Yes.

No.

I guess so. Just as superhighways would continue to exist, as they are, without the presence of cars to drive on them. (But they’d be pretty useless and the drivers would probably want some new cars to drive on them.)

Well really, that’s kinda where I’ve been going all along. The whole elusiveness of the cause-and-effect chain.

This whole thing started with the assertion (mine and Jeannie’s) that “meaning” is assigned and essentially constitutes a comparative association which is entirely subjective.

Creative and I are just trying to come to some agreement as to exactly what “intrinsic meaning” is or would be.

And that is exactly why I am here too - essentially to gain a better understandingh of the world around me - including the viewpoints of others. And the discussions we have had have helped immesurably in assisting me in refining my own philosophy - or at least in refining ways to express it.

Bushi said

Therefore, Concepts and ideas do not exist. (If I got the syllogism right.)


I can see where one could say that the physical representation of some concepts and ideas do not exist.

But I’m having trouble with the conclusion that concepts and ideas themselves do not exist.

If they don't exist, then what are the referents for the labels?

Is that what this is all about? "Wearing them down?"

If so, what is the purpose or end result of doing so?

My purpose in answering all the questions is to provide information that will allow a better understanding of my views.

What is the purpose in asking them?

Back to the game analogy again…

Do the characters have airbags or do the players smash their (important part) open as it comes to a sudden halt and maybe snap their (connective part) in half as they recoil from it?

Does a character in a game have airbags for the player?

The questions don’t really apply.

Well it may say that to you, but that's not what it says to me. To me it says, there is me and there are others, and those others are just as real as me.

Exactly.

Oh you bad girl.

Wow! That's beautiful Bushi.

Well done!

Hang around here long wenough and you'll find out just how debatable that statement is.

BTW - Welcome to the forums. Always nice to have another intelligent and literate person around to bounce ideas off.

I agree. I does always seem to end up there.

But I must say that the process of getting there is almost always edifying - at least for me anyway.

That could very well be. But not everyone has the same objectives. So it is true that they may not have accomplished what the other person wants in regards to the objective of the argument, but they could be accomplishing what they want in regards to the objective of the argument.

Just sayin.

Intersting opinion, but a bit self-serving in itself - in my opinion.

Or was that simply an example to illustrate the point?

Different people find different things annoying. To each his own. JMO.

Hope you don't mind if I jump in on this one.

And mind you this is now from the perspective of my own philosophy. I’m not claiming to know what Abra’s views are.

So with that in mind…

The question does not really apply. There is not "a relationship that allows it to happen”. That idea is contrary to the basic “independent” quality of the non-physical entity.

Simply put, it is an act of pure creation. That is, the effect on the physical is created, literally out of nothing. (And yes, the implications of that mean the physical itself was created through the same process. But I won’t go there just yet.)

In anthropomorphic terms, the best label for it is probably “decision”. One could look to a very simple everyday thing to illustrate it…

One is sitting on the couch, watching TV and then they “decide” they want to watch something else. That “decision” is the ultimate cause of their body reaching for the remote and pushing a button.

Now of course one can argue that there were millions of mechanistic, neuro-chemical events going on in the body that lead from the “decision” to the pushing of the button on the remote. But that’s all but irrelevant to my point. My point is that it was the original decision that was the genesis of all those mechanistic neuro-chemical events. The decision itself was not mechanistic or physical. It was pure creation.

And this is pretty much the exact point where my philosophy parts ways with mainstream science.

I completely understand and I'm just doing my job playing the devil's advocate.

No harm, no foul.

Personally, I don’t see a significant difference between reason and cause either. But that’s the best I could do in trying to differentiate between cause and intrinsic meaning.

Dictionary.com has this to say in it’s synonym study: BECAUSE introduces a direct reason: “I was sleeping because I was tired.”

It also says this in it’s usage notes: “Usage Note: A traditional rule holds that the construction ‘the reason is because’ is redundant, and should be avoided in favor of ‘the reason is that.’”

So the way it looks to me is that “The reason the cat raises it’s tail is that it is happy.” And “The cat raises it’s tail because it is happy.” Are perfectly synonymous. And if so, then “I do not see a significant difference between reason and cause.” would mean to me that there would be no significant difference between that and “The cat being happy caused it’s tail to raise.” Which would mean the intrinisic meaning is the cause.

And yes, of course, this is all about labels. But that only because it’s all about labels, if you get what I’m saying.

I knew I shouldn’t have gone there. It only serves to spin off on a tangent. So let me just say that I consider the mental state of the cat to be equivalent to the chemical and neurological processes that constitute what you are calling “inherent meaning”. That is, “mental state” is itself an “assigned meaning”, not an intrinsic one, which is what this discussion is all about. So that direction is an unnecessary tangent that I don’t think we need to spin off into as it will only lead to the same place.

If that’s ok with you.
No problem. I’m willing to work with you on it.

Yep, dualism fits the analogy perfectly.

Personally, I would hope for a physical ambulance, but you can wait for an astral ambulance if you want.

Seems to me like it is. There are multiple individuals in the Matrix, and as I understand it, Bohm's theory doesn't say anything about individuals at all, only the nature of reality.