Is meaning identical in nature to a physical process?

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s nice to think of everything that is meaningful and say it relates to love. BUT what can you say to mistaken meaning? For example, thinking someone is angry on the mere basis of your own projected emotion? When in reality the person is quite happy with his situation. I might ask what is the meaning of the imputation, in this case, erroneous perception of anger?

The meaning of it to the accuser could end up being humility or pride depending on how they choose to receive the news that their accusation was wrong.

The accused either loses a measure of respect for the accuser or takes it to heart and is saddened.

The inherent meaning of misjudgment or miscommunication is …?

 

[Michael19682]

The meaning of it to the accuser could end up being humility or pride depending on how they choose to receive the news that their accusation was wrong.

The accused either loses a measure of respect for the accuser or takes it to heart and is saddened.

The inherent meaning of misjudgment or miscommunication is …?

Misjudgment and miscommunication both are relative. If they have any meaning, it is not inherent. If it was inherent, you would need to reduce all miscommunication and false judgment to one meaning – the inherent one. Since only “the good” can be named the final reducible, and since miscommunication is not good, you create a contradiction that is irresolvable if and only if you say “inherent meaning”. If you allow for relative meaning or dependent meaning, then you have the flexibility to say that what was an apparent evil, turned out to be a good. Thus, we have blessings in disguise – and in so recognizing the blessing, we end the inherency of misunderstanding in the evil of false judgment. Finally, if all miscommunication and misjudgment was blessing in disguise, we would have the scenario where someone who understood this was never deceived and never miscommunicated. Such a person would be perfect, and the devil, who is the father of falsity, would have no power over him in any capacity. Do you know anyone who fits that billing?

 

[Michael19682]

If you are asking if I find emotional expressions from other people to be indicative of their disposition to something then I would say that I do. Being able to read someone’s emotional queues is necessary to be able to successful interact with people within society.

I don’t think that answers your question, but despite multiple queries you’ve not explained your usage of the word “meaning.” Lacking any clarification I don’t think I’ll be able to give you a clear answer other than the above.

For someone who loves God, I think that meaning is nothing other than actual motion in the soul towards a being more like God – just, honest, caring, loving, understanding, forgiving, to name a few of his attributes. I wonder what constitutes meaning for a practicing software engineer?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For someone who loves God, I think that meaning is nothing other than actual motion in the soul towards a being more like God – just, honest, caring, loving, understanding, forgiving, to name a few of his attributes.

I’m going to guess not everyone is using the word the same way in all messages across this thread. I don’t seem to be able to consistently apply that usage to some of the previous statements on meaning.

Okay. Have you ever discovered anything meaningful

in human emotions?
Wesrock;13807924:

Those colored pixels on the screen above have no inherent meaning

to them. This pattern’s meaning exists only when there’s a mind to interpret it as such. The pixels in that arrangement only point towards the true meaning, as understood by a mind, but they do not carry the meaning of the cat is on the mat in themselves.

Is meaning

identical in nature to a physical process?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Misjudgment and miscommunication both are relative. If they have any meaning, it is not inherent. If it was inherent, you would need to reduce all miscommunication and false judgment to one meaning – the inherent one. Since only “the good” can be named the final reducible, and since miscommunication is not good, you create a contradiction that is irresolvable if and only if you say “inherent meaning”. If you allow for relative meaning or dependent meaning, then you have the flexibility to say that what was an apparent evil, turned out to be a good. Thus, we have blessings in disguise – and in so recognizing the blessing, we end the inherency of misunderstanding in the evil of false judgment. Finally, if all miscommunication and misjudgment was blessing in disguise, we would have the scenario where someone who understood this was never deceived and never miscommunicated. Such a person would be perfect, and the devil, who is the father of falsity, would have no power over him in any capacity. Do you know anyone who fits that billing?

Would I be misunderstanding your post if I drew this conclusion: The inherent meaning of misjudgment and miscommunication is that God exists?

 

[Michael19682]

Would I be misunderstanding your post if I drew this conclusion: The inherent meaning of misjudgment and miscommunication is that God exists?

For me 1Lord1Faith, no one could ever be wrong saying as conclusion, God exists.
God also is the inherent meaning of everything, including miscommunication and misjudgment: Seeing him in what others think is a personal evil and enduring it, is the mark of wisdom.
However, you asserted that two relatively evil things, like miscommunication and misjudgment-- are themselves inherently meaningful. Simply because I can use them to find God does not have to mean they are God’s nature. “To find” does not equal “defined”.
Thus, the conclusion I draw from all this is that if there is anything inherently existent, God is that thing.
Lastly, I cannot say that miscommunication and/or misjudgment are inherently signs of God. Your conclusion implies that the father of lies, the devil, is a sign of God.
If that is true, then much of what people talk about of Hell is a lie also.
If the devil is in in hell and the devil also is an inherent sign of the Almighty, then how can hell be the total absence of God?

 

[Michael19682]

I’m going to guess not everyone is using the word the same way in all messages across this thread. I don’t seem to be able to consistently apply that usage to some of the previous statements on meaning.

Perhaps IWantGod in his question about emotions is really asking in meta analytic or existential terms, is there an emotion such that you find motion for your soul toward God in experiencing it?

Perhaps Wesrock’s question about pixels refers to whether seeing them in such an arrangement creates an image of beauty in the soul, and thus moves it towards God. For example, a pixel cat can presumably arouse affection and caring?

Lastly, the question about meaning identical to physical process, could it be asking if there is any “neurological pattern of brain activity” that people could eventually see under a PET scan, fMRI, etc., and call this pattern meaning, or that which makes a person closer to God? Or other? Curly hair, thick skin, strong immune system?

If you apply that definition it kind of opens up new dimensions of analysis, would you agree? Of course, the person speaking can always deny such intention and say they were talking about pixels, cats, emotions etc in the normal sense.

 

[IWantGod]

Do we discover meaning in emotional states. This is to say that when you feel a certain way is that feeling ontologically meaningless or does it mean something. Does the meaning actually exist.

Its an ontological question.

And if we discover meaning as actually existing, is meaning identical in nature to a physical process.

If it is not physical, then we are dealing with something that is non-physical in nature.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do we discover meaning in emotional states. This is to say that when you feel a certain way is that feeling ontologically meaningless or does it mean something. Does the meaning actually exist.

Its an ontological question.

And if we discover meaning as actually existing, is meaning identical in nature to a physical process.

If it is not physical, then we are dealing with something that is non-physical in nature.

I believe meaning is an idea or representation, etc. It’s not physical. But it is something that is propagated from something physical, like a person. Just like a wave is not physical, but it is propagated from something physical and requires a physical environment to exist within.

Yes, emotions have meaning. Because something is conveyed by the emotion, such as the question: Is there meaning in emotion.

 

[fisherman_carl]

By meaning it is really purpose or function that we are talking about and what gives something meaning. For example, the purpose of the heart is to pump blood, which gives it, it’s meaning. However, without knowing something about hearts or about blood, the purpose of the heart can not be known.

Now, you can not determine how a particular machine is supposed to function just by looking at its physical processes alone. You may for instance have a machine that spins and turns gears upon which a gear falls off and oil spills on the floor. There is no way to tell just by looking at the physical process of the machine whether that was supposed to happen as part of the regular function of that machine or not. Without knowing what the purpose of the machine is or how it was intended to function by the designer you have no way of knowing whether the gear falling off indicates the machine is functioning normally as intended or if it has malfunctioned.

Take for example a machine designed to keep time. If a gear fell out causing the clock function to stop you can ascertain that the machine has malfunctioned. Since its original purpose or function has been stopped. However, consider a machine that flies through the air that drops large tubular things off of it. If you didn’t know what the purpose of those tubular things were you might think the machine is falling apart. But, then if you knew for instance that these tubular things were explosive devices called bombs that were intended to be dropped on certain unfriendly targets then you would understand that it was not a malfunction. Thus, without knowing the intended purpose of a thing you can not know for sure how it is supposed to function just by looking at its physical processes.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Here is something I have been thinking about. If humans were purely physical processes composed of physical parts or little organisms working together in a symbiosis of sorts then which part is really you? If you are merely a collection of biological cells then which cell is really you? And by that I mean what part of your body is the one who is doing the thinking about what I am writing? There has to be a unitive nature to ourselves or we would not be able to think of ourself as one person. If we were merely a collection of parts then we would be multiplive. We would have no center of conscious thought. Since who among all these parts would be the intended recipient of these thoughts?

Take this problem to a robot programmed with ai such that it is said to have sentience. Now lets say the robot is composed of computer parts like microchips. Which part of the robot is the real robot that has sentience? Is it a particular microchip? Is it a particular piece of software? You can’t really say that a microchip has sentience. It is just a bunch of transistors that send electrical signals. And you can’t say that the software is sentient. It is just lines of static code, no more sentient than words on a page.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Here is something I have been thinking about. If humans were purely physical processes composed of physical parts or little organisms working together in a symbiosis of sorts then which part is really you? If you are merely a collection of biological cells then which cell is really you? And by that I mean what part of your body is the one who is doing the thinking about what I am writing? There has to be a unitive nature to ourselves or we would not be able to think of ourself as one person. If we were merely a collection of parts then we would be multiplive. We would have no center of conscious thought. Since who among all these parts would be the intended recipient of these thoughts?

What you are describing is a body. Body being an adjective. In the sense that; the Church is the body of Christ, or the Summa is a body of work. I would say, since we are made in the image of God, we are also a body; made up of different parts like flesh, soul, bacteria, and perhaps our environment can be included since we cannot live without it.

Take this problem to a robot programmed with ai such that it is said to have sentience. Now lets say the robot is composed of computer parts like microchips. Which part of the robot is the real robot that has sentience? Is it a particular microchip? Is it a particular piece of software? You can’t really say that a microchip has sentience. It is just a bunch of transistors that send electrical signals. And you can’t say that the software is sentient. It is just lines of static code, no more sentient than words on a page.

The idea that robots have sentience is preposterous.

 

[IWantGod]

If you are asking if I find emotional expressions from other people to be indicative of their disposition to something then I would say that I do. Being able to read someone’s emotional queues is necessary to be able to successful interact with people within society.

.

So you can read someone’s “emotional state”. But how is that possible if things in themselves have no ontological meaning? If there is nothing to read how do you know?

 

[IWantGod]

What you are describing is a body. Body being an adjective. In the sense that; the Church is the body of Christ, or the Summa is a body of work. I would say, since we are made in the image of God, we are also a body; made up of different parts like flesh, soul, bacteria, and perhaps our environment can be included since we cannot live without it.

The idea that robots have sentience is preposterous.

Robots having sentience is only preposterous if one is arguing that the code is self-aware, as in to say that sentience and the code itself are identical in nature. In reality the nature of sentience is working in conjunction with the nature of the code. Where ever sentience arises the fact remains that the actuality of it is greater than the sum of the parts by which it operates.

 

[fisherman_carl]

What you are describing is a body. Body being an adjective. In the sense that; the Church is the body of Christ, or the Summa is a body of work. I would say, since we are made in the image of God, we are also a body; made up of different parts like flesh, soul, bacteria, and perhaps our environment can be included since we cannot live without it.

A body is composed of parts. Yet, we exist in a way that is unitive such that we only have one center of consciousness, one me, one you. So what I am saying is that if you and I are purely physical machines as the materialists claim then what part of us is conscious? If you say the brain, then what part of the brain? Since the brain is composed of parts as well. And these parts are physical material, even down to the cellular level. It is no different then the robotic ai problem in principle. Are electronic impulses impulses self aware? Can any physical thing be self aware? . Is the brain self aware? It seems to me one can not point to any physical thing as being inherently self aware or sentient.

The idea that robots have sentience is preposterous.

I agree with you, but what are your reasons.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Robots having sentience is only preposterous if one is arguing that the code is self-aware, as in to say that sentience and the code itself are identical in nature. In reality the nature of sentience is working in conjunction with the nature of the code. Where ever sentience arises the fact remains that the actuality of it is greater than the sum of the parts by which it operates.

There isn’t any component part that is inherently self aware. Yet you claim that the combination of these parts can create sentience? That seems like a pretty big miracle to me.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So what I am saying is that if you and I are purely physical machines as the materialists claim then what part of us is conscious?

Materialists are wrong about that point.

I agree with you, but what are your reasons.

I have one overarching reason, common sense.

 

[Aloysium]

There isn’t any component part that is inherently self aware. Yet you claim that the combination of these parts can create sentience? That seems like a pretty big miracle to me.

I’d agree, a miracle of creation.
Sentience clearly “contains” the parts that allow for interaction with the environment.
But, there is no force or physical principle that explains the wholeness of being that is seen in each of the vast variety of individual life forms on earth.
This is especially true and understandable in our own experience of ourselves as ourselves.

It should be also pointed out that, while each creature is continuous with its environment, there is no reason to suppose that the totality, which includes all of them, forms a greater whole, Gaia for example.
A minestrone soup is greater than its constituent parts, but this occurs within the person who experiences the combination of their tastes and textures, within the person’s wholeness.

Wholes are greater than their parts in two cases from what I see.
When that whole is a being which is composed of those parts.
Or, when a being experiences a collection of parts together (the soup), as a result of its being a whole in itself.

The latter case is what happens when someone anthropomorphically projects sentience onto a computer.
The former case is denied when the person is seen as being merely a collection of physical processes.

All miraculous, for sure.

 

[IWantGod]

There isn’t any component part that is inherently self aware. Yet you claim that the combination of these parts can create sentience? That seems like a pretty big miracle to me.

Not “create”. God creates. I’m saying that if a robot has sentience, then its sentience came into being in relation with the core components of which the Robot is comprised.

The same is true for human-machines.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . human-machines.

The person is a spiritual-physical unity.