Re: High Stats

DougL wrote:
Lorenz.Lang@xxxxxx wrote:
DougL wrote:

Maybe we have different definitions (meanings) of "meaning"?
An example:
The Intelligent-Design-People have a meaning of reality in mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory hasn't got an inherent meaning.
It describes how life evolved on this planet and not why...

Meaning is WHAT WORDS MEAN! The basic idea that words and sentances
carry ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER requires that the words have meaning.

As I said: meaning is an ambiguous term. You're talking - and
shouting - about the basic meaning of words and sentences. I tried to
make clear that I was talking about another "meaning" - as in "the
meaning of life", "the meaning of human existence"...
This was in reply to David Alex Lamb, who said that postmodernists
believe the following:

"Meaning is whatever you make of it. Anyone who thinks s/he has an
objective "right" answer is wrong."

Do you think "meaning" in this context refers to the basic meaning of
words?

I'm not talking about deap philosophical meaning, I'm talking about
sentances (i.e. words strung togather) having a meaning.

So we're talking about different things apparently...

Your example of Unicorns not existing (Which I snipped), is a marvel of
irrelevance. How do you know they don't exist if you don't know what
the WORD unicorn means?

I don't care if you think my example is relevant or not.
If you wanted to argue it, you shouldn't have snipped it.
Snipping the example and evaluating it in absence is bad style IMO.

You get the meaning of most words from a dictionary.

A dictionary is a poor source for more than cursory information.

Post-Modernists
hold that all meaning is in the eye of the beholder, that the
originators intended meaning is unknowable and irrelevant.

Who's intended meaning do you mean? I don't understand you here.

No, no...a solipsist believes that "all objects, people, etc, that one
experiences are merely parts of one's own mind." (stolen from wiki).
Which too is idiotic, in my not so humble opinion.

Arguably Solipsist's are right. The experience IS only in your mind.

And in the mind of all others who experience the same thing.
These others are not in my mind, they (hopefully) have a mind of their
own.

You're experience is entirely in your own mind, your alleged knowledge
that these other people exist is entirely in your own mind.

If I write it down or tell them "I know you exist" it's no longer
entirely in my
mind. Humans (and some animals) communicate to convey information.
I can spread my ideas and see if others agree with me.

Once you admit that your sensation is entirely in your mind you have no
a-priori reason to accept that any of those sensations have anything to
do with anyone or anything else.

Keyword a-priori. Through communication or experience I can learn if my

"reality" is real in a more or less objective way. If I don't accept
the reality
of red traffic lights I will be proven wrong sooner or later.

You also have no reason to suppose they don't. Solipisism says nothing
inherent about the "objective" world not existing. Mearly that you have
no way of knowing that it exists.

Don't try to be funny, I already quoted the wiki definition.

Here is the full introduction from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
especially for your (emphasis mine):

Solipsism (from the Latin ipse = "self" and solus = "alone") is an
extreme form of skepticism, saying that nothing exists beyond oneself
and one's immediate experiences. More generally, it is the
epistemological belief that one's self is the only thing that can be
known with certainty and verified (sometimes called egoism). Solipsism
is also commonly understood to encompass the metaphysical belief that
only one's self exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of
one's own mental states - *all objects, people, etc, that one
experiences are merely parts of one's own mind.* Solipsism is first
recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias (c. 483-375 BC) who is
quoted by Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

1. Nothing exists
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it
can't be communicated to others

Solipsism is generally identified with statements 2 and 3 from Gorgias.

But, in introducing methodological doubt (via Cogito ergo sum) into
philosophy, Descartes created the backdrop against which modern
interpretations of solipsism subsequently developed and was made to
seem, if not plausible, at least irrefutable. (Descartes' God is
completely dispensible.)

End of quote.

Definition 1 Dictionary.com (normally the most common, standard usage:
sol·ip·sism: The theory that the self is the only thing that can be
known and verified

See above. I clearly stated, which defintion of solipsism I had in
mind.
I don't care if another definition is more common.
Why are you arguing? Just for arguments sake?

BTW: Your source Dictionary.com did not load in my browser, but look:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/solipsism

Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 'sä-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own
modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

Oops, another dictionary uses the defintion I had in mind (and no
other).

This also implies that you can't know or verify that there ISN'T an
objective reality.

It's simply because it *is* there, that you can't know or verify that
assertion...
....unless you're delusional.

This says nothing about reality not existing, definition 2 does, but in
practice definition 2 contradicts number 1, and #1 is the default. (I
also note that their alternate source says NOTHING about reality not
existing.)

There is no requirement that solipsists believe the world not to exist.

I did not use your definition, you're fighting windmills.

Solipsism says more than just "The experience is in my mind".
It states that the whole world around me is an illusion created
by my own mind, without truly existing...

Nope, not actually a requirement.

True for *your* prefered definition of "solipsism light".

All that is required to be a
solipsist is to admit that you have no way to VERIFY the existence of
anything outside yourself.

BTW, even this weaker definition of Solipsism is absurd.

Anyone who says that they KNOW that nothing else exists has missed the
entire point.

You're wrong. The "complete" Solipsism states exactly that. See above.

Your own admission that we may NOT be able to experience objective
reality is an admission of the basic premise of solipsism.

No. It's called critical rationalism (Karl Popper).

It's Solipsism, check the actual definition.

*I* did. You're wrong.

Look at these statements:
1. It's possible to experience the objective reality.
2. It's possible to experience an "approximation" of the objective
reality.
3. The self can know nothing but its own modifications and
is the only existent thing.

The first might be true, if Yogis and practitioners of Zen
and other meditation schools are right.
But as you can't communicate the "objective reality"
experienced in times of enlightenment, it's not easily verifiable.

The second is the position of critical rationalism and the
one I expressed above.

The third is idiotic, no wait it's Solipsism. :)

The only problem with Solipsism is that it offers no actual guidance
for action.

Because it's idiotic, as I said before.

LL

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: High Stats
    ... The Intelligent-Design-People have a meaning of reality in mind. ... It's Solipsism, check the actual definition. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: The Hidden Harmony of the Universe
    ... They did do this so there is no way to ask a meaningful question about ... corresponds to one's state of mind. ... It's a reality, but it's a subset ... It sounds like solipsism to me, but I don't recall Iain being a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: High Stats
    ... Meaning has not much to do with objective reality. ... Such a statement has no inherent meaning beyond true or false. ... The Intelligent-Design-People have a meaning of reality in mind. ... Solipsism says more than just "The experience is in my mind". ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: HOW should I listen to music?...and with *what*?
    ... listener to places other than what reality dictates. ... When Stravinsky says that "mean doesn't 'mean' anything" he isn't precluding that a listener might not invent a meaning for it, but merely stating that music does not carry any innate ideas beyond its mathematical structure. ... If a musician has an idea in mind as he composes, and the listener has a different idea in mind while he listens, what is the music conveying? ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Latest News
    ... You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why! ... > going on in each other's mind, ... He didn't lie, and he was right, even without proof GWB's shitty ... You're lying to assert that. ...
    (sci.electronics.cad)
Loading