This thread’s just gone massively off track.
Note to self:
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
I must not over analogise.
Just think of me as a subtitle service for the metaphysically challenged.
what characterizes the distinction between emergent and physic? what is the content of a particular pattern of firing neurons made of? - it’s semantics and stuff corresponding to the firing of more neurons - saying it’s all firing neurons is like saying it’s all the behavior of subatomic particles, or that what we’re reading is all the product of ones and zeroes - it’s true, but it’s only one way of talking about it. we CAN explain the sequence of images on the tube through the functioning of the electronics, but we can also assign it a more efficient paralell explanation using symbols and such which you are calling meaning - but meaning is the product of experience - and every experience has a physical counterpart in nature - so that neither makes meaning unreal nor renders it physically unexplainable - if it’s physically explainable, then i think it’s safe to consider it real, i guess unlike Faust?
what it all boils down to is being able to say that ideas are real things, which is a sensible enough statement in itself, don’t you think?
Hey UPF,
Sure, we could examine the states of each component of the TV in real time, and at any point say - “this particular TV-state equates with this exact picture on the tube”. Let’s say it’s some guy walking on the street, and there is an open manhole (which he hasn’t seen maybe) a couple of steps ahead of him. We could produce a very complicated table detailing each component-state. The difference is however, dealing in this electronic language alone there would be no way, from table A, to predict table B (where the guy falls down the manhole) because the meaning of the film-clip overall, is irreductable into such terms without huge information losses - namely the relationships between the ‘virtual’ objects so rendered. The electronic language can tell us about the relationships between any given TV-state and the resultant picture-state, but only a language existent outside of the TV can tell us about the relationships between the picture-states themselves. One language is the how, the other is the why.
Hmm. What’s the physical counterpart of the present perfect tense…?
Faust help plz.
I think precisely not, Faust. If we’re gonna settle on a “real” notion of real, we’ll have to settle with naive realism, and remerge with the masses (for whom our discussion is as ineluctable as is my poetry, in terms of comprehensibility). But then we’d stop discussing it. And that would be a shame. 
Tent - again, I don’t know if we need the One True Definition - we just need to know what each other is saying. And not only that - the bigger problem is that we see posters here that don;t know what they, themselves are saying.
A thousand times, “no”. The word is just the label. Besides, what’s so great about agreement? Agreement about what it is we disagree about is all I am calling for here. I just want posters to show me the swatch - so that A is not talking sea foam green and B spring green and both of them thinking they are both talking caterpillar green.
And yeah, that last sentences was auto-tranalated from “Faustneedsajointese”.
But that’s exactly what is happening.
Tab - the physical counterpart to present perfect is experienced, at least, as a moment. For when does this moment end? The end of a moment is continually “falling away” from us. What freezes time, so to speak, is language. This is the vast illusion of language. This is language’s use. It’s why we have it, and why we can never experience language as “real”. It’s always, in this way, a fiction. And therefore so are ideas - at least ideas that we can identify as such, for those are experienced in language.
Oughtist -
Again, that’s not what I’m after.
I wonder all the time how did words come to be? Why do they mean so much to people? People get so upset over words when really, words were invented by man and don’t amount to anything. For instance, fuckyoustupidbitchandsuckmyballswhileishitonyourfaceasyoumasturbateunderneaththetable. How does that mean anything to anyone? How could that offend someone? Words are meaningless. I could say anything I want and immediately get punched in the face like I kicked someone in their groin. When did words start to have an affect on people? I really am interested in finding out. Just a thought.
Language/words themselves can do no harm. It’s when you use them to get something the attachment begins.
Are you proposing, for pragmatic purposes, the possibility of a brief consensus theory on (the meaning of) “real”, as it applies to ILP? And that its prescription is not naive realism? 
Anything that can be described in any way is real.
So, nonsense is real. Must the meaning of real incorporate a sense of nonsense?
Nonsense is definitely real as it is a descriptive adjective. It can be described not only as a concept but also as a lack of a certain thing which is sense. For sense to be real and nonsense not to be real would require that every statement ever uttered by man and every action taken by man to have made sense which it often does not.
The meaning of real does not need to incorporate a sense of nonsense because if we might agree upon a meaning of real it is a prerequisite that the meaning make sense.
So, as a condition of having a common understanding of real, we cannot agree on nonsense. A common understanding of nonsense is not a semanticly influential aspect of our experience of real. Yesh?
Faust, you trickster you … You’re the culprit here. I’m on to you.
You’re creating an assumption based on ambiguity. Everything is disconnected and disjointed with no coordination. You posit Reality, sit back and relish in a display of poster’s delving into the coordination game, then yell out, ‘nope, that’s a temporary coordination, next.’ That’s a pretty cool idea. And actually everything is in a flux, always changing making it a practical impossibility to settle on one ‘truth.’ All we can muster is an array of logically ascertained premises and call that truth momentarily.
This question which you are posing to yourself, and also to us, is born out of the assumption that there is a reality, and that assumption is born out of this knowledge you have of and about the reality. The knowledge is the answer you already have. That is why you are asking the question. The question automatically arises.
First of all, there is an assumption that there is a reality, and then, that there is something that can be done to experience that reality. Without the knowledge about reality, there’s no experience of reality, that is for sure.
We call something nonsense if it does not agree with a set of carefully constructed edifices. What appears as nonsense from one frame may appear as sense from another frame, and vice versa. Like measurements of degrees of influence, the concept of nonsense (itself a sign of measurement) is relative.
Oughtist nonsense is but an aspect of reality and it does not require a consensus. This is evidenced by the fact that one Macedonian may think that what he is speaking is sense but the Athenian knows it to be nonsense. In this scenario it is those things that the Macedonian and the Athenian can agree on that are real. That the Macedonian is speaking. That the Macedonian exists. That the Athenian exists.
Whether or not what the Macedonian posits is nonsense which it must be for it spews forth from the mouth of the filthy Macedonian like vomit or whether it is sense cannot be conclusively determined. This does not make the words of the Macedonian or the sense or nonsense unreal it simply makes the existence of an inability to collaboratively determine the sensibility of the Macedonian’s words real.
So, demosthenese, is there a reality in isolation, or is it invented?
Isolation exists as a concept which can be described and is therefore real.
Is the concept of reality invented or is there a universal concept of reality that is true for all
The concept of reality is invented insofar as it requires language for the concept to be contextualized. What you describe when you speak of a
is what I would call a universal actuality. If it were true for all though it would be something greater than a concept. It would just be.
Man’s languages do not bear upon reality, words are not reality but merely symbols we use to represent various meanings or ideas. The fact that we require the use of language to even begin to seek ‘what is real’ is a sign that we cannot find any reality via reason. We might imagine a sort of intuition, feelings or pure sensation as a way to contact “the real”, but then again we fall prey to the same falseness via a subjectivism of perspective and interpretation - although not quite in the same way as when we “know” things with the “aid” of words.