Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd I disagree with that: ink on a page contains no meaning in and of itself. It requires consciousness to extract meaning from it.
I disagree. A book written 1000 years ago about space still retains meaning even if no consciousness has read it since it was written, or even if no consciousness ever reads it.
This conversation really doesn't belong in the "science" forum though.
Originally posted by forkedknightExactly, without consciousness the meaning of 'meaningless' lacks meaning.
Without consciousness there is no "whom"
Meaning that the first billion of years of the existance of the universe, when nothing had any consciousness there is no meaning in describing the universe as meaningless, nor with meaning.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot sure we can be sure of the presence or absence of mind during the period you mention, but fair enough.
Exactly, without consciousness the meaning of 'meaningless' lacks meaning.
Meaning that the first billion of years of the existance of the universe, when nothing had any consciousness there is no meaning in describing the universe as meaningless, nor with meaning.
Well, where 'space' & 'time' are meaningful, there must be consciousness.
So what? I quite agree. Carry on.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd assume it was potentially meaningful and not only because of what it might contain, but then again I am a conscious interpreter of the fact of the book.
How not so? You would not pick up the book and say it is meaningless.
People seem to give consciousness way to much credit.
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut the machinations of the universe proceeded quite well, stars formed, planetary systems, comets, planets crashing into planets and so forth, all without a shred of consciousness so as far as the universe is concerned we are just a scum on dust motes with no reality of our own.
Exactly, without consciousness the meaning of 'meaningless' lacks meaning.
Meaning that the first billion of years of the existance of the universe, when nothing had any consciousness there is no meaning in describing the universe as meaningless, nor with meaning.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd I disagree. We do not say 'potentially meaningful' when referring to books, we say 'meaningful'.
I'd assume it was potentially meaningful and not only because of what it might contain, but then again I am a conscious interpreter of the fact of the book.
Ultimately 'meaning', simply means that one thing represents another. So even a robot or computer can find meaning in something. Consciousness is not required.
Even a DVD player can interpret the meaning of the 1s and 0s on the disk and display the appropriate picture on the tv.
Originally posted by twhiteheadA book might contain a sequence of randomly generated characters. So until you actually read the thing and attempt to make sense of it, it is only potentially meaningful. Of course the production of a meaningless book would in itself be an intentional act that would invite interpretation, but the text of the book itself would still not convey anything sensible.
And I disagree. We do not say 'potentially meaningful' when referring to books, we say 'meaningful'.
Ultimately 'meaning', simply means that one thing represents another. So even a robot or computer can find meaning in something. Consciousness is not required.
Even a DVD player can interpret the meaning of the 1s and 0s on the disk and display the appropriate picture on the tv.
A DVD player performs a mechanical operation not an interpretation. It produces an object that is in turn subject to interpretation. The same film is repeated whenever you press 'play' but your interpretation of it could differ every time.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNow you are deliberately trying to avoid the issue. We both know that we are talking about books with meaningful information in. My point is that the information is in the book and has meaning regardless of whether you read it or not. If anything you have proved my point as you admit that the only way the book could not contain meaning is if it contained random characters, and even then you not so sure. At no point does having a consciousness create that meaning or cause that meaning to exist. It is either there or it isn't.
A book might contain a sequence of randomly generated characters. So until you actually read the thing and attempt to make sense of it, it is only potentially meaningful. Of course the production of a meaningless book would in itself be an intentional act that would invite interpretation, but the text of the book itself would still not convey anything sensible.
A DVD player performs a mechanical operation ...
And so does your brain, or 'consciousness'.
... not an interpretation.
And what is the magic ingredient that consciousness uses to do an 'interpretation'?
It produces an object that is in turn subject to interpretation. The same film is repeated whenever you press 'play' but your interpretation of it could differ every time.
That is not an explanation. Your inability to repeat the same process only shows that you are not designed to the same standard of accuracy as a DVD player. It would be trivial (but rather counter productive) to design a DVD player that gave different pictures on each play.
Originally posted by sonhouseProfound statements with no content. These are very common. I find them annoying because people find them so enthralling and yet because there is no content they cannot be refuted.
That piece says pretty much nothing:
It mentions the word 'biocentrism' and 'quantum theory' with no links or anything then at the end of the piece, this:
Without consciousness, space and time are nothing; in reality you can take any time -- whether past or future -− as your new frame of reference. Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialitie ...[text shortened]... ate'. Well that's nice, but what experiments? No links. So it's a nothing article.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe don't 'both know' anything -- we're having a conversation and, it seems, a disagreement on the application of words like 'mean', 'interpret', 'understand'. I'm happy to let it go. Still, the better to understand you, I can't help asking further questions:
Now you are deliberately trying to avoid the issue. We both know that we are talking about books with meaningful information in. My point is that the information is in the book and has meaning regardless of whether you read it or not. If anything you have proved my point as you admit that the only way the book could not contain meaning is if it contained ...[text shortened]... her counter productive) to design a DVD player that gave different pictures on each play.
Does a DVD player understand what it is playing?
Does a printer understand the contents of a document it prints?
Will the Chat Roulette genital recognition algorithm comprehend the significance of the patterns it is designed to recognise?
(See: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/15/1419224/Chatroulette-Working-On-Genital-Recognition-Algorithm )
Am I correct in assuming that you consider creativity to be a mechanical operation?