the homework for you all:

STEP 1: Take out your METAPHYSICAL HAMMER from your Metpahysical Tool Box.

STEP 2: Take out your METAPHYSICAL GLUE from the same Tool Box

STEP 3: Crack open, not Qualia nor its close relatives, but our Natural Langauge (NL).

STEP 4: Crack open mathematical physics to make it easier to cut through

STEP 5: Take out your METAPHYSICAL KNIFE from the same tool box

STEP 6: Surgically cut through and remove the part of mathematical physics that can explain qualia in the way that physicists can understand.

STEP 7: Place this removed part in NL and glue it tightly into place with the Metaphysical Glue that you took out of the toolbox to produce a new updated language.

STEP 8: Teach this language to all the the native speakers of NL. Part of the original NL will explain what it can explain and the embedded physics part will explain the qualia remainder.

LESSON: There is nothing wrong in CONJOINING LANGUAGES TO EXPLAIN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SAME UNIVERSAL SYSTEM. What does this mean? It means that you need a MULTIPARTITE METAPHYSICAL LANGUAGE (which I am quite prepared to count as part of a universal language) to explain metaphysically vexing and seemingly unexplainable parts of the same system. Consciousness is such a system. If explaining Qualia and its close relatives is so important to us, then we need to find a suitable language that can be metaphysically embedded in our Natural Langauge to explain them. The only drawback is that we have a marathon task or project of teaching it to everyone the world over within an unpredictable period of time. Left to me alone, I would suggest that we should all ignore all these so-called 'UNEXPLAINABLE REMAINDERS' and let the evolutionary underwriters subsequentely write them off when it is due..for time is the best Judge of everything. But, if it is important to us now to explain all these metaphysical beasts before we can get a good night sleep, then the metaphysical embeding of languages in other languages to explain them is metaphysically and epistemologically inevitable. Call it it a 'META LANGUAGE' if you like.

--------------------------
Think Nature...Think Green! And above all, think how your action may affect the rest of Nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!

 

[Tournesol]

"STEP 6: Surgically cut through and remove the part of mathematical physics that can explain qualia in the way that physicists can understand."

What part would that be?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

what is the meaning of a word but a string of other words? All these words that we use in whatever language we speak, What do they refer to but themselves? In all communication, what does any idea referance to but other ideas that expand on the original idea? No matter how we choose to view ideas and how or why they are communicated we must conclude that there is something else rendering them real that we cannot fully communicate to each other (as to exactly what "it" is).

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So I ask you to see beyond these words that I string together for they are only an invention of the human mind as it ravages through space-time, and the human mind isn't infinate such that it can comprehend it's own existence.

 

[Tournesol]

what is the meaning of a word but a string of other words?

Something that can be conveyed by, among other things, a defintion -- a string of words.

All these words that we use in whatever language we speak, What do they refer to but themselves?

With very few exceptions (eg "noun"), very few words refer to themselves.
Did you mean "each other" ?

In all communication, what does any idea referance to but other ideas that expand on the original idea? No matter how we choose to view ideas and how or why they are communicated we must conclude that there is something else rendering them real that we cannot fully communicate to each other (as to exactly what "it" is).

Maybe the something else is just real-world objects.

 

[Pensador]

what is the meaning of a word but a string of other words? All these words that we use in whatever language we speak, What do they refer to but themselves?

Precisely! I'm glad to read a post by someone who can clearly see things as they really are.

In all communication, what does any idea referance to but other ideas that expand on the original idea?

Yes, yes, yes! Words represent ideas, they represent absolutely nothing else. We can use words to communicate ideas; we cannot use words to communicate anything about the "real world", except insofar as "real world" is an idea in itself.

It doesn't matter how hard you try, all you can do with languages is run in circles. To transcend the circle, you need more than language.

No matter how we choose to view ideas and how or why they are communicated we must conclude that there is something else rendering them real that we cannot fully communicate to each other (as to exactly what "it" is).

Man, you are a genius! So simply put, yet so true!

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

thanks for the hype, but let's not step over the line and proclaim that we "clearly see things as they really are". Patting ourselves on the back doesn't prove our understanding of reality... I appreciate that you found some joy in what I had to say, and that alone is flattering. Afterall, I just want to spread my happiness to others.

"Something that can be conveyed by, among other things, a defintion -- a string of words."- Tournesol

That sounds like a good enough definition of what I meant when I said "a string of words". It also helps illustrate my point, all definitions of all words in whatever language are merely more words of that language. (This expansion on the original idea may be more helpful for understanding, as it does use more words to explain the idea/feeling).

"With very few exceptions (eg "noun"), very few words refer to themselves.
Did you mean "each other" ?" - Tournesol

yes, I should have been more clear. When I said words, i meant (in the context of that sentance) only other words within the language being used to communicate.

"Maybe the something else is just real-world objects." - Tournesol

Ya!, or at least indirectly. I believe that all communication is drivin by the motor that is emotion (feelings), and emotion is half drivin by envionmental stimuli and half by will. This is just my opinion.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

But I do have a feeling that they way I look at the idea of "feeling" isn't and will never be complete. The linkages go on seemingly ad infinitum when I try to define "environmental stimuli" and "will". Every word is a diving board into a sea of diving boards.

 

[StatusX]

Of course we can [convey what experiences are like], that's why we have language.

But how can words ever describe an experience? Yes, we have language, and this is fine for representing abstract concepts, because these concepts are nothing more than the relationships between them. If the same relationships are enforced between the corresponding words (eg, "She is tall and short" is not allowed, but "She is tall and skinny" is), we have completely captured those concepts.

The difference with experiences is that there is more to them then their relationships to other concepts. There is something it is like to have them. We could write hundreds of pages about the neural correlates of a red experience, or objects that are red, or the physics of red light, or the emotions that red evokes, etc, etc, etc. But some one who has never actually seen red before will still have no idea what the color looks like. Words are not enough.

The contradiction is embedded in the meaning of "behavior" and "experience".

You continue to say there is a hidden logical contradiction, but you have yet to actually point it out. Where in the definition of "experience" is behavior even mentioned? You may have beliefs about how the behavior of a being is related to its experience, but this would only affect the a posteriori possibility. That is, just like there happens to be no easter bunny in this universe, but there logically could be in other universes, there happen to be no zombies here, even though they are logically possible.

As another example, is water with the chemical formula H3O logically possible? Yes, because there is nothing in the definition of water (that is, water from our everyday life, which is defined by properties like "drinkable", "clear", and "wet") that specifies its chemical formula. But after science discovered that water is precisely H20, we discovered that the above proposal is a posteriori, or nomologically, or metaphysically (I'm pretty sure these are basically the same) impossible. That is, impossible in our universe because of the way it happened to turn out.

 

[Pensador]

thanks for the hype, but let's not step over the line and proclaim that we "clearly see things as they really are".

Sorry, I really went overboard. But I wasn't trying to be flattering, I was actually aiming at the people who disagree with those ideas. So don't take it personally

That said, what I really meant by "clearly see things as they really are" is the difficulty in seeing exactly what is written, and absolutely nothing more. People have an enormous difficulty with that; they read words, attach meaning to them, and think the words express whatever their interpretation of the words is. That is wrong, but difficult to see why.

That is related to an experience that always puzzles me. When you live in a certain neighborhood, the sights of the neighborhood have a certain "feeling" to them. I can't properly explain what this feeling is, but I think most people can relate to it. If you go to a part of town that you've never seen before, it looks "foreign" to you, "foreign" as in something you perceive in your vision of the houses, streets, and so on. But if you move there, the feeling of "foreignness" gradually disappears, and is replaced by another feeling (homeliness?). I don't know if that explains it, but it's the best I can do.

What I wish people could "clearly see" is that we can't understand how language works if we look at it in a way that doesn't appear "foreign" to us; that is, you can only understand language if you disregard your subjective experience of it. Look at words for what they are, and try to understand what they do without thinking about what they mean. That is necessary because you cannot know what many words mean to other people, but you can still use those words to communicate with them. So "clearly" meaning is not as important to language as it seems.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Poets and writers are particularly good at using words to describe experiences. Also, musicians and painters are also very good at describe experiences without using words at all. Which is why artists are held in far greater regard than philosophers.

To me, much of what you've said in this post doesn't seem particularly relevant to the concept of the phenomenological aspect of "meaning." I wonder if you really understand what's under discussion.

For example, poets and writers do indeed describe experiences; more importantly they are able to stimulate something experiential within others. But that's because, as you say they "match an abstract web of words to a subjective web of experiences." The word or art itself isn't creating the experience of meaningfulness however, that is a potential of consciousness that's being stimulated.

The reason I say you don't seem to get the point is because that same web of words spoken to a zombie would not produce the phenomenological aspect even if the zombie could "get" the literal meaning of the word. No one is disputing ideas can trigger experience, but since the point is why consciousness experiences at all, I don't know why you are telling us about this.

By the way, the fact that nerds don't understand poetry only means they are linguistically-challenged.

That seems a condescending thing to say, but in any case it isn't necessarily true. Some people just don't enjoy the poetic method of expression. They might be quite linguistically capable but, for instance, might so prefer the direct way of communicating they are turned off by the indirect, intuitive way poetry communicates.

The fact that you can't fully communicate what "red" means to a person who never saw red is as irrelevant as the fact that you cannot communicate what "number" means to a person who cannot think. It's true, but irrelevant, since the word "red" would never exist if people didn't have the subjective experience of red.

Once again it seems you don't understand the issue, and you didn't answer StatusX's point at all. In fact, you confirmed what he meant when you acknowledged that the person needs to have the experience of red to know what red "is like" when someone else speaks the word. If someone had been raised in an all-green world, you could not give him a feel for what red is like with words alone because concepts lack qualia content. The qualia potenial is inside each person, it is not being carried/created by words.

Also, the word red most certainly could exist without subjective experiences. Computers can recognize the wavelength we call "red," and if they were programmed to attach names to things they might come up with the word "red" for that wavelength. But if they communicate what they detect to a human being, it will be merely a wavelength and minus what the color red "is like" to them.

The basic flaw in the idea of zombies is not much that they can't possibly exist; the real problem is that defining consciousness and behavior in a way that makes zombies possibly to exist implies everyone else but me can be a zombie, in this universe. But if everyone but me, including Hypnagogue and David Chalmers, is a zombie, then I can be absolutely sure they are as mistaken talking about hard problems as a zombie would. Keep in mind, the whole "zombie" argument is based on logical possibility; what prevents me from taking the logical possibility that David Chalmers is a zombie, which opens the logical possibility that David Chalmers is talking about a hard problem when he himself doesn't have one?

I don't see how any of that is pertinent. Chalmer's inclusion of the "logical possibility" of zombies is the philosopher's way of covering his as* with other philosophers who might be waiting to nitpick. But it isn't really that important to what's under discussion. What we are trying to do is isolate the aspect of consciousness that physicalness can't seem to produce. Your point about Chalmers being a zombie yet talking about a hard problem he doesn't have is clever, but utterly off the subject.

Are we being fully logical yet? I have not seen any enthusiast of this hard problem acknowledge this subtle but fundamental problem; they are creating trouble for themselves and dismissing anyone who friendly tries to warn them. If they want to commit philosophical suicide, that's their option; at least we are at peace with our conscience, for we have warned.

I don't how logical you are being, but you do seem awfully proud of yourself for someone who hasn't understood what we are talking about.

Try substituting a robot for a zombie. A zombie is like a robot which is capable of detecting all the information a human can,it can recognize a word and link it to a definition, it could be programmed to cry in what humans consider sad situations, and so on.

So zombies can exist (primitive ones anyway) since between robotics and AI we can mimic certain human behaviors. But the point is, will the subjective aspect ever arise through AI (or some other collection of physical processes)? Those who believe consciousness is created by the physical processes of the brain say yes. Those of us who don't think subjectivity is a product of physical processes say no.

In this thread, I interpreted the issue to be that a word can have a literal meaning (which a robot could recognize), but a robot won't have the experience of meaningfulness that human consciousness can. It's just another way of talking about qualia.

 

[hypnagogue]

Stop signs are not simply abstract concepts, they are red hexagonal things which can only have meaning when taken in their entirety. I don't know about others, but I have never seen an abstract stop sign, the kind of which Hypnagogue says zombies are capable of seeing.

A zombie does see a stop sign as a red and hexagonal thing, but just in a completely functional sense that is devoid of phenomenal content. It 'sees' insofar as photons impinge on its retinas and are processed by its brain to extract certain features of the retinal image, such as edge detection (eg, functionally discriminating a hexagonal shape) and color detection (eg, functionally discriminating a certain wavelength of light). These functional representations of the retinal image can then be used to guide behavior, for instance to stop a moving vehicle and evoke an utterance like "It is very important that I obey traffic safety laws" or "My, that stop sign is such a pretty shade of red!" This is an entirely functional story, and phenomenal content need not enter the picture at any point.

And of course it is true that you have never seen such an 'abstract' stop sign, for the simple reason that you are not a zombie!

We can tell others experiences exist, but we can do nothing to convey what they're like.

Of course we can, that's why we have language.

The point is that we can't convey what experiences are like by words alone. For instance, if a pregnant woman can convey to me what it is like to be pregnant, it is only insofar as she can explain it in terms of experiences that I have already had, and hence can understand and sympathize with by way of comparison to my own first person experience. She might say something about morning sickness, which I can understand to the extent that I have had analogous sicknesses. If I have never been terribly sick, my understanding will be greatly diminished, and I will have to fall back on relatively less similar experiences (eg, maybe dizziness or feeling 'out of it') to try to get at what can only be a relatively more impoverished understanding.

The more a listener's experiential base differs from that of the communicator, the more difficult communication becomes. Someone with temporal lobe epilepsy might try to describe to us an intense religious experience he had as of being spoken to by God, and use words such as "incredible awe" or "a highly elevated sense of meaning associated with 'mundane' objects" to try to evoke similar experiences we have had in our pasts. But we must be severely doubtful that we have a very good idea of what the experience was like, as this is a profoundly altered state of consciousness the likes of which the majority of us have never experienced ourselves. (The epileptic will be quick to tell you the great degree to which this experience is different from everyday experience, and will probably even assert himself that the words he's using just don't suffice to get at what he's trying to communicate.) In the limit, we have something like trying to explain redness to a lifelong blind person, where communication of the experience is essentially futile.

The contradiction is embedded in the meaning of "behavior" and "experience".

StatusX asked you to draw out this contradiction explicitly, and apparently you replied, only to delete your post. I'd like to hear what you have to say here.

Actually, we need to make some distinctions before we can clearly discuss this issue. Words do have some form of meaning; that meaning is given by its relationships with all other words in the language. That kind of meaning is what allows computers to translate many statements from one language to another.

Notice that even in defending the premise that words have intrinsic meaning, you appeal to a computer (a primitive kind of agent) that 'interprets' them in the sense that it computes differently depending on the input. What is a written word on a page when it is not being read by anyone? It's just a pattern of ink. There is no meaning there.

But there's more to words than their relationships to other words, and that is the part of meaning which only exists in the minds of conscious agents. That kind of meaning is what prevents computers from translating most statements from one language to another.

I agree that there is a sense of 'meaning' that is not functional, but rather phenomenal. I disagree that this phenomenal experience of meaning guides behavior, in the sense that it functions as a link in the chain of effective causation. A sufficiently sophisticated computer could translate most statements from one language to another, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that it not be phenomenally conscious. Again, if you disagree, you must take up either some sort of physicalism or some sort of interactionist dualism. Again I ask, which is it?

Try that yourself. Try explaining to your favorite zombie why is it humans spend so much time and energy seeking happiness when sorrow is a lot easier to find.

That would be a pointless endeavor, as the zombie would say, "Duh, I know why it's better to seek happiness! Happiness is better because it just feels better to be happy than to be sad. You're preaching to the choir." In other words, the zombie's response would not be any different from a typical human's response. This is an important point that you do not seem to appreciate. Again, you are certainly free to argue that zombies are not logically possible, but it certainly is not helpful if you insist on using the term in a manner contrary to the way it is defined.

Now, of course the zombie would be incorrect in the sense that it doesn't really know what it is like to be happy. But that would not stop it from behaving as if it did.

Please produce a meaningful statement that does not have representational content.

Any statement about language itself qualifies. To take a simple example, "all meaningful English sentences must include a subject and a verb"

That statement certainly does have representational content. It refers to a (false) grammatical rule applying to the English language. It's about something, it refers to something, it signifies something (I'm using all those terms synonymously).

 

[Doctordick]

Pensador,
You seem to be a fairly bright person and you point out a lot of problems with the pontifications put forth on this forum but you fail to notice some of the same characteristics in your own posts. This whole thread revolves around a very fundamental issue which is exactly the problem I have solved. If you would all sit down for a moment and make a slight effort to understand what I am trying to explain, I am sure you would find it quite interesting.

Langauge is used for communication, but it's also used for thinking. In fact you can't use language to communicate if you don't use it first for thinking, although this is a bit tricky to explain.

I don't feel it is tricky to explain at all. In fact, the issue you bring up is exactly the starting point of a rational examination of the problem. There is very strong evidence that human brains are substantially different from most other animals in that we seem to have a specialized area devoted to "higher thinking". I happen to be a staunch "stargate" fan and I suspect others here might be familiar with the plot so I will try to build on a conception introduced there. The Goa'uld (I got that spelling by googling "stargate") reside entirely within the human host and has no direct contact with the outside world. Their only contact is via direct interaction with the human brain.

In many respects, this is very analogous to our conscious awareness: we (that is our conscious awareness) reside within another entity which, in the absence of our existence, is very analogous to any other animal so the Goa'uld analogy is quite apt. Try to hold that idea in mind and consider the problem confronting such an entity. Examine the issues below from a Goa'uld's perspective.

What needs to be understood is the difference between words and what words refer to, the major difference being that words are arbitrary while their referents are not.

We do not know of these "referents" except through the brains reference to them.

For instance, a child may not know the English word for "sun" but she knows a word probably exists, so the child can think about "sun" without even knowing if the word actually exists.

How does she "know" this? Isn't that knowledge rather a hypothetical explanation of phenomena delivered to her by her brain? And isn't the word "sun" no more than another phenomenon delivered once more by that same brain? That the two phenomena are related is actually a hypothetical conclusion reached to explain those phenomena? What you seem to fail to recognize is that we have nothing to go on except the phenomena themselves.

I said all that to get to the point that your problem may or may not exist, it really depends on the context you're talking about. If you talk about "the decline of Western society in posmodernistic times", you may have more words than placeholders for them (that is, you learn words without really knowing what they mean); on the other hand, when talking about "the sun rised in the East and sets in the West", the words may be vague but the meaning, at least in my head, is absolutely clear.

Now seriously, have you really thought about the veracity of that statement or is it rather that you cannot comprehend being wrong? This problem is fundamental to understanding anything as, so long as you do not acknowledge it, you will fail to comprehend the consequences. I have examined those consequences and find the result quite enlightening. You would too, if you would only look.

We can tell others experiences exist, but we can do nothing to convey what they're like.

Of course we can, that's why we have language.

You can try, but can you actually claim success?

The contradiction is embedded in the meaning of "behavior" and "experience". Just because you can put a sentence together without offending the rules of grammar doesn't mean the sentence doesn't harbor a contradiction. The problem is that the contradictions can be very hard to see. For instance, Newton's laws of mechanics were contradictory, but those contradictions only showed up 300 years later when they gave rise to the paradoxes which could only be solved by relativity and quantum mechanics. And those, as everyone knows, also give rise to paradoxes of their own.

Now here you are so rational. Then you just simply quit thinking. Don't you comprehend that the existence of any "paradox" fundamentally means the explanation is wrong?

Any statement about language itself qualifies. To take a simple example, "all meaningful English sentences must include a subject and a verb"

Please point out a word in that sentence which does not refer to something? Or do you contend that concepts are not things?

Newtonian mechanics is not self-contradictory, it is just not
in line with the behaviour of matter.

Yes it is! I am sure Newton himself would have recognized the problem had it been pointed out to him! His conclusions were based on the assumption that clocks could be set to agree; the problem was that he never considered how this was to be done. His hypothesized Euclidean relativity for translation between "inertial" frames was fundamentally inconsistent: i.e., all frames could not be equivalent, the central theme of his position. If you do not understand that, you certainly have not thought the issue through.

If your link applies, then I've posted to the wrong thread.

You know Les, we agree far more than we disagree. When we disagree, I think it is because you don't really understand what I am trying to communicate (my fault entirely, most likely).

Don't enslave yourself in the stalemate?

So why won't you join me in my disruption of this interminable stalemate? (Thanks for telling me what NL stood for; I appreciate the information.)

But, if it is important to us now to explain all these metaphysical beasts before we can get a good night sleep, then the metaphysical embeding of languages in other languages to explain them is metaphysically and epistemologically inevitable. Call it it a 'META LANGUAGE' if you like.

The problem, Philocrat, is that, before we can even begin to explain anything, we must first understand it. Everybody here is trying to explain things they just don't understand. (In the hope that something might fall out and turn out to be correct ) Before they can understand anything, they must first understand reality itself (a process millions of newborn babies manage to "approximately" solve every year). If you cannot solve that problem correctly, how can you ever expect to understand anything? I can show you a correct solution if I could get your interest. As far as a "meta language" goes, why do you think I introduced "squinking"?

It doesn't matter how hard you try, all you can do with languages is run in circles. To transcend the circle, you need more than language.

Embedded in that comment is the assumption that what you know transcends that circle. If it did, you could follow Philocrat's recipe and explain the issue to us. Suppose it doesn't, that is exactly the issue I am trying to bring forth; apparently completely over everyone's head.

No matter how we choose to view ideas and how or why they are communicated we must conclude that there is something else rendering them real that we cannot fully communicate to each other (as to exactly what "it" is).

What makes you think you can "fully communicate" anything? It should be obvious to you that this "something else" you are referring to is reality itself.

Of course we can [convey what experiences are like], that's why we have language.

But how can words ever describe an experience?

What purpose do you think words serve?

But some one who has never actually seen red before will still have no idea what the color looks like. Words are not enough.

That's a very strong assertion! Can you prove it's true and not just an assumption?

What I wish people could "clearly see" is that we can't understand how language works if we look at it in a way that doesn't appear "foreign" to us; that is, you can only understand language if you disregard your subjective experience of it. Look at words for what they are, and try to understand what they do without thinking about what they mean. That is necessary because you cannot know what many words mean to other people, but you can still use those words to communicate with them.

You really need to talk to me.

The qualia potenial is inside each person, it is not being carried/created by words.

Les, the mistake you are making is that you are assuming only words can have meaning. Each and every concept, idea, feeling or even emotion has a meaning and language is the method of communication of that meaning. There is even something called "body language". Nerds don't like "art" because they don't understand it. Just as philosophers don't like math because they don't understand that. And, by the way, the logical possibility of zombies is an assumption, not a fact.

What all you people seem to miss is that you need a way of expressing exactly what you really know; before you know what you really know. If you can't express that then you are dead in the water, totally enslaved to an inevitable stalemate . Half the comments in this thread are expressions of exactly that dilemma. You all just skirt around it without facing its existence.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

The qualia potenial is inside each person, it is not being carried/created by words.

Les, the mistake you are making is that you are assuming only words can have meaning. Each and every concept, idea, feeling or even emotion has a meaning and language is the method of communication of that meaning. There is even something called "body language".

I am not assuming that at all. In fact, during communication I often read more from how people feel to me than their words since I’ve found often people don’t say what they mean (and not always intentionally). I monitor body language as well.

I suspect you’ve not grasped my meaning. My point is that concepts, ideas, and words haven't the slightest meaning without consciousness. A word is a sound or, if written, a bit of ink. There is no meaning contained in a word in and of itself. Meaning is found in consciousness.

Nerds don't like "art" because they don't understand it. Just as philosophers don't like math because they don't understand that.

Well, we’ll just have to disagree that “don’t like” must necessarily be due to not understanding it. I understand lots of things that don’t attract me much. I used to like loud acid rock music (35 years ago), now I don’t. I completely understand acid rock, but I now prefer jazz. I understand why people like to be beaten while having sex, but I don’t care for it myself. I understand why people like to eat meat but I don’t enjoy it.

To me, it seems snobbish and self centered to assume that if you like math and art (or whatever), everyone else who doesn’t must lack understanding.

And, by the way, the logical possibility of zombies is an assumption, not a fact.

In philosophy it is generally held that if something is conceivable it is possible; so I see Chalmers’ statement about the possibility of a zombie as simply grounding himself in accepted formality before making his overall point. It isn’t that important, really, to the core of his argument. Personally, I do not believe conceivability assures possibility, and my opinion is that the kind of zombie Chalmers describes is highly improbable to occur in actuality.

In any case, my statement was about zombie-like behavior, which I claim some computer programming already exhibits. I wasn’t talking about the exact zombie character Chalmers imagined. I was trying to give a known example of how recognition of a word’s meaning can mechanically happen without the associated conscious quality of meaningfulness.

What all you people seem to miss is that you need a way of expressing exactly what you really know; before you know what you really know. If you can't express that then you are dead in the water, totally enslaved to an inevitable stalemate . Half the comments in this thread are expressions of exactly that dilemma. You all just skirt around it without facing its existence.

I think you are missing something too, and that is a solid understanding and appreciation for another side of the argument. There is no doubt about the importance of good communication if people are to interact, and ideally it would be great if, to paraphrase William James, we were all aware of what we really know, and what we just believe we know. If people stuck to what they really know when communicating . . . well, that’s the town where I want to live!

But from the things you say, it doesn’t seem you are acknowledging one of the main points in the zombie debate. That point is, there is a private, internal and personal aspect to my experience – what it’s like for me -- that cannot be ever be 100% transferred from inside me to inside you (Cartesian to be sure). By “transferred” I mean the way a letter can be transferred from the mailman to my mail box. The letter itself is moved, it is not just a reflection of the letter off the mailman’s truck mirror.

Words, feelings, emotions, body language, and so on are all facsimiles of something uniquely happening at the spot in the center of my brain, at some time. As you are certainly aware, no two things can occupy the same space, so that alone makes my experience utterly unique! Now, can I as a skilled communicator give you a “sense” of my experience? Yes, especially if you’ve had similar experiences. But that’s not the point. The point is the uniqueness of subjective experience and the inability of concepts, words or anything else to ever fully contain that experience. So when the experience of red happens in the time and space of my experience, no one else is having the exact experience because it is happening in only one time and space known as “me.”

 

[StatusX]

We can tell others experiences exist, but we can do nothing to convey what they're like.

Of course we can, that's why we have language.

You can try, but can you actually claim success?

Of course we can [convey what experiences are like], that's why we have language.

But how can words ever describe an experience?

What purpose do you think words serve?

Which side are you arguing here?

That's a very strong assertion! Can you prove it's true and not just an assumption?

You're asking me to prove that there is no possible way for a person to know what an experience is like without experiencing it themself. But what would that even mean? In what sense do we know what any of our experiences are like beyond what we know while experiencing them? To know what an experience is like and to experience it are exactly the same thing, and it doesn't make sense to have one without the other.

 

[Canute]

Doctordick

As usual you are very sure that you have the answers to the questions raised in this thread, but as usual you do not tell anybody what you think they are. Perhaps you might post some of these answers for others to consider rather than just continually state that you know them but nobody will listen. How do you know they won't listen? I've listened to what you've said on a few different threads but am little the wiser as to your views.

You say "What all you people seem to miss is that you need a way of expressing exactly what you really know; before you know what you really know."

What makes you say this? And why so arrogantly? It is in complete disagreement with Aristotle and very many subsequent philosophers. I suppose Dennett would agree, since for him we cannot think of anything that we cannot verbalise (he argues that talking evolves before we are aware of the meaning of what we are saying, or even of the fact that we are saying it) but this hardly qualifies as an endorsement, since like you he provides no evidence for this conjecture.

If there is one thing I know for sure it is that I know things that I cannot put into words (or think in words) . Do you have no knowledge of this kind? I think you'll find that most of your real knowledge is of this kind.

On the meaning question - I'm still unclear what the word 'meaning' means, but tend to think that like beauty it lies in the eye of the beholder. (Is beauty a form of meaning? I'd say so). Until now I've always assumed that a symbol can only have meaning for an entity if that entity is aware that the symbol has that meaning to it, but with all that's been said in this thread I'm considering whether to reconsider this. Still, I stuggle to see how anything at all can have meaning in a zombie world (or a pure Lifeworld). It seems to me that all events/interactions in such a world would be meaningless, just the operations of physical cause and effect, as they are within a computer.

 

[Doctordick]

I am not assuming that at all.

Les, I don't disagree with you as much as you think I do. I am only trying to open your mind to an alternate perspective.

I’ve found often people don’t say what they mean (and not always intentionally).

The central issue I am trying to bring up is that all languages are vague in essence and it is an incontrovertible fact that we really don't know what people mean.

A word is a sound or, if written, a bit of ink. There is no meaning contained in a word in and of itself.

I agree one hundred percent. Thus it follows that the actual symbol used to represent a word, a picture, an act, an experience is completely beside the point. That being the case, why do we not just use numerical labels instead of these vague historical languages? The answer is quite evident if you think about it for a moment.

Meaning is found in consciousness.

Exactly! But how that occurs has not yet been determined. The issue is that, not only has the process not been discovered but, no method of validating the result has been brought forth (we do not know if the meanings we arrived at are correct or not). It follows that, if we are to be rational, we need a mechanism in our attack which includes that fact.

What really makes the problem difficult is the fact that we must use the output (meanings) created by that very same (essentially un-analyzable thing) in order to think about anything. The solution of that problem begins with recognition of its existence. That is exactly the issue brought forth in my earlier post. The words I use may not be the ones you would use but you should be able to get the gist of what I am trying to say if you think about it a little.

Well, we’ll just have to disagree that “don’t like” must necessarily be due to not understanding it.

Again, we don't disagree at all. I suppose you would not have been as upset if I had said, "a lot of people who don't like things don't like them because they don't understand".

Now math is a bit different. It seems to me that, if a person has any interest in the problem of rational communication, they would find math to be a valuable friend. The only reason I can conceive of for that not to be true is that either they do not understand math or they don't understand logic. And I don't find it at all snobbish or self centered.

In philosophy it is generally held that if ...

Isn't that almost the definition of an assumption?

I was trying to give a known example of how recognition of a word’s meaning can mechanically happen without the associated conscious quality of meaningfulness.

Unless you can communicate exactly what you mean by " the associated conscious quality of meaningfulness", it seems to me that understanding communication must be have first priority. Without that, you are just stirring the pot of vague concepts. As I said:

What all you people seem to miss is that you need a way of expressing exactly what you really know; before you know what you really know. If you can't express that then you are dead in the water, totally enslaved to an inevitable stalemate . Half the comments in this thread are expressions of exactly that dilemma. You all just skirt around it without facing its existence.

I think you are missing something too, and that is a solid understanding and appreciation for another side of the argument.

I have absolutely no idea what the other side of the argument is. To date, the only arguments I have gotten for not thinking about the solution I have found fall in the category commonly referred to as adhominem.

There is no doubt about the importance of good communication ...

Isn't there now? If there is no doubt, then why is there no interest in a mechanism to handle the flaws therein?

But from the things you say, it doesn’t seem you are acknowledging one of the main points in the zombie debate.

What you are missing is that I do not acknowledge the usefulness of the debate itself. Until you get down to establishing exactly what you can and can not communicate, the question of what belongs in that category is moot. Furthermore, once you can establish that any given specific thing can not be communicated, then trying to communicate it is a complete waste of time.

That point is, there is a private, internal and personal aspect to my experience – what it’s like for me -- that cannot be ever be 100% transferred from inside me to inside you (Cartesian to be sure).

Yes, there may very well be such a thing and trying to communicate it is certainly a waste of time.

So when the experience of red happens in the time and space of my experience, no one else is having the exact experience because it is happening in only one time and space known as “me.”

So what! You know how you feel; I know how I feel and we cannot communicate it. So why are you stirring the pot? Since we cannot communicate it there is no way for you to know if my feelings bear any resemblance to yours at all. Perhaps I am a zombie! I challenge you to prove I am not.

Or, in the same vein, prove you are not a zombie. Ah, you know you are not don't you. And exactly how did you come to that conclusion?

Which side are you arguing here?

The side of rational thought!

You're asking me to prove that there is no possible way for a person to know what an experience is like without experiencing it themself. But what would that even mean? In what sense do we know what any of our experiences are like beyond what we know while experiencing them? To know what an experience is like and to experience it are exactly the same thing, and it doesn't make sense to have one without the other.

I don't know. You are the one who made the assertion. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't prove your view is valid. Think man, think!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Canute,
I am going to take you seriously and hope you do the same for me,

As usual you are very sure that you have the answers to the questions raised in this thread, but as usual you do not tell anybody what you think they are.

That is because the answers are not trivial. I was leading saviormachine towards the opening statement of my position but he seems to have gotten lost (he hasn't posted on the physics forum at all since 3/23/05).

Perhaps you might post some of these answers for others to consider rather than just continually state that you know them but nobody will listen. How do you know they won't listen? I've listened to what you've said on a few different threads but am little the wiser as to your views.

Have you followed anything I have said anywhere? You never responded to my answer to you on the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread. My only conclusion is either you didn't understand me or you weren't interested in understanding what I said. And, if you didn't understand that, what purpose is there in going on?

What makes you say this? And why so arrogantly?

What is arrogant about that statement? I see it as a simple statement of fact.

As far as disagreement with authority, what part do you disagree with? Are you saying you don't need a way of expressing "what you really know"? Isn't that is the very essence of Solipsism? Or are you saying you don't need this until you actually "know what you really know"? If that is the case, Solipsism is the only possible outcome (you will never know for sure what you really know)! I would thus conclude you are a Solipsist.

Or you could be disagreeing with my assertion that people are missing this point. If that is the case, explain to me the mechanism they use to differentiate between what they think they know and what they really know. (Other than just ignoring the problem that is.)

If there is one thing I know for sure it is that I know things that I cannot put into words (or think in words).

Do you really know these things or do you just think you know these things? Oh, I forgot; your either a solipsist or you think the issue should be ignored.

I think you'll find that most of your real knowledge is of this kind.

And how would I do that? Please explain to me the mechanism I should use to differentiate between what I think is true and what is really true.

On the meaning question - I'm still unclear what the word 'meaning' means, but tend to think that like beauty it lies in the eye of the beholder.

My point is that, no matter what you think "meaning" means, your mode of thought must accommodate the possibility that you are wrong. If it doesn't do that than your mode of thought is wrong! It has become a religion and not a science. :zzz:

So I say, once again, there is an issue here being adamantly ignored by everyone. Ok, not to worry, it is of no significance at all; except that there are some surprising consequences of opening your eyes to it.

I am either right or I am wrong. Unless someone competent points out an error in my reasoning, I can only continue to believe I am right. As far as explaining it to others, I need to get some responses. In particular, in response to your post, I need to know what part of what I have said you do not understand.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[spicerack]

oh cool another stargate fan, the movie was way better than the TV series I can't get past the fact that it's macgyver !

Anyway the goa'uld analogy i like, as it is exactly what my passenger in the vehicle of my body with me driving analogy is, as compared to Paul Martin's single driver of primordial consciousness fame...whew

So if the goa'uld was a clone of an original, it's adaptation to it's host by way of no two hosts being alike or experiencing the same effects of life over a period of time would account for our differing perceptions of consciousness but it is essentially the same consciousness cloned in all of us.

don't you think ?

 

[Canute]

Hi Canute,
I am going to take you seriously and hope you do the same for me,

That's nice of you, and of course I'll do the same.

That is because the answers are not trivial. I was leading saviormachine towards the opening statement of my position but he seems to have gotten lost ...

Fair enough. I suspect that I may agree with your views on a number of issues, but I won't know that until you start stating your position. At the moment all I have is hints as to what it might be.

Have you followed anything I have said anywhere? You never responded to my answer to you on the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?"thread. My only conclusion is either you didn't understand me or you weren't interested in understanding what I said. And, if you didn't understand that, what purpose is there in going on?

Pardon me. I had to go away for a few days suddenly. I'll go back and look. I thought I'd finished with that one.

What is arrogant about that statement? I see it as a simple statement of fact.

You said "What all you people seem to miss is that you need a way of expressing exactly what you really know; before you know what you really know." Does it not strike you that this comment is arrogant? If not then I can't explain. I appreciate that you see this as no more than a statement of fact, but in my opinion it is not. If you wish me to change my mind then you'll have to provide some argument or evidence.

As far as disagreement with authority, what part do you disagree with? Are you saying you don't need a way of expressing "what you really know"? Isn't that is the very essence of Solipsism? Or are you saying you don't need this until you actually "know what you really know"? If that is the case, Solipsism is the only possible outcome (you will never know for sure what you really know)! I would thus conclude you are a Solipsist.

I'm saying that it is perfectly possible for a person to know things that they cannot express. I know what a clarinet sounds like, for instance. I can express the fact that I know this, but I cannot, even to myself, express what it is that I know. My reference to Aristotle was to his comment that true knowledge is identical with its object. If this is so then your view is incorrect, and "all us people" haven't missed anything after all.

Do you really know these things or do you just think you know these things? Oh, I forgot; your either a solipsist or you think the issue should be ignored.

I know what I know, just like you. There is no scientific or philosophical explanation for how we know things. It cannot be simply the result of a process of formal reasoning (or computation) since formal reasoning (or computation) by itself does not produce certain conclusions. Yet we know things. (Btw, your second sentence here is incorrect).

And how would I do that? Please explain to me the mechanism I should use to differentiate between what I think is true and what is really true.

There is more to Aristotle's comment above than meets the eye. In effect it is a statement about how to distinguish between certain and relative knowledge.

My point is that, no matter what you think "meaning" means, your mode of thought must accommodate the possibility that you are wrong. If it doesn't do that than your mode of thought is wrong! It has become a religion and not a science. :zzz:

I don't know what you mean by this. The meaning of 'meaning' is whatever we define it to be. I'll go along with whatever definition is communally agreed.

So I say, once again, there is an issue here being adamantly ignored by everyone. Ok, not to worry, it is of no significance at all; except that there are some surprising consequences of opening your eyes to it.

What issue is that?

I am either right or I am wrong. Unless someone competent points out an error in my reasoning, I can only continue to believe I am right. As far as explaining it to others, I need to get some responses. In particular, in response to your post, I need to know what part of what I have said you do not understand.

Right or wrong about what? I don't understand what you are saying except for the fact that you think other people are wrong. Perhaps this is my fault and everyone else knows what you're suggesting, but I suspect not.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"What makes you think you can "fully communicate" anything? It should be obvious to you that this "something else" you are referring to is reality itself." - Dr. Dick

well, obviously... I mean, I couldn't have meant anything else right? geez, Do you mean to say that you've got a better idea of what I'm trying to communicate that I do? Being able to fully communicate anything is not a requisite for recognizing the "something else".

this is what I said when someone else mentioned the idea that the "something else" is reality itself:

"Ya!, or at least indirectly. I believe that all communication is drivin by the motor that is emotion (feelings), and emotion is half drivin by envionmental stimuli and half by will. This is just my opinion."

So my opinion is that it's not as simple as "reality itself", and you're opinion is that it is that simple? okay, have fun with that... It's okay to disagree because we're not all the same person.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Canute,
Thank you very much for your informative posts. It is as valuable to know where you agree with my points as it is to know where you disagree. In order to save space, I will only comment where you have expressed disagreement or I feel you have misunderstood me. If I don't comment, you can presume I have no fundamental disagreement with what you have said.

At the moment all I have is hints as to what it might be.

Reading what you have said, I get the feeling that you don't necessarily glance at the links to other posts which I insert in my posts: i.e., I am not exactly sure I know what particular hints you are referring to. I just made a post to the book discussion thread which (from my perspective anyway) makes it quite clear what I regard as the critical observation missed by everyone. The direct consequences of that observation are displayed in my post to the "knowledge..." thread and proof that my fundamental equation must be valid is posted on the "Nuts are us!" thread (the reference "Nuts are us!" comes from the mentors on that thread; needless to say, we did not get along well). I would appreciate it if you would glance at these three posts before you respond to this one.

If you wish me to change my mind then you'll have to provide some argument or evidence.

That is exactly what I would like to do.

I'm saying that it is perfectly possible for a person to know things that they cannot express.

You are missing my fundamental point. That point is that, with regard to anything you think you know (and it makes utterly no difference what that thing is), there always exists the possibility that it is an illusion. This is the crux of the "realist" vs "anti-realists" controversy. (Read my post on the book discussion linked above.) With regard to Aristotle's comment, it doesn't really address this issue at all. As far as I am aware no one except myself has addressed it directly. Everyone else just sort of dances around it.

Yet we know things.

You have apparently decided that the "realist" school is correct: i.e., you are not going to allow the "Solipsist" position implied by the "anti-realists" any validity. My position is that neither position can be proved and thus anyone who takes a position on the issue can not possibly be approaching the question rationally as he has already decided an issue which can not be decided. (And I knew you wouldn't want to be called a Solipsist; I only put that in there to get your attention to the conflict caused by trying to take a position on the "realist" vs "anti-realist" debate.)

There is more to Aristotle's comment above than meets the eye.

I think the issue you refer to is another aspect of the meaning of the word "know" which doesn't really bear on the differential I want you to concentrate on. The issue I refer to as "knowable" and "unknowable" data which can be found in my post to saviormachine. You should probably read saviormachine's response to that and my answer to his interpretation.

I don't know what you mean by this. The meaning of 'meaning' is whatever we define it to be. I'll go along with whatever definition is communally agreed.

The issue of definition is a very significant issue with regard to my perspective and I would like to delay what I would call "exact" definition of any term until I am confident that I know exactly what I mean. There are three very important issues when it comes to definition. First, it must be very clear in my head as to exactly what I mean, second, there must be a fairly high probability that the other party will be able to understand what constitutes fulfilling that definition, and third, that definition must serve a necessary role in the discussion. Other than that, I will regard any language (even mathematics as a matter of fact) as vague in some sense or another. It is unhandy that we must use language to communicate but it is, none the less a requirement of communication. See my first few posts to saviormachine.

What issue is that?

The issue that we need a mechanism for handling the difference between "the things we really know" and "the things we think we know" before[/color] we know what we know. These things are very different even if we have no mechanism to tell one from the other. The difference only becomes evident in the future (within that information not available to us "now") but it does arise: i.e., sooner or later we will discover some aspect of what we thought we knew which is wrong. The difference therefore is quite clear: the things we really know will never be found to be wrong no matter what we learn of the universe and are thus fixed and not subject to our whims. The things we only think we know need only be consistent with our understanding and are free to be anything otherwise. Absolutely no other constraint can be placed on them beyond the need that they be consistent with our understanding.[/color] Note that our understanding can be, and very probably is, wrong[/color]. This is the very first issue to be handled if we are to attack the problem of understanding anything. To avoid it is just plain foolish.

Right or wrong about what?

I have put forth a mechanism for handling this issue, and worked out the detailed consequences. I think I have done so correctly but haven't gotten anyone intellectually competent to examine my work. My conclusions are quite different from the common understanding of physics (but there is no difference in the results). Thus it is that I conclude my paradigm is correct and theirs is wrong.

Do you want to go through it or not? As I said, it is not trivial and it is considerably at odds with the standard perspective on reality.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Canute]

Hi Canute,
I would appreciate it if you would glance at these three posts before you respond to this one.

That's asking a lot. Surely your views on meaning and phenomenality belong in this thread? I checked the first ref. but it did not seem relevant, except that it restates your view that we cannot know anything (or cannot know what we know and what we don't - which is the same thing). I don't agree.

You are missing my fundamental point. That point is that, with regard to anything you think you know (and it makes utterly no difference what that thing is), there always exists the possibility that it is an illusion.

If this were true then we would not be able to know that solipsism is unfalsifible. I agree that that the evidence of our senses is untrustworthy, and that reason has its limits when it comes to proving what is really true and false, but knowledge derived from direct experience can escape these problems.

With regard to Aristotle's comment, it doesn't really address this issue at all. As far as I am aware no one except myself has addressed it directly. Everyone else just sort of dances around it.

It seems relevant to me. You say certain knowledge is impossible. Aristotle says it is possible.

You have apparently decided that the "realist" school is correct: i.e., you are not going to allow the "Solipsist" position implied by the "anti-realists" any validity.

How do figure that out? It's not my position at all.

My position is that neither position can be proved and thus anyone who takes a position on the issue can not possibly be approaching the question rationally as he has already decided an issue which can not be decided.

By 'position' do you mean position on solipsism? If so then I agree completely. It is one of the great tragedies that people adopt metaphysical positions based on the truth of one or the other answer to metaphysical questions which are undecidable, rather than take the hint from their undecidability and conclude that both answers are incorrect.

I think the issue you refer to is another aspect of the meaning of the word "know" which doesn't really bear on the differential I want you to concentrate on. The issue I refer to as "knowable" and "unknowable" data which can be found in my...

I thought you were arguing that since we cannot differentiate what we know from what we don't there is no such thing as knowable data

The issue that we need a mechanism for handling the difference between "the things we really know" and "the things we think we know" before[/color] we know what we know. These things are very different even if we have no mechanism to tell one from the other.

This seems self-contradictory. If we cannot tell what we really know from what we don't really know then there can be no such thing as what we know.

I have put forth a mechanism for handling this issue, and worked out the detailed consequences. I think I have done so correctly but haven't gotten anyone intellectually competent to examine my work. My conclusions are quite different from the common understanding of physics (but there is no difference in the results). Thus it is that I conclude my paradigm is correct and theirs is wrong. Do you want to go through it or not? As I said, it is not trivial and it is considerably at odds with the standard perspective on reality.

Sure (assuming it's relevant here). But if you are arguing that you cannot distinguish between what you know and what you don't know then it seems to follow that your paradigm must be be based on speculation and conjecture, and you certainly cannot conclude that it is correct.

 

[Tournesol]

You are missing my fundamental point. That point is that, with regard to anything you think you know (and it makes utterly no difference what that thing is), there always exists the possibility that it is an illusion.

Even if "what you think you know" is just how things seem to you, and not about how they are ?

 

[Doctordick]

I checked the first ref. but it did not seem relevant, except that it restates your view that we cannot know anything (or cannot know what we know and what we don't - which is the same thing). I don't agree.

No, they are not at all the same thing. Fundamentally you are disagreeing with the statement "all I know is that I do not know". From my perspective your attitude is what is normally referred to as "dogmatic": i.e., you know what you know and you are not going to consider the possibility that you are wrong. If you are going to stick to that, then this discourse is a waste of time.

If this were true then we would not be able to know that solipsism is unfalsifible.

Oh, then you will guarantee to me that, absolutely never, not even in a billion billion years will solipsism ever be shown to be false? It is absolutely unfalsifiable! Again, that reflects a "dogmatic" position which implies you are closed to rational thought.

I agree that that the evidence of our senses is untrustworthy, and that reason has its limits when it comes to proving what is really true and false, but knowledge derived from direct experience can escape these problems.

Absolutely and forever? Again your position strikes me as quite "dogmatic". I certainly will not base my arguments on such dubious presumptions.

It seems relevant to me. You say certain knowledge is impossible. Aristotle says it is possible.

So you want to put authority behind your position. Another characteristic of dogmatic ideologies. To me any time someone tells me they are absolutely certain of something, a red flag goes up in my mind. How can they possibly be so sure they are correct. It seems to me that the first characteristic of a rational mind is that they will admit the possibility they are wrong. And one of the funniest characteristics of closed minds is when they tell you, "oh yeah, I could be wrong! but not about that".

How do figure that out? It's not my position at all.

The Solipsist position is that it is all illusion and you have just told me that you very definitely really know[/color] some specific things are facts.

By 'position' do you mean position on solipsism? If so then I agree completely.

I have no idea what you are agreeing to here. By "my position" I meant my position on the arguments between the "realist" and "ante-realist" position. I take no position on either; it's an open issue and any[/color] position taken now can only be dogmatic.

It is one of the great tragedies that people adopt metaphysical positions based on the truth of one or the other answer to metaphysical questions which are undecidable, rather than take the hint from their undecidability and conclude that both answers are incorrect.

Once again you take a dogmatic position under the illusion that your position is not dogmatic. How can you conclude that "both answers are incorrect"? What do you know that I don't know?

I thought you were arguing that since we cannot differentiate what we know from what we don't there is no such thing as knowable data

That is a dogmatic statement on the face of it. I don't take dogmatic positions. I do my very best to keep myself entirely open to the possibility that I am in error. So far, the most dogmatic statements I have made are: first, the only thing I know for sure is that I don't know and second, an explanation is a defined method of obtaining expectations of events not yet experienced based on information presently available to us.

This seems self-contradictory. If we cannot tell what we really know from what we don't really know then there can be no such thing as what we know.

Once again you jump immediately to a dogmatic position, "then there can be no such thing as what we know". You put forth exactly the argument given by the Solipsists when you, just a few paragraphs earlier told me you were not a Solipsist. What is even more disturbing is that, further along in exactly the same paragraph you have just referred to, I point out exactly what the difference is between what one really knows and what they only think they know. The only problem is that the resolution lies in the future. You don't seem to have even noticed this.

And exactly what do you find contradictory? Do you find it contradictory that we need a mechanism to handle the difference? Do you find it contradictory that there is a difference? Or finally, do you find it contradictory that we need to do this before "know what is real". I thought I expounded on that last issue quite succinctly in my earlier post. I have no way of telling what you have read and what you have ignored.

But if you are arguing that you cannot distinguish between what you know and what you don't know then it seems to follow that your paradigm must be be based on speculation and conjecture, and you certainly cannot conclude that it is correct.

From your comments, I get the feeling that you don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. I could be wrong but almost all the issues you bring up have already been discussed elsewhere. My impression is that you don't read what I say but rather just sort of scan the post and presume you know what I am talking about. If true, that would make this exchange rather a waste of time; on your part and on mine.

Finally, on rereading what I posted earlier, I think one further comment is in order. It concerns an issue which I find obvious but I suspect others might overlook. There is one more, very important, aspect of the starting position we must establish if we are to be truly rational. Let me add a direct comment on that aspect. Quoting the single most important paragraph from my earlier post,

The issue that we need a mechanism for handling the difference between "the things we really know" and "the things we think we know" before[/color] we know what we know. These things are very different even if we have no mechanism to tell one from the other. The difference only becomes evident in the future (within that information not available to us "now") but it does arise: i.e., sooner or later we will discover some aspect of what we thought we knew which is wrong. The difference therefore is quite clear: the things we really know will never be found to be wrong no matter what we learn of the universe and are thus fixed and not subject to our whims. The things we only think we know need only be consistent with our understanding and are free to be anything otherwise. Absolutely no other constraint can be placed on them beyond the need that they be consistent with our understanding.[/color] Note that our understanding can be, and very probably is, wrong[/color]. This is the very first issue to be handled if we are to attack the problem of understanding anything. To avoid it is just plain foolish.

I do not make it clear that the constraint, "Absolutely no other constraint can be placed on them beyond the need that they be consistent with our understanding."[/color] must be in place prior to making any attempt at understanding. That clearly opens up "the things we only think we know" to a spectrum of all possibilities we can think of: i.e., they are completely unconstrained by anything except that understanding we are attempting to achieve.

On the other hand, the purpose of "our understanding" is to explain the things we "really know". That fact has some very important consequences. Thus it is that the rules that we think are valid ("the nature of our understanding") and "the things we only think we know" are the central constituents of our explanation of the "things we really know". This view places a very different emphasis on "the rules". In my paradigm, the rules are not discovered, they are invented. That is why I refer to it as a "solution to a profound record keeping problem".

And all this must be established in our formalism prior to any thought on what might possibly work. If we don't make any attempt to structure our formalism to be consistent with these constraints, we are back to stirring that vague pot of intuitive concepts and hoping something of value floats to the top.

Were you able to follow anything of what I said?

Even if "what you think you know" is just how things seem to you, and not about how they are ?

All you are doing is using the vagueness of the English language to muddy the subject under discussion. The "knowing" you are referring to is quite different from the "knowing" I am referring to. I am sure that, if the subject ever got to the point that it was commonly spoken of in ordinary everyday conversation, separate words would evolve to differentiate between these two cases.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Canute]

No, they are not at all the same thing. Fundamentally you are disagreeing with the statement "all I know is that I do not know". From my perspective your attitude is what is normally referred to as "dogmatic": i.e., you know what you know and you are not going to consider the possibility that you are wrong. If you are going to stick to that, then this discourse is a waste of time.

I can't follow your logic here. If you cannot tell the difference between things that you know and things that you don't know, which is what you claimed, then you don't know anything. This seems perfectly obvious. What has dogmatism got to do with anything?

Oh, then you will guarantee to me that, absolutely never, not even in a billion billion years will solipsism ever be shown to be false? It is absolutely unfalsifiable! Again, that reflects a "dogmatic" position which implies you are closed to rational thought.

Of course I'll guarantee that solipsism is unfalsifiable forever. This is what 'unfalsifiable' means. (Equivalently, the question "Is solipsism true or false?" is undecidable. "Undecidable" likewise means undecidable forever).

Absolutely and forever? Again your position strikes me as quite "dogmatic". I certainly will not base my arguments on such dubious presumptions.

I didn't make a presumption. I said, in effect, that it is possible to know more
than can be proved or communicated (explained). This can be easily confirmed by anyone. What an irony it is that you call me dogmatic.

So you want to put authority behind your position. Another characteristic of dogmatic ideologies. To me any time someone tells me they are absolutely certain of something, a red flag goes up in my mind. How can they possibly be so sure they are correct. It seems to me that the first characteristic of a rational mind is that they will admit the possibility they are wrong. And one of the funniest characteristics of closed minds is when they tell you, "oh yeah, I could be wrong! but not about that".

It didn't occur to you to reply to my point then? I stated that your view contradicts Aristotle's view. A more useful reply to such a comment would make clear why you feel you are right and he is wrong. As you don't know what you know and what you don't I can see why this would be difficult to do, but wish you'd wouldn't continually insult people instead of addressing the issues they raise.

The Solipsist position is that it is all illusion and you have just told me that you very definitely really know[/color] some specific things are facts.

Yes.

Once again you take a dogmatic position under the illusion that your position is not dogmatic. How can you conclude that "both answers are incorrect"? What do you know that I don't know?

Something that I can't explain to you. But I can say this. Take the question "Did the universe arise from something or nothing?". It is clear that both answers contradict reason. It follows that if one of them is correct then the existence of the universe contradicts reason. I can't prove that this is not the case, but don't you think it's a little unlikely?

That is a dogmatic statement on the face of it. I don't take dogmatic positions. I do my very best to keep myself entirely open to the possibility that I am in error.

Hmm. What I wrote was "I thought you were arguing that since we cannot differentiate what we know from what we don't there is no such thing as knowable data". If you look carefully you'll see that this is not a dogmatic statement. As usual you neither confirm or deny, but insult instead.

Once again you jump immediately to a dogmatic position, "then there can be no such thing as what we know". You put forth exactly the argument given by the Solipsists when you, just a few paragraphs earlier told me you were not a Solipsist. What is even more disturbing is that, further along in exactly the same paragraph you have just referred to, I point out exactly what the difference is between what one really knows and what they only think they know. The only problem is that the resolution lies in the future. You don't seem to have even noticed this.

This is getting silly. What I wrote was this "If we cannot tell what we really know from what we don't really know then there can be no such thing as what we know". It is not dogmatic to say this, and it's not my fault that it's true. If you can only know what is true and what is false at sometime in the future then it is impossible to know anything now.

From your comments, I get the feeling that you don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. I could be wrong but almost all the issues you bring up have already been discussed elsewhere. My impression is that you don't read what I say but rather just sort of scan the post and presume you know what I am talking about. If true, that would make this exchange rather a waste of time; on your part and on mine.

Your posts consist largely of cryptic references to some background hypothesis which you do not make clear, or insults. Don't be surprised if people are unsure what it is you're getting at, or start showing signs of frustration.

Finally, on rereading what I posted earlier, I think one further comment is in order... snip ... That clearly opens up "the things we only think we know" to a spectrum of all possibilities we can think of: i.e., they are completely unconstrained by anything except that understanding we are attempting to achieve.

Sorry but cannot grasp what you're getting at here.

On the other hand, the purpose of "our understanding" is to explain the things we "really know". That fact has some very important consequences.

What fact? The 'purpose' of my understanding is not to explain the things I really know. I'm not even sure what your first sentence here means.

Thus it is that the rules that we think are valid ("the nature of our understanding") and "the things we only think we know" are the central constituents of our explanation of the "things we really know". This view places a very different emphasis on "the rules". In my paradigm, the rules are not discovered, they are invented. That is why I refer to it as a "solution to a profound record keeping problem".

Yes, a few philosophers have suggested that our physical environment is a sort of external memory bank.

Were you able to follow anything of what I said?

In places.

All you are doing is using the vagueness of the English language to muddy the subject under discussion. The "knowing" you are referring to is quite different from the "knowing" I am referring to. I am sure that, if the subject ever got to the point that it was commonly spoken of in ordinary everyday conversation, separate words would evolve to differentiate between these two cases.

What are the two cases? As far as I'm concerned knowing is knowing. The only division of knowing I know of is between relative and absolute knowledge.

 

[Tournesol]

All you are doing is using the vagueness of the English language to muddy the subject under discussion. The "knowing" you are referring to is quite different from the "knowing" I am referring to. I am sure that, if the subject ever got to the point that it was commonly spoken of in ordinary everyday conversation, separate words would evolve to differentiate between these two cases.

Actually, philosophers already have a number of ways of distinguishing different kinds of knowledge. But if you were talking about one particular kind of knowledge, why didn't you say so ?

 

[Philocrat]

"STEP 6: Surgically cut through and remove the part of mathematical physics that can explain qualia in the way that physicists can understand."

What part would that be?

QUALIA IS ALREADY EXPLAINED BY A MULTIPARTITE LANGUAGE



The Langauge of science is also a language of explanation. When metaphysically conjoined with NL (Natural language), it becomes an acceptable part of NL therefore making it multi-partite in scope and in substance. In other words, the Langauge of science is already part of NL. It just needs a systematic clarification at the metaphysical level.

You might wonder and ask Why?

Well, according to Frank Jackson’s thought experiment, scientists do have a way of numerically identifying all the colours and naming them. In the thought experiment, Mary, a Neuroscientist in a black and white room, knows all names of all the colours and how to uniquely associate each colour name with each wavelength on the light spectrum, which metaphysically and epistemologically implies that she can communicate these colour names (Red, Green, Yellow, Blue, etc) and wavelengths (w1, w2, w3 ….. wn) to her fellow scientists. This epistemologically implies


Colour Name + Wavelength = Knowledge of each colour

For example:

“Red” + W2 = Knowledge of Red colour”

But, according to Jackson, Mary does not know colours in real experience because she has never seen any colour before. This means that Mary can numerically (physically) account for all the colours but she cannot experientially (consciously) account for them. According Jackson, this means that there are some facts about conscious experience that are irreducible from physical experience

Mary knows that

“Green” = Wavelength (w3)

But Mary does not know that

“Green” = Experience (Green)

Ok, let us use the Possible World Semantics to analyse this:

POSSIBLE WORLD 1

In this world Jackson’s theory applies. Mary is a scientist in a world where everyone else there is a scientist. In this world everyone knows that:

Colour Name = Wavelength (n)

But does not know that:

Colour name = Experience (Colour)

“Green” = Experience (Green)

Such that whenever Mary says;

“The Green Car is coming”

This would be understood by all the scientists in PW1 as:

“The car with wavelength n is coming”

Metaphysically, Mary and fellow scientists in this world can substitute not only the colour term for the wavelength numerical value but also they can substitute any sentence containing the colour term for any sentence containing the wavelength numerical value. So long as they can be communicated from one scientist to another scientist without losing their information contents or semantic values, then they are metaphysically and epistemologically equivalent.

POSSIBLE WORLD 2

In this world Jackson’s theory is modified such that Mary is no longer a scientist but an ordinary citizen in a world where there are no scientists. In this world Mary and everyone are competent speakers of Natural Langauge (NL) and they all know that:

Colour Name = Experience (colour)
“Green” = Experience (Green)

But do not know that:

Colour name = Wavelength (n)

“Green” = Wavelength (n)

Such that whenever Mary says;

“The Green Car is coming”

This equivalently implies:

“The car that I am now experiencing or seeing coming towards me is green”

POSSIBLE WORLD 3

In this world Jackson’s theory applies. This world is identical to ours in that it is composed of scientists and non-scientist. When Mary is with her fellow scientists she speaks of colour in terms of their names and their wavelengths in the way that they all fully understand each other. But Mary is also blessed that she and all her fellow scientist have seen colours before and therefore they all have privileged access to colours in both their numerical and experiential forms plus their appellations. But you also have the non-scientists that know colours only by their appellations and experiential contents. When you climb out of the metaphysical realm to look at things, you would think that this strange habit of directly labelling or naming experience without explaining them is a disadvantage. Of course, at the metaphysical level or realm, things that are naturally self-explanatory such as qualia can be directly labelled or named. They are self-explanatory in the sense that you can directly point at them and people will see and understand them without any need for verbally explaining them. This means that (nature permitting) we can directly name them without endangering our own existence in the process. In this world Mary and her fellow scientists know that:

Colour Name = Wavelength (n)

And they also know that:

Colour name = Experience (Colour)

“Green” = Experience (Green)

Such that whenever Mary says;

“The Green Car is coming”

This would be understood by all the scientists in PW3 as:

“The car with wavelength n is coming”

In this case Mary would substitute all the co-referential terms and sentences in the world accordingly.

(a) “Green” for wavelength (n)
(b) “Green” for experience (green)
(c) Wavelength (n) for experience (green)

And so on. However, when it comes to communicating the knowledge of colours to non-scientists in the same world, as is typical of our own present world, Mary (likewise her fellow scientists) has to do so experientially – that is, directly name and physically point at them to identify them.

Well, the TRANSWORLD IDENTITY THEORY says that names should have the same meanings across all possible worlds or that they should not vary in meanings as we travel from one possible world to the next. At least this is what Kripke’s theory of Rigid Designator was attempting to demonstrate. According to Kripke, names do not vary in meanings in all possible worlds because they are rigid designators. Well, if this is true, then if Mary in the Possible World 3 were to board a spaceship and traveled to Possible Worlds 1 and 2, the name “Green” should have the same meaning in all the three worlds regardless of if Mary was speaking to scientists or non-scientists. Metaphysically, this would be equivalent to objectively picking an item in a public realm and introducing into a discourse in a manner that every participant in that discourse fully understands what is being referred to. Note that in my above three analogical examples, both the scientists and non-scientists use the same colour names (“Green”, “Blue”, “Red’, etc.) to name what they each understand as representing or standing for those names (wavelengths for scientists and real colour experience for non-scientists) respectively. This, in my opinion, seems to render the overplayed notion of “WHAT IT IS LIKE TO EXPERIENCE QUALIA metaphysically and epistemologically redundant because the transworld identities of colour names are rigid. They mean the same thing regardless of which world you are in. And the fact that some experiences are directly identified and named does not metaphysically pollute this fact. The only fundamental difference is that some experiences are linguistically describable and nameable while some are non-linguistically describable but directly experiential and nameable.

In this way we have conjoined the language of science with the Natural language in other to describe and communicate different aspects of the same reality to each other without falling into error judgement. The Langauge of science conjoined with NL produces an Multipartite Metalanguage with which to describe multipartite reality. For a Multipartite reality requires a Multipartite Langauge to describe it.

 

[Tournesol]

bleep bleep bleep