Are words immaterial?

[ryan]

I think I am missing your whole point.

We cannot define matter as what consists if elementary particles since then the elementary particles themselves would not be matter.

But an elementary particle is made up of an elementary particle, the elementary particle that is itself.

 

[ryan]

Like I asked Juma, is the space in the car, between the air molecules, between the virtual particles, between the gravitons etc. material?

Me personally I don't know but never mind. However, if you want to say it's not material just because it's not matter then you don't have any substantial point. You are just making a frivolous point. Until you get to justify what the substantial issue is.

Some respectable physicists, most of them apparently, seem to think that time, space, or both, have no substance. Me I think that space and time are representational constructs, i.e. concepts in our minds. However, I don't see how it would be possible to prove anything. So, the question is, do you think you have a substantial point to make? If so, what is it?
EB

I have already made my point earlier in this thread. A different configuration of the exact same matter/energy can have a different effect from an input consisting of the same matter in both situations. There can be a major difference between both instances caused by immaterial where immaterial = not matter/energy.

 

[WAB]

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

*Comment deleted*

You rock, Juma!

 

[ryan]

I've been trying to keep up, but has anybody demonstrated a word that isn't material?

IF there is a class of words that's immaterial then we wouldn't be able to perceive them so we would still keep saying all words are material.

To claim that words have meaning is to say that part of the word is somehow part of your mind and therefore potentially immaterial. Unless you see meaning as material too, like Quine, but then you have this problem that you have to find a materialist explanation to meaning, which you won't be able to do until you can show that the role of the mind in meaning is nil or show that the mind is material. We're not there yet...
EB

My point about configuration I think is important here. A blob of ink and the exact same ink turned into a word are going to have much different effects on the brain.

It's simply because of the spaces between parts of the ink. The spacing causes the eye to absorb photons which in turn trigger reactions at different times in the visual system.

So a word is partly matter and partly immaterial if we accept that spaces are immaterial.

 

[ryan]

Then material is what is real.

Truth is that "material" is a very difficult concept.
If we say that material is what is made of elementary particles then quarks, or any other sub particle, would not fit which they obvious should.

Material is not a difficult notion. It's a natural notion.

The problem may be that it's not a scientific concept. We don't have any ready-made description of it.

It is also arguable that what is material is was is real. Reality is what it is irrespective of us and our views or even perceptions of it. Real things that would be beyond perception would still be real things. Our ignorance would be our ignorance.

And there is still the question of the quality of our experience or the fact that it exists as such. Material? Me, I certainly don't know that.
EB

Just a thought: It seems as though you are going to be forever lost in the rabbit hole if you don't at least accept some postulate. Usually it is good to start with mainstream postulates so that the arguments on a thread are coherent with yours.

 

[WAB]

So a computer reading an instruction "IF..THEN" can use it just because somehow "IF..THEN" has some immaterial properties?

The material constitution of words is minor, though necessary for non-verbal communication; the most useful thing about words is their immaterial quality.

Why is that a property of the word? We can communicate without using words. We would attribute meaning to a footprint in the right circumstances!

I guess we don't need minds if words somehow have meaning in them!

Of course, even speech requires the material: mouth, tongue, voice, air-vibrations, an ear drum; but the material, mechanical operations of speech and hearing are one thing. What words mean is the important thing. Meaning is not material.

But why would a meaning be a property of a word rather than something we attribute to a word, or better something we merely try to convey by using a word?
EB

I figured property was not the appropriate word...

Anyway, to explain myself: If I say a word 'has' meaning, that isn't to say that that meaning is somehow intrinsic in the word, or that the word literally contains a meaning the way a pea-pod contains a pea. What I mean is that we understand the meaning of a word, based on what we've been taught about what meaning others have traditionally ascribed to it.

Hence, the word 'brown' 'has' meaning, not in itself as in something constituent to its existence in physical form, but only insofar as the letters b-r-o-w-n, in that order, conveys one or more ideas to the mind of an English language reader. It conveys the idea of a dark color, and/or a surname, depending on the context in which it's used (it can convey other meanings as well, of course, depending on context and on the mind reading it).

Lest I not be clear: when I say a word 'conveys' meaning to the mind, it isn't the word that does the conveying. It's the mind that does the work, drawing meaning from the word.

In the sentence, "The members of Van Halen had all the brown M&Ms removed from the complimentary bowl of M&Ms in their dressing room, because they're arrogant rock stars," the word brown conveys a dark color. In the sentence, "Mr. Brown has eaten the pyjamas and we are now taking him to the emergency room," the word Brown conveys a surname, and a color only by association and habit. We could get into capital letters and what they signify, but why bother?

Your comment about the footprint kind of makes my argument for me:

True, a footprint can have meaning, but, like the physical form of a word, does not have meaning as an intrinsic element or property. A footprint only 'has' meaning insofar as it conveys an idea to a mind: "Hmm, someone wearing size thirteen Reeboks has trod on the floor I just mopped! That clown-footed bastard!"

Short version: meaning is not material.

The problem with these kinds of discussions over words is that they frequently veer into sophistry and tedious navigations of the inny or outy

 

[fast]

"What did you do today little Johnny (?)," asks the teacher. "I fell down", Little Johnny replies! Teacher: Actually, no, falling isn't something we 'do' ... it's something that happens to us.

Years later, Johnny: What do words do? They convey meaning? Awe, what crafty little creatures they are! Who shall we give credit to? Congratulations my dearest word, you win the contest and it is you that basks in mental gymnastics?

Teacher: awe, so it's the drills drill problem eh? Student is perplexed. Teacher asks, do drills drill, or do people use drills to drill? The credit goes to the person, says little Johnny. Very good, but. But what?

It's the beauty of language my dear boy. It is acceptable to say that words convey meaning, even if it's so that we use words to convey meaning. Yes, one is primary, and that which is secondary wouldn't be the case if not for the first, but fail you surely will if you computerize your thinking.

So, what do words do? They denote meaning! Clever they are, or do we denote meaning with words? Awe, now you have done well and can see the one despite the other, but the secondary is true (words denote meaning) even though the primary is true (we use words to denote meaning).

What is this meaning (this thing you call lexical meaning)? Meaning is born of usage. It's the COLLECTIVE usage by FLUENT speakers. So, a word doesn't necessarily convey what a person uses it to convey. The meaning (of a word) is independent of individual use. Yes, I may use a word in a peculiar (or stipulative) way, but that changes not the collective meaning (or how it's collectively used).

 

[Juma]

IF there is a class of words that's immaterial then we wouldn't be able to perceive them so we would still keep saying all words are material.

To claim that words have meaning is to say that part of the word is somehow part of your mind and therefore potentially immaterial. Unless you see meaning as material too, like Quine, but then you have this problem that you have to find a materialist explanation to meaning, which you won't be able to do until you can show that the role of the mind in meaning is nil or show that the mind is material. We're not there yet...
EB

My point about configuration I think is important here. A blob of ink and the exact same ink turned into a word are going to have much different effects on the brain.

It's simply because of the spaces between parts of the ink. The spacing causes the eye to absorb photons which in turn trigger reactions at different times in the visual system.

So a word is partly matter and partly immaterial if we accept that spaces are immaterial.

Your are barking up the wrong tree.
It is not the spaces that convey meaning: it is your brain that calculates an intent to a maker of the experienced form. The spaces have no other significance than the f. ex. the color. It is your brain that guesses that someone has actually created that thing with the intent of conveining a message.

 

[ryan]

My point about configuration I think is important here. A blob of ink and the exact same ink turned into a word are going to have much different effects on the brain.

It's simply because of the spaces between parts of the ink. The spacing causes the eye to absorb photons which in turn trigger reactions at different times in the visual system.

So a word is partly matter and partly immaterial if we accept that spaces are immaterial.

Your are barking up the wrong tree.
It is not the spaces that convey meaning: it is your brain that calculates an intent to a maker of the experienced form. The spaces have no other significance than the f. ex. the color. It is your brain that guesses that someone has actually created that thing with the intent of conveining a message.

It was my mistake not to put my comments directly under the part of Speakpigeon's post that read, "IF there is a class of words that's immaterial then we wouldn't be able to perceive them so we would still keep saying all words are material".

 

[WAB]

Lest I not be clear: when I say a word 'conveys' meaning to the mind, it isn't the word that does the conveying. It's the mind that does the work, drawing meaning from the word.

- Loretta J. H., post #246.

I'm trying like hell to understand your post, fast, but I might need some help. Be gentle, 'cuz I'm tender, delicate, and sensitive.







...and a wee tad toys in the attic...

 

[WAB]

Yes, it is. It is the interplay of neurons. Everything in you mind maps to the interactions and processes going on in you brain.

It does, I guess, but what people call the mind is just as much the quality of the subjective impression we experience (qualia) as what we think they stand for (perception).

What is nat accounyed for, yet, is the the actual experience of what goes on in your mind.

That, I quite agree with it.
EB

I would agree to the statement if Juma had used some other word(s) than experience. Let's say the sentence read:

What is not accounted for, yet, is the the actual experience mechanical, electrical, biological process of what goes on in your mind then I'd be inclined to agree, since I don't think science has given a full account of the complex operation of brains, be they human brains or bird brains. Consciousness was a hard problem, still is a hard problem, and no-one has trumped Chalmers yet. Though many have tried.*

However, what most certainly IS accounted for, and what most certainly HAS BEEN accounted for, for thousands of years, is the experience of what goes on in a mind. Subjective experience is accounted for. The average six year old can account for what she experiences in her mind quite ably, and no-one, not the greatest living genius in neuroscience, can mount any workable argument against her.

*The most pathetic attempt is, of course, the easiest: Well, since we can't explain consciousness, we'll just make it official that consciousness is naughty word and that what we experience as consciousness is just an accidental by-product of blind, dumb-as-all-fuck evolution: an illusion, created by the brain to trick the brain into thinking it is, or possesses in some mystical fashion, an authoritative agent. Don't worry, the stupid sheeple will buy this bunk, because they're too dumb to know we're full of shit.

 

[Perspicuo]

As long as there is a philosopher who doesn't want to accept the scientific view of the world, consciousness will always be a "hard problem", as the last bastion of the guardian angel in his/her fancy that protects him/her from fear of death.

In the meantime, neuroscience keeps dazzling us with discoveries of how the brain creates mental phenomena, while the walls of that bastion keep falling and falling until what is left is an empty house and the echoes of giggly litanies of denial of the last few naysayers who once stood defiant before the bright light that dared come in.

 

[WAB]

As long as there is a philosopher who doesn't want to accept the scientific view of the world, consciousness will always be a "hard problem", as the last bastion of the guardian angel in his/her fancy that protects him/her from fear of death.

In the meantime, neuroscience keeps dazzling us with discoveries of how the brain creates mental phenomena, while the walls of that bastion keep falling and falling until what is left is an empty house and the echoes of giggly litanies of denial of the last few naysayers who once stood defiant before the bright light that dared come in.

That's classic, and cliche: those who don't accept the current dogma science has to teach about consciousness only do so because they're afraid of death.

Let me tell you, there's NO-ONE less afraid of death and oblivion on this board than I am. I WISH that I could go into oblivion, and if I had a magic button that would make me pass into oblivion, painlessly and without chance of ever being conscious again, I'd have pressed that button already, a thousand times over.

Please! The objection you raise is old hat, totally wrong, and cliche.

 

[WAB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

 

[ryan]

As long as there is a philosopher who doesn't want to accept the scientific view of the world, consciousness will always be a "hard problem", as the last bastion of the guardian angel in his/her fancy that protects him/her from fear of death.

We save money to secure our futures on this planet. Is it that ridiculous that we should figure out just what we are, if we are anything special, so that we can secure our futures after death?

 

[Perspicuo]

As long as there is a philosopher who doesn't want to accept the scientific view of the world, consciousness will always be a "hard problem", as the last bastion of the guardian angel in his/her fancy that protects him/her from fear of death.

In the meantime, neuroscience keeps dazzling us with discoveries of how the brain creates mental phenomena, while the walls of that bastion keep falling and falling until what is left is an empty house and the echoes of giggly litanies of denial of the last few naysayers who once stood defiant before the bright light that dared come in.

That's classic, and cliche: those who don't accept the current dogma science has to teach about consciousness only do so because they're afraid of death.

Let me tell you, there's NO-ONE less afraid of death and oblivion on this board than I am. I WISH that I could go into oblivion, and if I had a magic button that would make me pass into oblivion, painlessly and without chance of ever being conscious again, I'd have pressed that button already, a thousand times over.

Please! The objection you raise is old hat, totally wrong, and cliche.

It could be anything you say but NOT totally wrong. Fear of death is an inherent part of the species. Denial is also part of humanity, a reaction to anxiety and fear. Both very real and universal. On the other hand, it's surprising that you will compare your fear of death with everyone else's, conclude yours is the least... and not know any of them at all. A knowledge you cannot possibly have, and therefore conspicuously a misguided belief. Our minds can trick us that way, particularly when there is anxiety or fear at stake.

In any case, the insistent proposal of an entity without any sort of evidence no matter how much contrary evidence there is, is obviously suspect. Consciousness is a feature of the working of human brains, and to elevate a mere brain function to an supposedly inexplicable entity that somehow is not physical but interacts with it, is both medieval and magical. René Descartes would be proud.

 

[ryan]

That's classic, and cliche: those who don't accept the current dogma science has to teach about consciousness only do so because they're afraid of death.

Let me tell you, there's NO-ONE less afraid of death and oblivion on this board than I am. I WISH that I could go into oblivion, and if I had a magic button that would make me pass into oblivion, painlessly and without chance of ever being conscious again, I'd have pressed that button already, a thousand times over.

Please! The objection you raise is old hat, totally wrong, and cliche.

It could be anything you say but NOT totally wrong. Fear of death is an inherent part of the species. Denial is also part of humanity, a reaction to anxiety and fear. Both very real and universal. On the other hand, it's surprising that you will compare your fear of death with everyone else's, conclude yours is the least... and not know any of them at all. A knowledge you cannot possibly have, and therefore conspicuously a misguided belief. Our minds can trick us that way, particularly when there is anxiety or fear at stake.

We also have a feeling of uncertainty built into the human condition, and rightfully so. It is not our certainty of something after death; it is our uncertainty of something after death. We understand a potentially infinitesimal portion of the nature of existence, so we must always assume incomplete knowledge.

 

[fast]

Lest I not be clear: when I say a word 'conveys' meaning to the mind, it isn't the word that does the conveying. It's the mind that does the work, drawing meaning from the word.

- Loretta J. H., post #246.

I'm trying like hell to understand your post, fast, but I might need some help. Be gentle, 'cuz I'm tender, delicate, and sensitive.







...and a wee tad toys in the attic...

Clarity of thought, I shan't give quite yet. Clarity just might pass us by if we don't strain to see just what is there.

You're focusing on catching the ball. Throw it instead. If the word is conveying, it's throwing, but if you are catching, you aren't throwing. Don't interpret (or catch) the meaning ... Throw it.

Look at the horse momma, the child says pointing to the zebra at the zoo. The referent of the word used is not that which was pointed at, yet we are smart and know what the child means, but our isolated instance of what we might so happen to mean alone has no bearing on what the word means.

Throw the ball.

Edited to add: can yall tell I was drinkin'?

 

[Perspicuo]

It could be anything you say but NOT totally wrong. Fear of death is an inherent part of the species. Denial is also part of humanity, a reaction to anxiety and fear. Both very real and universal. On the other hand, it's surprising that you will compare your fear of death with everyone else's, conclude yours is the least... and not know any of them at all. A knowledge you cannot possibly have, and therefore conspicuously a misguided belief. Our minds can trick us that way, particularly when there is anxiety or fear at stake.

We also have a feeling of uncertainty built into the human condition, and rightfully so. It is not our certainty of something after death; it is our uncertainty of something after death. We understand a potentially infinitesimal portion of the nature of existence, so we must always assume incomplete knowledge.

Irrelevant. Our fear of death is hardwired and does not depend on knowledge (with respect to your "certainty"/"uncertainty"). We are not unique in our instinctive fear of death. No matter what people believe, be it annihilation, paradise, rebirth-&-nirvana, or anything else, all humans fear death. My own deeply felt Epicurean philosophy of death ("Where death is we are not, where we are death is not", which should console religionists and atheists equally, because we all believe dying is just a phase before whatever you believe is next) provides me with only moments of tranquility. The truth is death horrifies us all. I'm surrounded by religionists all over (my family is composed of Catholics mostly, one brother is evangelical and another one is Mormon) and they all show their abhorrence at one time or another: instinct spares none, no matter what the belief system. One can repress, deny and rationalize, but the damn thing always comes back.

My POV is to accept I abhor death, and not try to deny it or flee to the wish-fulfilment of præternaturalism. I am sure there must be differences in degree, but to deny one has it awakens my greatest doubts. The very basis of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection of Christ and that through that resurrection, just like any other mystery religion, assures life forever after. There you have fear of death right smack in the middle of it. You can repress instinct but not destroy it, it's a lifelong struggle of the believer to be steadfast and not let sex, hunger, egocentrism or fear of death get hold of her/him.

 

[WAB]

That's classic, and cliche: those who don't accept the current dogma science has to teach about consciousness only do so because they're afraid of death.

Let me tell you, there's NO-ONE less afraid of death and oblivion on this board than I am. I WISH that I could go into oblivion, and if I had a magic button that would make me pass into oblivion, painlessly and without chance of ever being conscious again, I'd have pressed that button already, a thousand times over.

Please! The objection you raise is old hat, totally wrong, and cliche.

It could be anything you say but NOT totally wrong. Fear of death is an inherent part of the species. Denial is also part of humanity, a reaction to anxiety and fear. Both very real and universal. On the other hand, it's surprising that you will compare your fear of death with everyone else's, conclude yours is the least... and not know any of them at all. A knowledge you cannot possibly have, and therefore conspicuously a misguided belief. Our minds can trick us that way, particularly when there is anxiety or fear at stake.

In any case, the insistent proposal of an entity without any sort of evidence no matter how much contrary evidence there is, is obviously suspect. Consciousness is a feature of the working of human brains, and to elevate a mere brain function to an supposedly inexplicable entity that somehow is not physical but interacts with it, is both medieval and magical. René Descartes would be proud.

It's more or less a figure of speech, when I say that no-one is less afraid of death than I am. Of course I can't know that for sure.

I don't think there's anything medieval or magical about the idea of an intelligent universe, collective consciousness (Jung), God, in all His/Her definitions, etc. In fact, I think that the insistence and persistence of scientistic types to marginalize and stigmatize any kind of creative thinking is eerily similar to the quelling of creative thinking undertaken by the dogmatists and doctrinaires of medieval times. The main difference—and it's a major improvement, don't get me wrong— is that scientistic types are, in the main, benevolent, and don't back their arguments up with the stick. What we have now (as in here on this forum) is not a war of the oppressors and the oppressed, but an intellectual battle essentially free of fear of retribution, punishment, pain and suffering.

I think it's a good thing that people disagree. If we were to arrive at a time when all people are in harmonious agreement on all issues, that would be the time to be truly fearful and suspicious. Conflict of ideas is natural and good. Total conformity, with zero contention among individuals, is a pipe-dream, and will never come to pass. Nor should it.

I realize I'm rambling off topic...