View Single Post
Old 13-05-2009, 11:39 PM   #23
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Meaning isn't causality. Meaning isn't purpose either.

Meaning is a relationship between a concept and a symbol. It is a form of representation that transfers information.

Every existing thing exhausts itself in its existing; that is, it does not 'represent' something else that it isn't. Hence, there is no meaning in mere existence. Meaning has to be imposed by a being that creates a connection between things (or concepts of things).

A cause imparts meaning to whatever effect it has as long as there was an intent behind the original action that led up to the current effect. A purpose, based on an intent, to do something arises before any action is taken, before anything causes an effect, and if something has a purpose, it has meaning. Thus its very easy to see how intrinsic meaning can be placed on existence, if you consider the possibility that there was an intent behind the structure of all that we know and think is possible, ie, existence. Although, if someone was coming from a materialistic point of view, and believed only what is readily observable and imaginable to be possible, I can see how someone could think that meaning can only have extrinsic value. Seems like quite a limiting and narrow philosophy, to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
All meaning IS placed on things 'after' they exist by beings that already exist.
If such is not an assumption, and is an absolute fact as you seem to be implying, then please, put forth an irrefutable argument that totally dismisses any and all possibility that meaning might arise before some thing comes into existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Meaning only exists in the minds of semiotic beings.
Again, an assumption spoken as fact that can never be proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
But that is not related to whether 'all things are subjective'. Meaning is subjective.
Meaning and subjectivity are quite related. Meaning applied after something is created, extrinsic meaning, is subjective. Meaning that is applied prior to somethings creation, intrinsic meaning, is not. Both are also very closely related to intent and purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
It's the position of the OP and the many-worlds metaphysics. That's the power of the model--that all possible worlds exist simultaneously, and not 'in serial' or stretched out in time, as time does not apply to the complete body of possible worlds (ie, of possibility itself) but only to particular manifestations of individual worlds (ie, timespace is a fundamental parameter that defines a particular world).
Youre right, it is the position of the OP and others. That does not stop it from being a monumental assumption upon which vast arguments, which are inherently flawed due to their foundation being an assumption, have been built. Unfortunately, those who put all their faith in such an assumption dont seem to realize, or simply go into denial about, that thats all their belief is; an assumption based on a model of reality that MIGHT be correct, but more likely is just another flawed attempt to cram the infinite into a nice and tidy, finite box, so it will become more palatable for the finite minds who are incapable of accepting that there are some things that cannot be understood, and are inherently unknowable... such as the infinite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
'Nothing has meaning' and 'all meanings are fully expressed' are equivalent. If all meanings are expressed then no one meaning has priority, and hence, all meanings are equal; this is equivalent to there being no meanings at all. FUll or empty, it doesn't make any difference.
All meaning can never be fully "expressed", as if it were, all things would be known. Though there is no "all" in something that is infinitely large, as an "all" implies a totality, something an infinitely large object does not have, as if it did, it would be finite. This is only, of course, if you believe in an infinitely large reality and beyond. If you believe in a finite reality that just loops around on itself endlessly, then indeed, existence would be meaningless. What a depressing model of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
But it isn't a matter of you choosing. That's just how things are.
Again, based on a materialistic, deterministic, and nihilistic model of reality, yes, that might be how things are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Semiotic beings impose meaning on the world. There is no 'inherent meaning' in anything. The very concept is non-sensical
Something is usually only "non-sensical" to someone if that something goes against what they already believe to be undeniably true, and are unwilling to consider that their own current hypothesis might be incorrect, or incomplete, probably out of the fear of having to face that they were wrong, for whatever reason people fear being wrong. Probably an ego thing.
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote