Sentences don't have meaning, they symbolically represent ideas
backspace
There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
"that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
self.
We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
propositions.
r norman
Well, well. Some college sophomore has just learned about Jacques
Derrida and had a real fun time at a drunken bull session where he
discovered the secrets of the universe and is now ready to share this
arcana with us.
guscubed
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> anything.
I'm sorry, I don't understand you. You seem to be posting a
meaningless string of vowels and consonants... off topic ones at that.
> And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> self.
> We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> propositions.
One has to wonder why you bother trying to communicate anything at all
as you have clearly decided to disappear into you own solipsistic
navel
David Hare-Scott
You are living proof that communication is impossible in some situations.
But it isn't for the reasons that you imagine.
David
backspace
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:02:40 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
> >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> >There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> >or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> >"that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> >itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> >anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> >cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> >communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> >propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> >Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> >representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> >create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> >self.
> >We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> >sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> >propositions.
>
> Well, well. �Some college sophomore has just learned about Jacques
> Derrida and had a real fun time at a drunken bull session where he
> discovered the secrets of the universe and is now ready to share this
> arcana with us.
And ......? Do you agree disagree with the author, he basically stated
what the wiikipedia pragmatics article wrote.
Woland
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
Sorry, I couldn't understand that since you just blew my mind and
forgot what the words mean.
Iain
> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> "that."
So?
--Iain
backspace
So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
backspace
Fitness is a symbolic representation of some idea, this idea was the
suitability of white people above black people by Spencer who sold a
million books, he used the word "suitability" and "fitness" as its
synonym. Darwin was read in terms of Spencer. The concept of
suitability can't be measured , there is no such thing as suitability
flux measured in Gauss for example.
What would be the modern concept with fitness, what idea does it
symbolically represent. Fitness itself means nothing it is a symbol
string, devoid of intent. Only you can have intent, only you have a
proposition.
Burkhard
involves counting.
Erwin Moller
Yes.
We use words to express ideas/concepts/etc.
We can also express things by making faces or punch somebody.
This is no news at all.
Futhermore: It is important to be precise when discussing stuff: you
should avoid the possibility that different people interpret your words
differently.
But why are you posting this?
You used a lot of words, but it is still not clear to me what it is
excactly that you want to tell us all. :-/
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
David Hare-Scott
And now laaaadies and geeenlemens who will step up and take a ride on the
all new, improved, revolving, reciprocating, scintillating, oscillating,
regurgitating word game? Come, come don't be shy. I must warn you that if
you play you do stand a 98.65% chance of receiving a "survival of the
fittest is a tautology" enema before the end of the ride.
David
Eric Root
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
Sorry, to symbollically represent ideas is the same as to mean
something. By the way, evolution really happens.
Eric Root
Ron O
"Having more offspring that survive to reproduce." It seems to be a
mystery to backspace how one allele out of several can take over and
become fixed in a population to the exclusion of the other alleles.
You can take flies that are segregating two different alleles (forms
of a gene) of one of the alcohol dehydrogenase genes and you can even
make an artificial population where the allele frequencies are 50:50.
Keep putting a certain percentage of ethanol in the fly food and one
allele will nearly always take over and become fixed. You can repeat
as many times as you want to. Backspace can't understand how this
happens over and over again. He has to deny it by saying stupid
things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
that is he deals essentially in pushing around numbers and words which
long have become meaningless outside the exchange and whose connection
with the "real" economy and real, physical assets is debatable at best.
I suppose if I lived in this make belief world for any length of time,
and in particular if i could not admit to myself that I'm participating
in one big illusion (to express it charitably), I might protect my self
by thibnking that all of the world is like that.
backspace
>�He has to deny it by saying stupid
> things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
somebodies idea: Who is this person?
backspace
Ok, talking about stock trading. Now there is something where people
deceive themselves over and over again, they see patterns that don't
exist invoking RSI, Stochastic, MACD which are to a large extent
meaningless. (not completely though)
Devils Advocaat
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
If one follows your reasoning here, then all your words are
meaningless. :P
Kalkidas
news:c6d1f5e2-58d0-4abf...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links
>
> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> anything.
Shut the hell up, your meaningless words are disturbing us.
Will in New Haven
Something you lack. If modern civilization didn't coddle wankers
someone would have busted a cap, or stuck a spear, in you long ago.
When someone finally kicks your sorry ass don't come to me with your
meaningless noises about injustice and intolerance.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Much as people have deluded themselves into seeing god acting in the
world for centuries.
raven1
What are you trying to say?
jillery
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:02:40 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> >There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> >or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> >"that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> >itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> >anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> >cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> >communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> >propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> >Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> >representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> >create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> >self.
> >We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> >sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> >propositions.
>
> What are you trying to say?
exactly
hersheyh
And his insanity involves regurgitating the same meaningless
pseudointelectual drivel again and again and expecting anyone to agree
with him this time.
Kermit
> On Feb 17, 2:28�ｿｽpm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron O wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 3:35 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> backspace wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 17, 6:02 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > >>>>> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > >>>>> "that."
> > >>>> So?
> > >>>> --Iain
> > >>> So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
> > >> You have been told this again and again. "Having more offspring",and it
> > >> involves counting.
>
> > > mystery to backspace how one allele out of several can take over and
> > > become fixed in a population to the exclusion of the other alleles.
> > > You can take flies that are segregating two different alleles (forms
> > > of a gene) of one of the alcohol dehydrogenase genes and you can even
> > > make an artificial population where the allele frequencies are 50:50.
> > > Keep putting a certain percentage of ethanol in the fly food and one
> > > as many times as you want to. �ｿｽBackspace can't understand how this
> > > happens over and over again. �ｿｽHe has to deny it by saying stupid
> > > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > I wonder if it is a result of his job? Apparently, he is a stock trader,
> > that is he deals essentially in pushing around numbers and words which
> > with the "real" economy and real, physical assets is debatable at best.
>
> > I suppose if I lived in this make belief world for any length of time,
> > and in particular if i could not admit to myself that I'm participating
> > in one big illusion (to express it charitably), I might protect my self
> > by thibnking that all of the world is like that.
>
> Ok, talking about stock trading. Now there is something where people
> deceive themselves over and over again, they see patterns that don't
> exist invoking RSI, Stochastic, MACD which are to a large extent
Excellent observation, actually. These people who think they see
patterns where none exist are victims of (perpetrators of) pareidolia.
Much like Creationists. You can tell they are imagining things because
when they act on them, they do not get results better than random
chance. There *are real patterns in the stock market, but because they
are strongly affected by unknown or unpredictable factors, they are
unreliable.
Science, however works, largely because it tests its ideas against
reality every step of the way.
Kermit
Kermit
It doesn't matter what he said. Science (the study of how reality
works) is not constrained by past ideas or past use of language.
Darwin was not a prophet, nor a founder of a religion.
He did, however, understand this idea perfectly well. He used
different words to describe it. This is an elementary language skill,
and a concept readily understood by most children.
"Oh look, it's bigger now."
"No, it's larger."
"You're both wrong, it's simply not as small as it used to be."
"Can any of you truly use these words without explaining who first
used them, and who gave you the authority to use them differently?"
Kermit
Kermit
"Sentences don't have meaning, they symbolically represent ideas "
BWAhahahahahahahahha!
<snips meaningless sentences>
Kermit
aganunitsi
>
> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> self.
> We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> propositions.
Good gravy that is a convoluted bucket of BS.
Correct, no word intrinsically means anything by itself. Therefore no
string of words intrinsically means anything by itself. Like a gaggle
of words sitting in a book buried under the ground - meaningless.
From there you go down the BS highway by dropping the concepts
"intrinsically" and "by itself".
Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer. And let us
assume the observer has defined this word. Now the words have meaning
and communication with the word can occur. Your freakin' BS mystery is
solved.
backspace
> > Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
> > somebodies idea: Who is this person?
> It doesn't matter what he said. Science (the study of how reality
> works) is not constrained by past ideas or past use of language.
> Darwin was not a prophet, nor a founder of a religion.
> He did, however, understand this idea perfectly well. He used
> different words to describe it.
You mean he understood your concept that you are symbolically
representing with ''differential reproductive success'' ? What is this
concept.
backspace
> On Feb 16, 10:02�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> > anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> > cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> > communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> > propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> > Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> > representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> > create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> > self.
> > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > propositions.
> Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer.
But without an observer the words "are by themselves" so to speak or
are just patterns.
> And let us assume the observer has defined this word.
The observer has used symbols to represent his idea, his idea isn't
the symbols but is only something another conscious agent can
comprehend. The symbols in an of themselves don't represent anything
other than themselves in the same way a rock only represents itself.
> Now the words have meaning and communication with the word can occur.
The word "fitness" still doesn't haven't meaning, meaning is an idea
it is only what you perceive it be. For me to comprehend your idea you
symbolically encode your idea using the symbols "f-i-t-n-e-s-s",
"fitness" is the representation of your idea that induces in me to to
sort of (hopefully) have the same idea. The symbols f, t, s are just
shapes used by signal sender to symbolically encode his idea to signal
receiver. Information is a representation of something other than
itself. Without intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics) the
"s", "t", "f" only represent themselves.
Lets presume the last human dies, to whom and to what would
"f,i,t,n,e,s,s" or "s,i,t,n,e,f,s" or "e,s,t,i,n,e,f,s" mean? Each of
these patterns like a pattern of rocks in the desert wouldn't
represent anything other than itself. Mad and Dam are symbolically
close but they are used to conceptually convey something much further
apart so to speak. IF there weren't a single conscious entity left in
this universe to whom would "mad" or "dam" represent a concept,idea or
emotion? Thus abstract Language, Idea or Mind came first. Does the
letter "M" have meaning or is it just four spikes joining each other
on the edges, a pattern?
Inez
> http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> self.
> We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> propositions.
The bible then, which is afterall just words, has no meaning. Who can
say what is intended by "god" anyway? It could just mean that someone
has a green light.
aganunitsi
> are just patterns.
Correct, words without observers are by themselves. By themselves they
are not even patterns - an observer is required to define a pattern.
>The observer has used symbols to represent his idea, his idea isn't
>the symbols but is only something another conscious agent can
>comprehend. The symbols in an of themselves don't represent anything
>other than themselves in the same way a rock only represents itself.
Correct-ish. As long as there is an observer the symbol can have
meaning. Just like how a rock can have meaning when an observer is
present who has defined a meaning in that rock. Like that rock all
those Muslims bow to every day. And no, you don't need another
consicous agent. Words can have meaning to one observer alone. I can
make notes intended solely for my own use.
> The word "fitness" still doesn't haven't meaning, meaning is an idea
> it is only what you perceive it be. For me to comprehend your idea you
Again you're proceeding along a line of logic while abandoning your
previous propositions. Your proposition includes the phrase "by
itself". The word "fitness" has no meaning by itself. The word
"fitness" in the presence of an observer who has defined it is no
longer by itself, and has meaning.
> Lets presume the last human dies, to whom and to what would
> "f,i,t,n,e,s,s" or "s,i,t,n,e,f,s" or "e,s,t,i,n,e,f,s" mean?
Until you can bring back an observer, nothing. You've gone and put
them by themselves.
backspace
When we think of a Dam it conjures up images of gleaming water, we
could symbolically represent it with say "Zzopstf" if signal sender
and signal receiver agree in advance to use "Zzopstf" as the symbolic
representation of "gleaming water". Thus the question is what would
the meaning of "Zzopstf" be to signal receiver who doesn't know what
signal sender is communicating? It would be meaningless, just as
meaningless as finding Chinese script that symbolically represents a
dam to Chinese signal senders and receivers by a person not
understanding Chinese. In his reference frame he is seeing a series of
wiggles: They have no meaning in and of it self, it doesn't conjure up
an image of dam in his mimd. Thus the concept of a "dam" can't be
eternally associated with a specific symbolic representation. In the
same way the various concepts can't be fixed with the symbol
"fitness" , "fitness" only represents symbolically an agreed apon
aidea to signal sender/receiver
When you pick up a paper with "232zghtt23lltr" written on it , without
knowing who wrote it one can't say that for somebody out there it
doesn't represent an idea(it could be the product code). Thus
"232zghtt23lltr" and "fitness" in an of itself has no meaning: It can
only represent an idea. We are so used to using words like "dam" to
encode our ideas that we forget we are only communicating ideas, the
idea is independent of its symbolic representation: Dam like Mad have
no meaning, only ideas have meaning, what it is to have meaning is
only something a conscious agent can comprehend. The series of lines
on paper that make up "dam" can't appreciate the beauty of a dam.
r norman
In case you hadn't already got that impression... this is all quite
trivial nonsense. It might earn a C- in an intro philosophy course
and that only because it seems to be organized into sentences and
paragraphs without excessive grammatical or spelling errors. Perhaps
if you would actually read what some modern (actually post-modern)
philosophers have to say about language and meaning and work from
there you would have something interesting to add about this subject.
aganunitsi
> On Feb 17, 7:21嚙緘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:54嚙緘m, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 10:02嚙緘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> > > > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > > > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > > > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> > > > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> > > > anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> > > > cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> > > > communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> > > > propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> > > > Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> > > > representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> > > > create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> > > > self.
> > > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > > > propositions.
> > > Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer.
>
> > But without an observer the words "are by themselves" so to speak or
> > are just patterns.
>
>
> > The observer has used symbols to represent his idea, his idea isn't
> > the symbols but is only something another conscious agent can
> > comprehend. The symbols in an of themselves don't represent anything
> > other than themselves in the same way a rock only represents itself.
>
>
> > The word "fitness" still doesn't haven't meaning, meaning is an idea
> > it is only what you perceive it be. For me to comprehend your idea you
> > symbolically encode your idea using the symbols "f-i-t-n-e-s-s",
> > "fitness" is the representation of your idea that induces in me to to
> > shapes used by signal sender to symbolically encode his idea to signal
> > receiver. Information is a representation of something other than
> > itself. Without intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics) the
> > "s", "t", "f" only represent themselves.
>
> > Lets presume the last human dies, to whom and to what would
> > "f,i,t,n,e,s,s" or "s,i,t,n,e,f,s" or "e,s,t,i,n,e,f,s" mean? Each of
> > these patterns like a pattern of rocks in the desert wouldn't
> > close but they are used to conceptually convey something much further
Ideas, by themselves, have no meaning.
Kermit
Really... how do you ask for food at a grocery store? Do you just
point and grunt?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Feb 17, 7:21�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> When we think of a Dam it conjures up images of gleaming water, we
> could symbolically represent it with say "Zzopstf" if signal sender
> and signal receiver agree in advance to use "Zzopstf" as the symbolic
> representation of "gleaming water". Thus the question is what would
> the meaning of "Zzopstf" be to signal receiver who doesn't know what
> signal sender is communicating? It would be meaningless, just as
> meaningless as finding Chinese script that symbolically represents a
> dam to Chinese signal senders and receivers by a person not
> understanding Chinese. In his reference frame he is seeing a series of
> wiggles: They have no meaning in and of it self, it doesn't conjure up
> an image of dam in his mimd. Thus the concept of a "dam" can't be
> eternally associated with a specific symbolic representation.
And yet you think we are, for some reason, obligated to use the
specific words of Darwin to represent any particular idea. For someone
who seems to be in love with his own thoughts, you don't really listen
to yourself much.
> In the
> same way the various concepts can't be fixed with the symbol
> "fitness" , "fitness" only represents symbolically an agreed apon
> aidea to signal sender/receiver
>
> When you pick up a paper with "232zghtt23lltr" written on it , without
> knowing who wrote it one can't say that for somebody out there it
> doesn't represent an idea(it could be the product code). Thus
> "232zghtt23lltr" and "fitness" in an of itself has no meaning: It can
> only represent an idea. We are so used to using words like "dam" to
> encode our ideas that we forget we are only communicating ideas, the
> idea is independent of its symbolic representation: Dam like Mad have
> no meaning,
You've never been in a flood, have you?
What is an idea without words of some kind? Other than simple imagery
(like a cat waiting at a mouse hole, who perhaps has the idea or image
of a mouse in its head).
The chosen symbols may be arbitrary (chosen by accident of birth and
history) but ideas without some set of symbols are necessarily simple
and thoughtless.
What would the idea "square root of 81" be like without the symbolism
of words? Human, complex ideas are built on other ideas. Without words
we are reduced to little more than pre-verbal cat brains.
> only ideas have meaning, what it is to have meaning is
> only something a conscious agent can comprehend. The series of lines
> on paper that make up "dam" can't appreciate the beauty of a dam.
Nor can they scratch their butt. So?
What meaning does "square root of 81" have without symbols?
What meaning is there in "only ideas have meaning" if no words of any
language are used?
Kermit
Devils Advocaat
Revolver toads hopefully upper wisdom back whales through discards!
backspace
> > When you pick up a paper with "232zghtt23lltr" written on it , without
> > knowing who wrote it one can't say that for somebody out there it
> > doesn't represent an idea(it could be the product code). Thus
> > "232zghtt23lltr" and "fitness" in an of itself has no meaning: It can
> > only represent an idea. We are so used to using words like "dam" to
> > encode our ideas that we forget we are only communicating ideas, the
> > idea is independent of its symbolic representation: Dam like Mad have
> > no meaning, only ideas have meaning, what it is to have meaning is
> > only something a conscious agent can comprehend. The series of lines
> > on paper that make up "dam" can't appreciate the beauty of a dam.
> Ideas, by themselves, have no meaning.
That sentence represented your idea, which means your ideas are
meaningless.
backspace
> On Feb 17, 10:01�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 7:21�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > When we think of a Dam it conjures up images of gleaming water, we
> > could symbolically represent it with say "Zzopstf" if signal sender
> > and signal receiver agree in advance to use "Zzopstf" as the symbolic
> > representation of "gleaming water". Thus the question is what would
> > the meaning of "Zzopstf" be to signal receiver who doesn't know what
> > signal sender is communicating? It would be meaningless, just as
> > meaningless as finding Chinese script that symbolically represents a
> > dam to Chinese signal senders and receivers by a person not
> > understanding Chinese. In his reference frame he is seeing a series of
> > wiggles: They have no meaning in and of it self, it doesn't conjure up
> > an image of dam in his mimd. Thus the concept of a "dam" can't be
> > eternally associated with a specific symbolic representation.
> And yet you think we are, for some reason, obligated to use the
> specific words of Darwin to represent any particular idea.
You are obligated to say which idea with "fitness" you are referring
to , who is this person that formulated a technical concept with the
word "Fitness" that explained how brains skipped PID and Fuzzy logic
going straight for Neural network control in every creature. How did
the abstract concept of a neural network happen to come into existence
in each mammal independently as they evolved on separate continents.
raven1
Elementary penguin singing "Hare Krishna", man you should have seen
them kicking Edgar Allan Poe...
Mitchell Coffey
You can say that again!
Mitchell Coffey
Burkhard
Habromania ? Abarticular bacillicides darraign abyssopelagic mackinaws,
an no mistake.
aganunitsi
>
> That sentence represented your idea, which means your ideas are
> meaningless.
Wrong again. All of my ideas, by definition, have me and are therefore
not by themselves. Since my ideas are not by themselves, they have
meaning. Or are you trying to say I am not an observer of my own
ideas? How dare you!
jillery
Right. What he said.
Virgil
wrote:
> "backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c6d1f5e2-58d0-4abf...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#lin
> > ks
> >
> > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> > anything.
>
> Shut the hell up, your meaningless words are disturbing us.
The you are much too easily disturbed.
Devils Advocaat
Marmalade retro-thrusters plentiful feathers renumerate?
Devils Advocaat
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:37:06 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
Cubic dogs regurgitate William's back passage!
hersheyh
> On Feb 17, 6:54�pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:02�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> > > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> > > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> > > anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> > > cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> > > communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> > > propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> > > Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> > > representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> > > create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> > > self.
> > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > > propositions.
> > Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer.
>
> But without an observer the words "are by themselves" so to speak or
> are just patterns.
This fully explains the problem! Person after person has carefully
and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
response to you. But there simply is no intelligent observer on
*your* end capable of deciphering the meaning. It is like talking to a
very stupid rock.
Louann Miller
b04f-484...@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>> >Revolver toads hopefully upper wisdom back whales through discards!
>>
>> Elementary penguin singing "Hare Krishna", man you should have seen
>> them kicking Edgar Allan Poe...
>
> Cubic dogs regurgitate William's back passage!
There's porn for that. I bet.
Ron O
> On Feb 17, 2:16�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >�He has to deny it by saying stupid
> > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>
> somebodies idea: Who is this person?
Obviously not you, and just as obviously it doesn't matter.
Ron Okimoto
haiku jones
> On Feb 17, 2:16�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >�He has to deny it by saying stupid
> > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>
> Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
> somebodies idea: Who is this person?
I'm not sure whose idea it is which is indicated by
"music", "death", "baseball", "funny", or
"paradimethyaminobenzaldehyde"
In practices, it matters not one jot.
Haiku Jones
Will in New Haven
> On Feb 17, 12:21嚙緘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:54嚙緘m, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 10:02嚙緘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h...
>
> > > > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> > > > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> > > > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> > > > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> > > > anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> > > > cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> > > > communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> > > > propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> > > > Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> > > > representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> > > > create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> > > > self.
> > > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > > > propositions.
> > > Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer.
>
> > But without an observer the words "are by themselves" so to speak or
> > are just patterns.
>
> and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> *your* end capable of deciphering the meaning. It is like talking to a
> very stupid rock.
>
It is more like talking to a typewriter (look it up if you aren't old
enough to know what it means) that _backspaces_ through everything you
say and then comes back with the same objections it had before you
said it. His screen name is descriptive and an admission of his
strategy. Since we cannot gather in an alley somewhere to kick him to
death I generally leave him alone.
--
Will in New Haven
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:e3f18663-50a1-42e6-
> b04f-4843ca19a...@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >Revolver toads hopefully upper wisdom back whales through discards!
>
> >> Elementary penguin singing "Hare Krishna", man you should have seen
> >> them kicking Edgar Allan Poe...
>
> > Cubic dogs regurgitate William's back passage!
>
> There's porn for that. I bet.
Script oscillators tsunami?!?
backspace
> This fully explains the problem! �Person after person has carefully
> and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> response to you.
using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
Name him just a name, like Newton, Maxwell - who is this person. You
say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
established by whom? The "biologists" - and who are they.
Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
outputs.
Woland
Here are the Hardy-Weinberg equations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm
You've been shown these before and have never commented on them. This
makes you a dishonest jerk.
Woland
David Hare-Scott
Do you ever feel that some other entity is controlling your thoughts?
David
John Wilkins
<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
Does he hear voices when nobody else is around? Does he think that he
is actually someone else much more important than everyone admits? Does
he suddenly cry or leave things lying around in a mess? Is he unable to
look after his own hygiene?
If the answer to these questions is "yes", see your doctor for
medication and therapy.
David Hare-Scott
No I think he is quite honest. He cannot make that connection. He cannot
make the connection that he keeps posting essentially the same stuff and it
is as pointless this time as the last and the one before. He cannot help
it.
David
josephus
> On Feb 17, 4:44 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2:28 pm, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ron O wrote:>>>>>> On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Iain<iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 6:02 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
>>>>>>>> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
>>>>>>>> "that."
>>>>>>> --Iain
>>>>>> So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
>>>>> You have been told this again and again. "Having more offspring",and it
>>>>> involves counting.
>>
>>>> "Having more offspring that survive to reproduce." It seems to be a
>>>> mystery to backspace how one allele out of several can take over and
>>>> become fixed in a population to the exclusion of the other alleles.
>>>> You can take flies that are segregating two different alleles (forms
>>>> of a gene) of one of the alcohol dehydrogenase genes and you can even
>>>> make an artificial population where the allele frequencies are 50:50.
>>>> Keep putting a certain percentage of ethanol in the fly food and one
>>>> allele will nearly always take over and become fixed. You can repeat
>>>> as many times as you want to. Backspace can't understand how this
>>>> happens over and over again. He has to deny it by saying stupid
>>>> things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
>>>> that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>>
>>
>>> I wonder if it is a result of his job? Apparently, he is a stock trader,
>>> that is he deals essentially in pushing around numbers and words which
>>> long have become meaningless outside the exchange and whose connection
>>> with the "real" economy and real, physical assets is debatable at best.
>>
>>> I suppose if I lived in this make belief world for any length of time,
>>> and in particular if i could not admit to myself that I'm participating
>>> in one big illusion (to express it charitably), I might protect my self
>>> by thibnking that all of the world is like that.
>>
>> Ok, talking about stock trading. Now there is something where people
>> deceive themselves over and over again, they see patterns that don't
>> exist invoking RSI, Stochastic, MACD which are to a large extent
>> meaningless. (not completely though)
>
> Excellent observation, actually. These people who think they see
> patterns where none exist are victims of (perpetrators of) pareidolia.
> Much like Creationists. You can tell they are imagining things because
> when they act on them, they do not get results better than random
> chance. There *are real patterns in the stock market, but because they
> are strongly affected by unknown or unpredictable factors, they are
> unreliable.
>
> Science, however works, largely because it tests its ideas against
> reality every step of the way.
>
> Kermit
>
backspace wants to argue against science, evolution and even physics.
if he can argue that terms are arbitrary he can argue against science
in general with its specialized vocabulary.
sigh
josephus
backspace
> On Feb 18, 1:04�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:17�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:> This fully explains the problem! �Person after person has carefully
> > > and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> > > response to you.
>
> > The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
> > using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
> > meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
> > Name him just a name, like Newton, Maxwell - �who is this person. You
> > say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
> > established by whom? The "biologists" �- and who are they.
>
> > Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
> > differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
> > outputs.
>
>
> You've been shown these before and have never commented on them. This
> makes you a dishonest jerk.
Hardy is are talking about genes, I am talking about John Tyndall and
how he viewed Survival of the fittest as the greatest breakthrough
ever conceived of in science by the mind of man.
backspace
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2
",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
all about differential survival within species, not between
them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
Problem is I can't find the term "differential survival" in any of the
works of Darwin. How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
Differential means non-similar or not the same. So somethings
survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
Woland
> On Feb 18, 8:16�am, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:04�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 12:17�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:> This fully explains the problem! �Person after person has carefully
> > > > and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> > > > response to you.
>
> > > The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
> > > using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
> > > meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
> > > Name him just a name, like Newton, Maxwell - �who is this person. You
> > > say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
> > > established by whom? The "biologists" �- and who are they.
>
> > > Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
> > > differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
> > > outputs.
>
>
> > You've been shown these before and have never commented on them. This
> > makes you a dishonest jerk.
>
> Hardy is �are talking about genes, I am talking about John Tyndall and
> how he viewed Survival of the fittest as the greatest breakthrough
> ever conceived of in science by the mind of man.
No you weren't. You were asking for "differential equations." Why are
you such a liar?
Woland
> On Feb 18, 2:18�am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:42�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2:16�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > >�He has to deny it by saying stupid
> > > > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > > > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>
> > > Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
> > > somebodies idea: Who is this person?
>
> > I'm not sure whose idea it is which is indicated by
> > "music", "death", "baseball", "funny", or
> > "paradimethyaminobenzaldehyde"
>
>
> ",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
> all about differential survival within species, not between
> them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
>
> Problem is I can't find the term "differential survival" in any of the
> works of Darwin. How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
> Differential means non-similar or not the same. So �somethings
> survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
It means, made a different number of babies. Leading to something
making more babies being more successful. Which is a truism, which is
why we think you're so silly.
Burkhard
where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)
the probability that the individual having the n characteristic
parameters x� = (x1, x2, �, xn) become selected as a parent of new
individuals in the progeny.
backspace
> >http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins...
>
> > ",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
> > all about differential survival within species, not between
> > them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
>
> > Problem is I can't find the term "differential survival" in any of the
> > works of Darwin. How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
> > Differential means non-similar or not the same. So �somethings
> > survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
> It means, made a different number of babies.
Which might be your idea, but other people could use the same symbol
string for a different idea.
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 12:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> >> response to you.
> > The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
> > using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
> > meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
> > say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
>
> > Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
> > differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
> > outputs.
>
>
> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)
> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic
> individuals in the progeny.
You using selected in the pattern or design sense?
Burkhard
> On Feb 18, 2:18 am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 5:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2:16 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> He has to deny it by saying stupid
>>>> things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
>>>> that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>>> Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
>>> somebodies idea: Who is this person?
>> I'm not sure whose idea it is which is indicated by
>> "music", "death", "baseball", "funny", or
>> "paradimethyaminobenzaldehyde"
>
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2
>
> ",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
> all about differential survival within species, not between
> them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
>
> Problem is I can't find the term "differential survival" in any of the
> works of Darwin.
This will come as a surprise for you, but it is possible to convey the
same information using different words. Instead of saying " I travel to
France" I can say: I travel to a large European country tat shares
borders with Germany and Spain. Competent speakers of English with the
necessary knowledge of geography will realise that both sentences say
the same, but only one of them mentions the term "France" explicitly.
How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
> Differential means non-similar or not the same. So somethings
> survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
Having more offspring than others, and the offspring in turn survives.
>
>
Burkhard
> On Feb 18, 10:51 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 12:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
>>>> response to you.
>>> The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
>>> using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
>>> meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
>>> say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
>>> Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
>>> differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
>>> outputs.
>>
>> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)
>> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic
>> individuals in the progeny.
>
> You using selected in the pattern or design sense?
>
Woland
Again, you fail to reply to the actual content of a post. You are
really dishonest and a jerk and I bet that you kick puppies.
backspace
The Hardy Weinberg page on Wikipedia has an entry tying their gene,
allele discussion in with "natural selection" . Natural selection was
the symbolic representation used by Darwin of his interpretation of
Malthus, it had nothing to do with genes. Natural selection as a
string of symbols has no meaning, they are used by signal sender to
only encode for an idea, the idea Darwin had isn't the same idea Hardy
Weinberg had because Darwin couldn't define the problem.
backspace
> >> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)
> >> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic
> >> individuals in the progeny.
>
> > You using selected in the pattern or design sense?
>
> In the mathematical sense of a function
Lets presume pattern sense then the sentence would be:
"......here N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its
mean,s(x) the probability that the individual having the n
characteristic parameters x� = (x1, x2, �, xn) become Established as
a parent of new
individuals in the progeny........."
Howard uses "discrimination" as a synonym for selection as in:
1) The tornado discriminated against the house on the left side of the
road but left the right side standing.
2) I discriminated in favor of vanilla over strawberry.
(1) is a pattern and (2) is a design. What we don't know is whether
Howard uses "discrimination" the symbol string to symbolically
represent the idea of either a pattern or design: Only he can tell
us.....after much prodding......he finally tells us: "...... design is
subset of pattern...." which again is a cluster of symbols that
represents some idea he has that matter came before mind given his
premises. Which means everything he says is just the motion of
matter , but if the matter were to motion differently he might then
start insisting that he is a boiled egg. How could we then believe a
word he tells us?
g...@risky-biz.com
> > and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> > response to you.
>
> The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
> using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea?
Not that there is any use at all in responding to you, but can you see
the irony implicit in your situation here? Your entire argument rests
on the idea that certain biological terms have no meaning, yet
everyone who responds to you uses those terms to mean exactly the same
thing. It sounds like everyone but you understands and agrees on the
meaning of those terms. This is, of course, how ALL language is
"defined", by the agreement of those who use it.
backspace
> Not that there is any use at all in responding to you, but can you see
> the irony implicit in your situation here? Your entire argument rests
> on the idea that certain biological terms have no meaning, yet
> everyone who responds to you uses those terms to mean exactly the same
> thing. It sounds like everyone but you understands and agrees on the
> meaning of those terms. This is, of course, how ALL language is
> "defined", by the agreement of those who use it.
The defined agreement with fitness by Spencer/Darwin was "suitable"
something which can't be measured on a scale 1-10 like magnetic flux
can be measured. Darwin had an idea, Fodor, Wilkins, Ham, Dembski have
ideas all use "Fitness" but it isn't clear which person they are
interpreting. Spencer was interpreting Treviranus, he coined fitness
actually , not Spencer. Take Maxwell or the inverse square law, we
know what the idea is. A scientific theory is always formally
established , inverse square laws means somebody had to formulate the
law. What for example would the the :"Law of Fitness" be, what idea
would the "Law of fitness" symbolically represent, or "fitness
landscapes" which on Wikipedia has no citation, we aren't told who has
formulate what it is, which proves we aren't dealing with a scientific
theory but a series of anecdotes, jumbled phrases all used but nobody
knows what they mean with "Fitness" because it could be used to
symbolically represent any idea.
With the inverse square law there isn't such confusion, the wikipedia
pages cites the person who had the idea: Newton.
backspace
> > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > propositions.
>
> say what is intended by "god" anyway? �It could just mean that someone
> has a green light.
It could if that is the concept you wish to use the symbol string
"god" for to encode, but then nobody would know what your idea is.
Thus "Green" is an agreed apon protocol to symbolically represent well
- green , now you could invent your symbol strings and make for
example "selection" no longer be used in your language universe to
represent the idea of making decisions. Back in the time of Augustus
"selectus" was used to convey the concept of making decisions. What
has happened the last 150 years are that symbol strings used by
theists to represent volition have been taken over by non-theists to
convey non-volition, leading to many debates between the YEC and
Atheist side where nobody knows what idea they are encoding for.
Nobody knows what either Ken Ham or Jerry Fodor is actually trying to
say. What better way for the Devil to send the whole world straight
to hell, just confuse language to such an extent that nobody knows
what ideas are being encoded for with symbol strings that had such
function between 500B.C and 1858 AD, but now then strangely from 1831
we had "natural means of selection" which like "Julio cranks wooden
cheese" is meaningless.
Ymir
<105c14f5-6699-4cec...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:35�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > > propositions.
> >
> > The bible then, which is afterall just words, has no meaning. �Who can
> > say what is intended by "god" anyway? �It could just mean that someone
> > has a green light.
>
> It could if that is the concept you wish to use the symbol string
> "god" for to encode, but then nobody would know what your idea is.
> Thus "Green" is an agreed apon protocol to symbolically represent well
> - green
So I assume you object to those who use 'green' to mean something else
(w.g. money or being inexperienced) just as adamantly as you object to
those who use 'selection' to mean something other than what you claim it
to mean?
vd. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change>
Andr�
Will in New Haven
> On Feb 18, 1:04�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:17�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:> This fully explains the problem! �Person after person has carefully
> > > and correctly described what what "fitness" means to biologists in
> > > response to you.
>
> > The symbol "fitness" has no meaning, which biologist with what idea is
> > using the symbol "Fitness" to encode his idea? Only an idea can have
> > meaning, meaning is only something a conscious agent understands.
> > Name him just a name, like Newton, Maxwell - �who is this person. You
> > say you have a theory: What is your theory and where was it
> > established by whom? The "biologists" �- and who are they.
>
> > Where is the differential equations, not word terms like ToE,
> > differential reproductive success but math that relates inputs to
> > outputs.
>
>
> You've been shown these before and have never commented on them. This
> makes you a dishonest jerk.
He BACKSPACED through them. That is what he does. His screen name
tells the whole story. Waste more time on him now.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <hlimki$gp...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott
Who are you talking to, John?
Mitchell
Kermit
Yup. But all of his poorly-understood philosophy and linguistic
confusion is refuted by two words:
science works.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Feb 18, 2:18�am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:42�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2:16�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > >�He has to deny it by saying stupid
> > > > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > > > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
>
> > > Darwin never said DRS, it is a term that symbolically represents
> > > somebodies idea: Who is this person?
>
> > I'm not sure whose idea it is which is indicated by
> > "music", "death", "baseball", "funny", or
> > "paradimethyaminobenzaldehyde"
>
>
> ",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
> all about differential survival within species, not between
> them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
>
> Problem is I can't find the term "differential survival" in any of the
> works of Darwin.
No, the problem is that you think this is necessary, or important, or
even interesting.
Or more likely, that this is some sort of problem for science. It is
not.
> How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
Who said anything about differential survival? It's all about
differential *reproduction (actually, the reproductive success of
one's offspring).
You can't even tell what you're reading. This should suggest to you
that you are not comprehending what you are reading.
> Differential means non-similar or not the same. So �somethings
> survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
As usual, your ersatz "paraphrasing" has little to do with what
anybody has said.
Differential reproductive success means some organisms reproduce more
than others in the same species.
Why do you think your inability or unwillingness to honestly read
simple sentences is a problem for anybody but you?
Kermit
Steven L.
news:hlgnd6$gtr$1...@news.albasani.net:
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:35 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> backspace wrote:
> >>> On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 17, 6:02 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> >>>>> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> >>>>> "that."
> >>>> So?
> >>>> --Iain
> >>> So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
> >> You have been told this again and again. "Having more offspring",and it
> >> involves counting.
> >
> > "Having more offspring that survive to reproduce." It seems to be a
> > mystery to backspace how one allele out of several can take over and
> > become fixed in a population to the exclusion of the other alleles.
> > You can take flies that are segregating two different alleles (forms
> > of a gene) of one of the alcohol dehydrogenase genes and you can even
> > make an artificial population where the allele frequencies are 50:50.
> > Keep putting a certain percentage of ethanol in the fly food and one
> > allele will nearly always take over and become fixed. You can repeat
> > as many times as you want to. Backspace can't understand how this
> > happens over and over again. He has to deny it by saying stupid
> > things like Darwin never said differential reproductive success as if
> > that isn't what Darwin was talking about.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> >
> I wonder if it is a result of his job? Apparently, he is a stock trader,
> that is he deals essentially in pushing around numbers and words which
> long have become meaningless outside the exchange and whose connection
> with the "real" economy and real, physical assets is debatable at best.
Shares of stock make a stockholder a part owner of a company, including
its physical assets. If the company makes a profit, each shareholder
gets some (as dividends). Being part owner of a company is hardly
meaningless. It's quite well defined in law.
And it's irrelevant to this discussion.
The notion that the ToE is tautologous, or is flawed logically, goes
back a long way. "backspace" is not the first creationist to try this
ploy by any means.
Partly it's a result of the way the ToE was popularized to the general
public in early years. Such as claiming that the ToE was about
"survival of the fittest." One could in fact argue that "survival of
the fittest" is both meaningless (since it didn't come with a clear
definition of "fitness") and tautologous.
But the ToE isn't "survival of the fittest."
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kermit
Ah! You have learned your linguistics from Humpty Dumpty.
**************************
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I
tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty
Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly
verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with,
but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them!
Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking
very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough
of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what
you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the
rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty,
`I always pay it extra.'
Kermit
Steven L.
news:g_qdnTmOL_uVf-HW...@earthlink.com:
The attacks by "backspace" and his ilk are important, because they raise
some basic questions about what science is and how it works.
Part of the lack of acceptance of the ToE by the public is due to the
fact that they can't understand how scientists can possibly make
accurate claims about ancient non-repeatable*** events, such as
tetrapods evolving from fish, or humans evolving from primates. To them
it sounds not that much more credible than any other ancient myth like
Genesis.
It is amazing that scientists can do that, you gotta admit.
*** Not unless and until we can discover extraterrestrial life in
various stages of evolution on other planets.
Kermit
I use that string of symbols to mean "backspace is using a very silly
string of symbols to pretend he is offering an argument". Am I right?
Of course, you don't know what I mean by *that. Nor *this.
>�Natural selection was
> the symbolic representation used by �Darwin of his �interpretation of
> Malthus, it had nothing to do with genes.
It has very much to do with genes, although he didn't know it. And
Darwin never offered an "interpretation of Malthus" that I know of. He
instead read Malthus, learned from it, and later presented his own
ideas. Do you think all ideas are simply interpretations of
interpretations of what... monkey grunts?
> Natural selection as a
> string of symbols has no meaning,
They do for English speakers. although folks uneducated in science are
often mistaken about what they mean.
> they are used by signal sender to
> only encode for an idea, the idea Darwin had isn't the same idea Hardy
> Weinberg had because Darwin couldn't define the problem.
"Waitress, I wish to encode an idea in a string of symbols
representing a desire for a stimulating beverage as expressed in John
Tyndall's well-defined description of signal reception."
"Umm... coffee?
"What do you mean by that?"
Kermit
Steven L.
news:hlgj99$ar6$1...@news.albasani.net:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 6:02 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> >>> or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> >>> "that."
> >>
> >> So?
> >>
> >> --Iain
> >
> > So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
>
> And now laaaadies and geeenlemens who will step up and take a ride on the
> all new, improved, revolving, reciprocating, scintillating, oscillating,
> regurgitating word game? Come, come don't be shy. I must warn you that if
> you play you do stand a 98.65% chance of receiving a "survival of the
> fittest is a tautology" enema before the end of the ride.
He is raising an important point, which I've made elsewhere:
If you want to popularize the ToE to the general public in a way that
helps gain its acceptance,
You have to start with a more general discussion of just what science
is, and how it works.
Many of the explanations of the ToE I've seen, do not do that. They
just jump into it, leading laypersons to shrug their shoulders and say
that nobody can be THAT certain about things that happened a billion
years ago.
No less a thinker than Karl Popper said that because the ToE deals with
non-repeatable events, it's not falsifiable and hence not science.
How science can make accurate claims about ancient non-repeatable events
needs to be the beginning of any popular explanation of the ToE.
Steven L.
news:sf1on5lnjdff29482...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:02:40 -0800 (PST), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links
> >
> >There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
> >or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
> >"that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
> >itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
> >anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
> >cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
> >communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
> >propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
> >Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
> >representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
> >create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
> >self.
> >We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> >sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> >propositions.
>
> What are you trying to say?
Nothing.
Kermit
So... you're saying that the Devil is sending you to Hell by making it
impossible to talk to anybody?
I would have thought an imbalance of neurotransmitters, perhaps OCD,
but your idea fits the data also.
That must mean that biologists and those who otherwise like biology
are safe, for we all understand common vocabulary pretty well.
Language is just chock full of meaning (which for sane people *is the
symbolic representation of ideas).
Really, the rest of us have little trouble communicating. That should
tell you something important about your ideas.
Kermit
haiku jones
> On Feb 17, 7:35�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain
> > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves
> > > propositions.
>
> > The bible then, which is afterall just words, has no meaning. �Who can
> > say what is intended by "god" anyway? �It could just mean that someone
> > has a green light.
>
> It could if that is the concept you wish to use the symbol string
> "god" for to encode, but then nobody would know what �your idea is.
> Thus "Green" is an agreed apon protocol to symbolically represent well
> - green , now you could invent your symbol strings and make for
> example "selection" no longer be used in your language universe to
> represent the idea of making decisions. Back in the time of Augustus
> "selectus" was used to convey the concept of making decisions. What
> has happened the last 150 years are that symbol strings used by
> theists to represent volition have been taken over by non-theists to
> convey non-volition, leading to many debates between �the YEC and
> Atheist side where nobody knows what idea they are encoding for.
> Nobody knows what either Ken Ham or Jerry Fodor is actually trying to
> say. �What better way for the Devil to send the whole world straight
> to hell, just confuse language to such an extent that nobody knows
> what ideas are being encoded
I thought that was God's little trick. Didn't work all that
well for him: we routinely build towers far higher
than the boys at Babel would ever attempt.
> for with symbol strings that had such
> function between 500B.C and 1858 AD,
Oh, don't be utterly silly. Read a popular book
on linguistics. Any popluarization. John
McWhorter. Steven Pinker -- you'll find that
the one concept they most want you to take
away from their work is that LANGUAGES
CHANGE WITH TIME. Languages ALWAYS
change with time. You can't stop it, I can't
stop it, no one can stop it. The development
of writing slows down change a bit, but
change continues anyhow.
Do you really think that when Shakespeare
wrote "Provided that you do no outrages
on silly women", he had air-headed
bimbos in mind? He did not. Are you
not aware that "girl" once meant a young
child of either sex?
The idea that word meanings were fixed
from 500 B.C. to the mid-19th century
would cause any linguist to choke on
his bilabial fricatives.
Haiku Jones
backspace
> The idea that word meanings were fixed
> from 500 �B.C. to the mid-19th century
Words have no meanings, thus can't be fixed or vary. Ideas though can
change or stay the same.
The idea of making a decision 6000 years ago is exactly the same idea
we have today, 2000 years ago the symbol "selectus" was used to encode
for this idea. The ideas is the issue not their symbolic
representation selection, selectus, decision or preservation etc. The
idea that was communicated was the concept of making a decision, this
idea up till today is encoded for using the symbol "selection" or
"selectus". But from Darwin, to Osborn and Howard we now have
synonyms for this word: discrimination, preservation and survival used
in either the pattern or design sense.
backspace
> > Do you ever feel that some other entity is controlling your thoughts?
> Does he hear voices when nobody else is around?
I am hearing my own voice right now as I speak in tongues(lots of
Spanish words, then Latvian, Portuguese, even Malay) my spirit is
speaking to God while I am busy typing this and concentrating on this
thread. Let there be all power and glory to Jesus Christ my Lord!
backspace
> > How would one "differentially" survive in anycase.
> Who said anything about differential survival?
Dawkins did as in the below direct quote:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins...
",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection
is
all about differential survival within species, not between
them.,,,,,,,,,,,,"
> It's all about
> differential *reproduction (actually, the reproductive success of
> one's offspring).
Who says so?
> > Differential means non-similar or not the same. So �somethings
> > survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean?
>
> As usual, your ersatz "paraphrasing" has little to do with what
> anybody has said.
Dawkins said that Darwin said NS is differential survival. Darwin said
no such thing.
> Differential reproductive success means some organisms reproduce more
> than others in the same species.
The symbols "Differential reproductive success" has no meaning, the
meaning is only something a person can have - who is this person and
why is he encoding for his/your concept "....organisms reproduce more
than others in the same species....." with this symbol string?
> Why do you think your inability or unwillingness to honestly read
> simple sentences is a problem for anybody but you?
Because sentence have no meaning, only you can have a meaning/intent/
volition or will. The universe exists only because somebody wishes it
to exist, with that Will upholding the universe there would be
nothing.
g...@risky-biz.com
Non-responsive. Try again son.
Iain
> So? So what does Fitness mean then.................:)
FITNESS is whichever physical traits render reproduction more likely
within a given environment.
It can be RECOGNISED by the number of offspring.
But it is DEFINED as the likelihood of a physical strcuture producing
offsprinng within a given environment.
It's a concrete idea(an ability to do a certain thing), which is
contingent upon another concrete, but variable idea (the environment).
Alrighty?
--Iain
hersheyh
> On Feb 18, 11:20�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)
> > >> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic
> > >> parameters x� = (x1, x2, �, xn) �become selected as a parent of new
> > >> individuals in the progeny.
>
> > > You using selected in the pattern or design sense?
>
> > In the mathematical sense of a function
>
> Lets presume pattern sense then the sentence would be:
> mean,s(x) �the probability that the individual having the n
> characteristic �parameters x� = (x1, x2, �, xn) �become Established as
> a parent of new
> �individuals in the progeny........."
>
> Howard uses "discrimination" as a synonym for selection as in:
> 1) The tornado discriminated against the house on the left side of the
> road but left the right side standing.
> 2) I discriminated in favor of vanilla over strawberry.
Neither. I mean it in the sense that the *environment* preferentially
favors one choice over another. As in (to use a situation you might
be in some day): 3) The tornado preferentially killed people in
trailer homes rather than those in basements. Note the features. The
*environment* equally exists for both groups of people. Both the
trailer you live in and the house with a basement are impacted by the
environmental factor, a tornado of a given force or of equally
(randomly) distributed force. But the *measureable effect* differs
depending on a property of the impacted groups (living in trailers as
opposed to houses with basements).
*Your* first example would not represent selection or discrimination
because there is no selectively relevant difference between the houses
(at least none that you mentioned). This would, however, be a good
example of *nonselective* or *random* effects.
*Your second example involves a known conscious agent and choices that
are a matter of 'taste' where most people regard both choices as
good. OTOH, there are certain chemicals that some people regard as
extremely bitter because of a particular genetic allele they have.
Other people that lack that allele simply do not taste the chemical
(again, different groups with a difference, in this case the ability
to taste the chemical and the same environment). If you were to
expose people to a choice between vanilla with or without this
chemical, you would find that those without the ability to taste the
chemical would show no preference and those with the genetic ability
to taste it would, by and large, avoid or reject the vanilla with the
chemical.
>
> (1) is a pattern �and (2) is a design. What we don't know is whether
> Howard uses "discrimination" the symbol string to symbolically
> represent the idea of either a pattern or design: Only he can tell
> us.....after much prodding......he finally tells us: "...... design is
> subset of pattern...."
Boy, are you dim. First, as pointed out above, the example you gave
in 1) does represent a pattern, but the pattern (as described, but
insufficient evidence is actually presented, since a single event is
neither a pattern nor a design) appears to be 'stochastic randomness'
and not 'discrimination' or 'differential selection'. The example you
gave in 2) is *apparently* meant to be a 'conscious choice' by a
*known* conscious agent at one time. But again, that is actually
insufficient evidence to determine that this single choice is part of
a 'pattern' much less that the 'pattern' is non-random and/or due to
conscious choice. Above I gave an example of how 'taste' can be a
matter of genetic difference and thus, potentially due to non-
conscious selection, even when done by humans, a known design agent.
Are you actually this stupid, or is it that you are being
intentionally obtuse? As you point out, understanding the meaning of
words requires an intelligent observer capable of understanding. So
far, you have failed the competent observer test. Repeatedly.
> which again is a cluster of symbols that
> represents some idea he has �that matter came before mind given his
> premises. �Which means everything he says is just the motion of
> matter , but if the matter were to motion differently he might then
> start insisting that he is a boiled egg. How could we then believe a
> word he tells us?
The problem resides in the stupid dullness of the observer, not in the
content of the message.
backspace
> Ah! You have learned your linguistics from Humpty Dumpty.
> `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
>
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I
> tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
> `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
> objected.
Alice my dear neither does "glory" mean fame, Humpty Dumpty just used
the symbol "glory" to communicate a different idea. You see Alice
"glory" like "selection" doesn't mean anything - they can by used as
symbolic representations of any idea signal sender wishes to encode
for. But usually signal sender/receiver agree in advance that
"selection" would in 99% of cases be used in the design decision
sense. What sense it is being used to communicate what concept today
isn't clear.
> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
True in a sense Humpty, lets be more specific you can choose any
symbol to represent any idea even the word dog to actually mean cat.
No word or sentence has any true single meaning, should really be has
any meaning at all.
> `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
> many different things.'
You can mean any idea with any symbol.
> `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
> that's all.'
> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute
That's write Alice puzzled indeed, the whole Europe is going to hell
because they can't figure this out.
haiku jones
So? Words acquire new meanings all the time. Until
60 years ago or so, a "computer" was a human being who
used consciously learned mathematical skills to calculate
large problems -- astronomers could have teams of "computers",
generally female. The Manhatten Project had something
similar.
Up to 60 years or so, "memory" was something possessed
by living organisms, and more often than not referred
to humans.
My computer "performs" operations. Can you think
of an example of an inanimate, mindless chunk
of matter being said to "perform operations" two centuries
ago?
Words acquire new meanings all the time. Most of us
have no problem intuiting these new meanings. And
for those who do, a brief conversation will generally
suffice to reveal the defect.
Haiku Jones
Will in New Haven
> On Feb 18, 5:26�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You can mean any idea with any symbol.
Congratulations. You have all these people talking to you as if you
were worth talking to. My hat is off to you.
For everyone else, one last bit of advice (from Robert Heinlein, via
Lazarus Long) "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It never works and it
only annoys the pig."
And Backspace, the pig is the symbol for you.
haiku jones
I've got a proposal -- why don't you ask that same question
of..oh, say, of twenty adults who exhibit of fatal infant surfactant
deficiency? I suspect that they can help you with your
difficulties in understanding this simple phrase.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> On Feb 18, 5:26�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah! You have learned your linguistics from Humpty Dumpty.
> > `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
>
> > Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I
> > tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
> > `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
> > objected.
>
> Alice my dear neither does "glory" mean fame, Humpty Dumpty �just used
> the symbol "glory" to communicate a different idea. You see Alice
> "glory" like "selection" doesn't mean anything - they can by used as
> symbolic representations of any idea signal sender wishes to encode
> for. But usually signal sender/receiver agree in advance that
> "selection" would in 99% of cases be used in the design decision
> sense. What sense it is being used to communicate what concept today
> isn't clear.
Ah! I get it! Very good -- and with a nice self-referrential
illustration on your part.
Since "isn't clear" can mean anything you wish it to mean,
and since your own personal meaning is "easily understood
by everyone else except myself", then the whole
debate vanishes in an instant.
Haiku Jones