The Meaning of Meaning

[Received]

So what you're saying is:

Kitties are capable of semiotics?

 

[Davian]

So what you're saying is:

Kitties are capable of semiotics?

No. Do you feel that is requirement of play?

 

[Eudaimonist]

To me, meaning in the context of "meaning of life" simply means cognition of purpose. The purpose may easily be one's own.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Keep going. What do you think are we all about, beyond sex, eating, and survival?

Ok I limite your life to sex (yourt sallowed two kids) eating and survival. Youre in a jail cell though, for the rest of your days. Could you ever reasonably (rationally) desire freedom?

 

[Received]

No. Do you feel that is requirement of play?

Okay, and do you think semiotics could explain how someone could ask about abstract things like the meaning of life?

 

[Received]

Part of the problem here is the old Freudian write-off of sublimation and/or reducing all our "refined" activities or faculties (like thinking consciously, and/or with language) to sex, work, play, or survival. "I just solved quantum physics." Nope, you really just wanted to have sex with a girl and impress her (your genes wanting to replicate themselves). "I love reading murder mysteries." Nope, you just like the idea of not dying (your genes not being able to further replicate themselves).

Either there are unique faculties that human beings have that distinguish them, in this case with semiotics in a very unique way and allow for things like contemplation of death (rather than a visceral, non-conscious but sentient response to physical threats which could increase the odds for death), or there aren't. To appeal to everything by reducing it to sex, play, survival, etc., is just that -- a reduction, reductionistic. Just like the Freudian who says we do everything out of the death drive or eros, no matter how much the surface behavior appears to be completely different. An activity is not always reducible to what motivates it on a genetic level. Sometimes there are spandrels, of which language might be a gigantic one, that don't have any genetic worth or any reason for adaptation -- in which case these faculties, skills, or whatever would be totally irreducible, unlike other things such as go with sex, play, and survival.

 

[Davian]

Ok I limite your life to sex (yourt sallowed two kids) eating and survival. Youre in a jail cell though, for the rest of your days. Could you ever reasonably (rationally) desire freedom?

Sure.

 

[Davian]

Okay, and do you think semiotics could explain how someone could ask about abstract things like the meaning of life?

Do I think [the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation] could explain how someone could ask about abstract things like the meaning of life?

No. That would not be a coherent statement.

 

[Davian]

Part of the problem here is the old Freudian write-off of sublimation and/or reducing all our "refined" activities or faculties (like thinking consciously, and/or with language) to sex, work, play, or survival. "I just solved quantum physics." Nope, you really just wanted to have sex with a girl and impress her (your genes wanting to replicate themselves). "I love reading murder mysteries." Nope, you just like the idea of not dying (your genes not being able to further replicate themselves).

Either there are unique faculties that human beings have that distinguish them, in this case with semiotics in a very unique way and allow for things like contemplation of death (rather than a visceral, non-conscious but sentient response to physical threats which could increase the odds for death), or there aren't.

I still don't see the dichotomy here. A man that contemplates death still dies.

Have we not seen other animals grieve?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5RiHTSXK2A

To appeal to everything by reducing it to sex, play, survival, etc., is just that -- a reduction, reductionistic.

Were you not just about to tell us what else there might be?

Just like the Freudian who says we do everything out of the death drive or eros, no matter how much the surface behavior appears to be completely different. An activity is not always reducible to what motivates it on a genetic level. Sometimes there are spandrels, of which language might be a gigantic one, that don't have any genetic worth or any reason for adaptation

That would be a rather large assumption are your part in regards to evolutionary theory. I don't suppose you have any citations for that.

-- in which case these faculties, skills, or whatever would be totally irreducible, unlike other things such as go with sex, play, and survival.

Like the dogs in that video on page three of this thread, you have chased your tail around several times, but you are still back at post #33.

Which leads me to ask, what do you think are we all about, beyond things such as sex, eating, survival, and play?

 

[Received]

I still don't see the dichotomy here. A man that contemplates death still dies.

Have we not seen other animals grieve?

Elephants grieving - BBC wildlife - YouTube [/quote]

You bet, but grieving isn't exclusive to semiotics-using animals, so isn't an argument against my position. Sapolsky, I think, even argues how some higher primates engage in "self"-injurious behaviors. Okay, but that still doesn't mean at all that there's a "self" here, given that there isn't any use of language (language mediates the sense of self).

Were you not just about to tell us what else there might be?

Explaining what something is, even categorizing it, isn't reducing it. Reducing it happens when the phenomenon or skill or whatever you're talking about is "reduced" to basic biological drives. Language isn't a drive; naming it as such and noting how this distinguishes human beings from other animals isn't reductionistic; it's pointing stuff out.

That would be a rather large assumption are your part in regards to evolutionary theory. I don't suppose you have any citations for that.

If you have Netflix, check out the Chomsky interview/film, "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy" and you'll get a response from the leading linguistics expert on the subject.

Like the dogs in that video on page three of this thread, you have chased your tail around several times, but you are still back at post #33.

Which leads me to ask, what do you think are we all about, beyond things such as sex, eating, survival, and play?

Except you're chasing your tail and assuming others are chasing your tail and that you're not. 33? How about this difference: language isn't reducible and is totally unique. Heck, if it wasn't, then why the heck does man among previous animals thinking about things like death and meaning? Did he just randomly get confused given that there are no distinguishing factors between him and other animals? Well, why don't we see other animals who have slightly evolved getting really confused and thinking about meaning, death, etc. We don't. The difference is language, without which the change in man in the cartoon you presented is totally meaningless.

 

[Received]

I still don't see the dichotomy here. A man that contemplates death still dies.

Have we not seen other animals grieve?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5RiHTSXK2A

You bet, but grieving isn't exclusive to semiotics-using animals, so this isn't an argument against my position. Sapolsky, I think, even argues how some higher primates engage in "self"-injurious behaviors. Okay, but that still doesn't mean at all that there's a "self" here, given that there isn't any use of language (language mediates the sense of self).

Were you not just about to tell us what else there might be?

Explaining what something is, even categorizing it, isn't reducing it. Reducing it happens when the phenomenon or skill or whatever you're talking about is "reduced" to basic biological drives. Language isn't a drive; naming it as such and noting how this distinguishes human beings from other animals isn't reductionistic; it's pointing stuff out.

That would be a rather large assumption are your part in regards to evolutionary theory. I don't suppose you have any citations for that.

If you have Netflix, check out the Chomsky interview/film, "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy" and you'll get a response from the leading linguistics expert on the subject.

Like the dogs in that video on page three of this thread, you have chased your tail around several times, but you are still back at post #33.

Which leads me to ask, what do you think are we all about, beyond things such as sex, eating, survival, and play?

Except you're chasing your tail and assuming others are chasing their tail and that you're not. 33? How about this difference: language isn't reducible and is totally unique. Heck, if it wasn't, then why the heck does man among previous animals think about things like death and meaning? Did he just randomly get confused given that there are no distinguishing factors between him and other animals? Well, why don't we see other animals who have slightly evolved compared to animals just before them genetically getting really confused and thinking about meaning, death, etc.? We don't. Therefore, by logical necessity, we have to look at structural, cognitive, or behavioral differences between man and previous animals. And what's the only difference? Language, without which the change in man in the cartoon you presented is totally meaningless.

Seriously, to use a cartoon to make a point means utilizing the very language that other animals don't have, and then assuming we're all the same. It's cute, really.

To say that there's no difference is either to arbitrarily choose a quality from human beings and other animals and assume they're the same because they share this quality (which is like saying a star is the same as a light bulb because they both emit light), or to deny a fact psychologists and animal behaviorists have pointed out since Nim Chimpsky in the 70s: animals can manipulate symbols, but lack the syntactic structural abilities that humans use, indicating that they don't have language.

 

[Davian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5RiHTSXK2A

You bet, but grieving isn't exclusive to semiotics-using animals, so this isn't an argument against my position.

Perhaps if you were to clearly state your position, that would be more apparent.

Sapolsky, I think, even argues how some higher primates engage in "self"-injurious behaviors. Okay, but that still doesn't mean at all that there's a "self" here, given that there isn't any use of language (language mediates the sense of self).

I do not see how a sense of self necessitates an actual 'self', even in humans.

Explaining what something is, even categorizing it, isn't reducing it. Reducing it happens when the phenomenon or skill or whatever you're talking about is "reduced" to basic biological drives. Language isn't a drive; naming it as such and noting how this distinguishes human beings from other animals isn't reductionistic; it's pointing stuff out.

So you pointed stuff out. Now what?

If you have Netflix, check out the Chomsky interview/film, "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy" and you'll get a response from the leading linguistics expert on the subject.

I do not have Netflix.

Except you're chasing your tail and assuming others are chasing their tail and that you're not.

I am the observer here. Try to come to a complete stop prior to assessing my position.

33? How about this difference: language isn't reducible and is totally unique.

How is it not reducible? Do we not see communication in other animals?

Heck, if it wasn't, then why the heck does man among previous animals thinking about things like death and meaning? Did he just randomly get confused given that there are no distinguishing factors between him and other animals? Well, why don't we see other animals who have slightly evolved compared to animals just before them genetically getting really confused and thinking about meaning, death, etc.? We don't. Therefore, by logical necessity, we have to look at structural, cognitive, or behavioral differences between man and previous animals. And what's the only difference? Language, without which the change in man in the cartoon you presented is totally meaningless.

Seriously, to use a cartoon to make a point means utilizing the very language that other animals don't have, and then assuming we're all the same. It's cute, really.

I do not see how the cartoon makes such an assumption. The intent of that cartoon was to prompt the OP (or yourself) to demonstrate, if you can, that we are significantly different that other animals. Just saying we have a more complicated means of communication means little to me.

To say that there's no difference is either to arbitrarily choose a quality from human beings and other animals and assume they're the same because they share this quality (which is like saying a star is the same as a light bulb because they both emit light), or to deny a fact psychologists and animal behaviorists have pointed out since Nim Chimpsky in the 70s: animals can manipulate symbols, but lack the syntactic structural abilities that humans use, indicating that they don't have language.

Around you go again, pausing to build a straw-man of my position.

I suggest going back to post # 35, and trying again, unless all you wanted to say is "we have language".

 

[Received]

Perhaps if you were to clearly state your position, that would be more apparent.


I do not see how a sense of self necessitates an actual 'self', even in humans.

I didn't say that. I said that language allows for a sense of self, without which there can be no self. The "self" here isn't consciousness itself, but the I or me aspect we label ourselves, which involves aspects of our personalities. Maybe primates, etc., have a type of sentience that is close to our sense of consciousness, but because they don't have language (involving syntax and use of symbols), they don't have a self.

How is it not reducible? Do we not see communication in other animals?

Communication = Commun-ication, communion-cation, i.e., a sense of a group and signals passed between. Of course animals have this. But in no way at all does communication = language; language involves aspects that are fundamentally different than the dyadic communication of animals. This is why semiotics folks would distinguish between signals or signs and symbols; the latter implies a fundamentally different capability of communication (language) than the other two. A sign can imply immediacy: an ape screams, another ape immediately responds. In this exchange there is absolutely no conceptualization or other use of language like we experience: if a human screams, another human thinks "something is wrong!" and responds. Infinite difference.

I do not see how the cartoon makes such an assumption. The intent of that cartoon was to prompt the OP (or yourself) to demonstrate, if you can, that we are significantly different that other animals. Just saying we have a more complicated means of communication means little to me.

The cartoon itself proves that we're different on some fundamental level. That's the irony of using it like you have. We have a few logical necessities here: either man is not fundamentally different and he's the first animal in the history of animals to have problems with things such that he doesn't just act immediately with regard to sex, play, and not getting killed, in which case the onus is on you to explain how this inexplicable confusion could arise from the same equipment shared between man and other animals; OR he is fundamentally different in that he has an extra piece of equipment that would explain why he wonders about things, attempts suicide, gets depressed about things well in the future, creates art without being trained to do so, and feels completely out of connection with his immediate environment and might feel, e.g., sad when everyone else is happy and the sun is shining, or totally happy when the rest of the world around him is grim. Either/or.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say that. I said that language allows for a sense of self, without which there can be no self. The "self" here isn't consciousness itself, but the I or me aspect we label ourselves, which involves aspects of our personalities. Maybe primates, etc., have a type of sentience that is close to our sense of consciousness, but because they don't have language (involving syntax and use of symbols), they don't have a self.

You will need to define what you mean by "self". Is this a distinct ontological entity, or a temporary process created by the brain?

Communication = Commun-ication, communion-cation, i.e., a sense of a group and signals passed between. Of course animals have this. But in no way at all does communication = language; language involves aspects that are fundamentally different than the dyadic communication of animals. This is why semiotics folks would distinguish between signals or signs and symbols; the latter implies a fundamentally different capability of communication (language) than the other two. A sign can imply immediacy: an ape screams, another ape immediately responds. In this exchange there is absolutely no conceptualization or other use of language like we experience: if a human screams, another human thinks "something is wrong!" and responds. Infinite difference.

My wife and I watched Blackfish last week. When they removed the baby orca from the mother, to move it to another location, the response from the mother was clear, and very unsettling. I fail to see this "infinite difference".

The cartoon itself proves that we're different on some fundamental level. That's the irony of using it like you have. We have a few logical necessities here: either man is not fundamentally different and he's the first animal in the history of animals to have problems with things such that he doesn't just act immediately with regard to sex, play, and not getting killed, in which case the onus is on you to explain how this inexplicable confusion could arise from the same equipment shared between man and other animals; OR he is fundamentally different in that he has an extra piece of equipment that would explain why he wonders about things, attempts suicide,

Animal suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gets depressed about things well in the future, creates art without being trained to do so, and feels completely out of connection with his immediate environment and might feel, e.g., sad when everyone else is happy and the sun is shining, or totally happy when the rest of the world around him is grim. Either/or.

The onus is not on me to defend a position that I have not taken. I do not see the differences that you outline to be fundamental in nature.

I can only guess that this is how for your fear of presenting and analyzing your own beliefs manifests itself, in this pushing of a [false] dichotomy at me.

 

[Received]

You will need to define what you mean by "self". Is this a distinct ontological entity, or a temporary process created by the brain?

Doesn't matter. Are you saying "distinct ontological entity" somehow means this could be a phenomenon separate from what can be created by the brain?

But again, don't matter. What matters is 1) language, and 2) see 1.

My wife and I watched Blackfish last week. When they removed the baby orca from the mother, to move it to another location, the response from the mother was clear, and very unsettling. I fail to see this "infinite difference".

Seems ain't 'tis (to rearrange a little Hamlet). You still haven't addressed the content that the "infinite difference" refers to (i.e., semiotics, signs vs. symbols, etc.); you're just using examples that "seem" to indicate otherwise, while ignoring other examples.

Animal suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Scientists have been unable to explain whether or not animals are able to consciously end their own lives."

The onus is not on me to defend a position that I have not taken. I do not see the differences that you outline to be fundamental in nature.

Ya don't say!

I can only guess that this is how for your fear of presenting and analyzing your own beliefs manifests itself, in this pushing of a [false] dichotomy at me.

No, it's my fear of monkeys. Monkeys!

 

[Davian]

Doesn't matter. Are you saying "distinct ontological entity" somehow means this could be a phenomenon separate from what can be created by the brain?

I am saying, define your terms. What you mean by 'self' is what matters here.

But again, don't matter. What matters is 1) language, and 2) see 1.

Yet you will not say why this matters.

Seems ain't 'tis (to rearrange a little Hamlet). You still haven't addressed the content that the "infinite difference" refers to (i.e., semiotics, signs vs. symbols, etc.); you're just using examples that "seem" to indicate otherwise, while ignoring other examples.

I do not accept your premise that this indicates an "infinite difference". Infinite is quite large, I would have you know.

"Scientists have been unable to explain whether or not animals are able to consciously end their own lives."

As in humans, we observe their actions.

Ya don't say!



No, it's my fear of monkeys. Monkeys!

Well, when you come to grips with your fears, perhaps we can continue this.

 

[Received]

I am saying, define your terms. What you mean by 'self' is what matters here.

I or me. See above.

I do not accept your premise that this indicates an "infinite difference". Infinite is quite large, I would have you know.

Hyperbole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As in humans, we observe their actions.

So if a frog jumps and a kid jumps, a frog is a kid?

Well, when you come to grips with your fears, perhaps we can continue this.

Monkeys!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Animals also have "rational attraction to being". They just dont know too much about it.

 

[quatona]

Animals also have "rational attraction to being". They just dont know too much about it.

I would like to learn about your distinction between "rational attrraction to being" and "irrational/non-rational/a-rational/? attraction to being" (i.e. other forms of attraction to being that you use "rational attraction to being" to constrast to).