God is dead! Late breaking news!! !

Post Reply New Topic

Creation is in the hands of the creator not the dictator.

Whilst a novel desires fiction, a creator desires wisdom

Then you believe that we cannot understand anything. All predicates are sets. For example "house" is the set of all things that are homes etc. I disagree.We do understand somethings. Your statement is self refuting. Since we cannot understand anything,how can you understand "sets cannot be understood." Or are you actually claiming that no one understands even the most elementary math? Are you saying that only literal empirical information is understandable? Metaphors and logic are not understandable?
Also,meaning cannot exist without consciousness. It would be absurd to say " I understand that "2+2=4" but am not aware (conscious ) of that fact." Or are you saying that a light switch in the "on" position understands that the light is on?
OK You said that to say that " we know that we are conscious "is nonsense. I disagree.
Google, "intentionality stanford encyclopedia of philosophy".

Particular parts of reality are effable. However,reality is ineffable. For example, you can point at a cow but not its reality. As Kant showed existence is not a predicate.

This is a more in-depth explanation of my argument,
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5395050 ... t=#5395050
“There are several problems there. The first is your assertion that one must have some 'subjective experience' of some facts in order to understand it - math is a counterexample (in particular, 1 is just the set containing the empty set as the only element) - because there is nothing to be aware of.”
01001011
Also, subjectivity is required for meaning. The symbol “1” is just a pattern of ink when no one is aware of it . It has no http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
Consciousness is required for intentionality. An ink pattern does not refer to anything (it is not intentional, in the philosophical sense). Similarly, an “on” light switch does not refer to a on light.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consc ... tionality/

To deny the existence of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ is too deny the existence of meaning. Therefore an http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater ... iminative/ position is self refuting. Since they deny the existence of qualia, they deny the existence of meaning, therefore everything they say is meaningless.
Also, see my thread "Quining qualia " that I gave at the beginning of the last post. An eliminative materialist ( like Dennett) must be morally neutral about torture, if he is consistent. However, Dennett and most eliminative materialists are not OK with torture, so therefore their "argument" is inconsistent and therefore absurd. There are other arguments there, that destroy the eliminative materialist's absurd position.

I am in agreement with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle that Dennett’s position ( that consciousness does not exist) is neurotic. Also Searle proved that intentionality requires consciousness. In other words an eliminative materialist must take the absurd position that one can have a sign with no signifieds and only signifiers.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents/S4B/sem02.html

This discussion reminds me of two things from my own web site.

My song What Can I Say? is about the limitations of language. The second verse goes

However a signifier can only "refer" (actually even "refer" is problematic to an eliminative materialist) to another signifier (because an eliminative materialist cannot believe in signifieds,concepts) according to an eliminatve materialist. The signified is absent and therefore the sign is meaningless.
I am not a postmodernist. However, Derrida * had a good point that the spoken word is just as much a pure signifier as the written word. Hearing thoughts is as absurd as smelling ideas!
PS; we are in agreement. I simply wanted to use your point to further explain mine.
* Google "love being Derrida youtube". In other words, the difference between subject and predicate is similar to the difference between signifier and signified. The video shows how this relates to what we all want,unconditional love.

01001011,
Can I just call you "K"? (ASCII )
If no one understands "1+1=2", it is meaningless. Similarly, suppose an extraterrestrial writes "1+1=2" as "*!". "*!" is meaningless until it is attached to a signified.
I agree that one cannot prove objectively that I am conscious. However, I know directly that I am conscious. There are other ways to arrive at knowledge then just the correspondence theory of truth (that I showed is a weak theory of truth). Just because our feeble hominid brains cannot put something into words does not mean that it does not exist.

"When you see an ink patten 1+1=2, at best you have qualia of the ink patten. Nowhere you get the qualia of the mathematical expression...
Moreover, why 'causing C fibers to fire' is ethically neutral? Just because it sounds neutral?"
0100101
So you agree with me?! !! Yes "*!" is just qualia until you add meaning to it. Do you think the big dipper is real. No, constellations are imposed on the random pattern of stars.
Causing C fibers to fire is not moraly neutral (since they cause no pain, according to eliminative materialists and they do not damage the person)?! !! How can something that causes no harm be bad?
Anyway, if my whole argument is absurd you must have more insight then Searle and the overwhelming majority of academically validated philosophers.

Google "Searle chinese room" and you will get a better understanding of my argument.

Perhaps you think I am proposing a kind of Berkelian idealism. I am not. I am saying that meaning (intentionality) is the ability for one object (concept or physical) to refer to another object. Unconscious matter lacks that ability and so therefore cannot generate meaning. For example, an "on" light switch does not refer to an "on" light.
You are confusing purpose with meaning. We can print "on" onto the light switch to help us keep track as to if the light is on. However, the meaning of an on light is not an on switch. An "on" light switch tells us nothing about the light being on until we are aware of it. An "on" light switch is not the definition of an on light.