What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots
16 Jun '10 16:08Originally posted by FabianFnasWithout consciousness there is no "whom"
'Meaningless' you say. Define 'meaningless'. Meaningless for whom?
16 Jun '10 16:10Originally 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.
16 Jun '10 16:21Originally posted by forkedknightExactly, without consciousness the meaning of 'meaningless' lacks meaning.
Without consciousness there is no "whom"
16 Jun '10 17:12Originally 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.
16 Jun '10 18:16Originally 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.
16 Jun '10 19:29Originally 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.
16 Jun '10 20:46Originally 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.
16 Jun '10 21:14Originally 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.
17 Jun '10 06:06Originally 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.
17 Jun '10 06:11Originally 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.
17 Jun '10 11:39Originally 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.
Back to Top