Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
To me it is completely irrelevant if a scientist believes in god.

Ya know why a "Big Mac" isn't healthy for you? I mean.. it has all the macronutrients... Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates so what's the problem? The problem is that food isn't just calories in, calories out... food is actually information for the body. The proteins, fats and carbs in a big mac are in such a perverted form they incite the immune system and inflammation sets up in the body. Ultimately a person becomes ill (diseased) and no longer functions well. This is what i mean by choosing wisely.

Then I would say religion is McDonalds..

You don't think it is, but I do. So who is right? Your analogy is flawed though. It assumes as if there is no sugar and bullshit in religious thought. I would say believing a god exists would then be the equivalent of eating nothing and expecting to of acquired nutrients.

What you might consider wise or wisdom, I might consider nonsense and delusional. So who is right?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

You don't think it is, but I do. So who is right? Your analogy is flawed though. It assumes as if there is no sugar and bullshit in religious thought. I would say believing a god exists would then be the equivalent of eating nothing and expecting to of acquired nutrients.

You're right about sugar... it's likely the leading cause of this disease epidemic we're experiencing but... my point was damaged macronutrients and as far as my view on anything you haven't yet a clue because I really don't know. What I do believe however is that it's fruitless to guess or ignore the issue.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

The significance of quantum theory to this debate is that its 'counter intuitivity' is directly opposed to 'lay thinking' in terms of causation due to its 'uncertainty asects'. So not only does the 'Creator story' suffer from the infinite regress problem, it is also ignorant of its anthopomorphic origins associated with human concern for 'prediction and control'. I suggest that the fact that you are at present using a machine involving quantum theory is rather ironic !

And just to get back to OP, the single word 'Creator' has no scientific meaning. It only has meaning in terms of religious social contexts. To argue therwise is to argue for a 'God of the knowledge gaps'. The fact that bunches of 'learned men' sit around (somewhat parasitically) reinforcing their parocchial feelings comfort and purpose in clubs of the like minded discussing an ancient artifact like 'the bible', has no more significance to a bar room full of football
supporters.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The significance of quantum theory to this debate is that its 'counter intuitivity' is directly opposed to 'lay thinking' in terms of causation due to its 'uncertainty asects'.

I didn't get that at all from what I briefly gathered? The debate had to do with how minute magnitudes behave, not how they came to be. Everything is in relationship to everything else and so you might gather for balance there needs to be an equal yet opposing force.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Sorry...aspects...not asects...

Okay, there are two issues with respect to the OP raised by QM.
(1) Regarding 'words' per se, QM epitomises the flimsy linkage between words and 'reality' : in fact merely a 'poetic relationship' according to Bohr.
(2) The counter intuitive probabalistic mechanisms at that level seriously devalue the need for a concept coined by the word 'creator' as a sentient 'prime mover'.

In general, arguments about the utility of 'holy writ' are attempts to elevate 'word magic' beyond its functions as a psychological palliative or an instrument of social control. Gone are the days when it 'explained the world', despite the ludicrous attempts of fundamentalists, with more money than sense , to 'prove' otherwise.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

(1) Regarding 'words' per se, QM epitomises the flimsy linkage between words and 'reality' : in fact merely a 'poetic relationship' according to Bohr.

There are elements I see as true in that complete expression is required for a complete solution. So the argument is "how to create a complete expression?"

Quote:

(2) The counter intuitive probabalistic mechanisms at that level seriously devalue the need for a concept coined by the word 'creator' as a sentient 'prime move

That issue wasn't ever introduced or implied in the debate from what I gathered. Bohr was considered agnostic not atheist while Einstein appears to have believed in something but I doubt that will ever really be fully understood (as to what he did in fact believe.)

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

In general, arguments about the utility of 'holy writ' are attempts to elevate 'word magic' beyond its functions as a psychological palliative or an instrument of social control. Gone are the days when it 'explained the world', despite the ludicrous attempts of fundamentalists, with more money than sense , to 'prove' otherwise.

No. Words are more than that which we assign them because they relay messages to our minds. Imagine the formation of language... do you suppose we would have survived had we called light 'dung' rather than light?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Not a clue what you are talking about here...unless its some sort of antithesis of 'a rose by any other name' based on the semantics of ambiguous nuances.
And in UK kid's jargon note that 'wicked' has come to mean 'very good'. !

NB the philosopher Rorty dismisses much of Greek philosophy as being too centred on the sense of vision....so much for the 'light' metaphor !

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

in UK kid's jargon note that 'wicked' has come to mean 'very good'. !

The roots of "wicked" stem from witch or sorcerer but to wick simply implies to "take up" so that evolution might be understood.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

NB the philosopher Rorty dismisses much of Greek philosophy as being too centred on the sense of vision....so much for the 'light' metaphor !

It really doesn't matter who says what or what is said in relationship to truth and reality.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Words are not truth.

I agree.

Words which attempt to convey the truth are like a finger pointing at the Moon. The finger is not the Moon but the more accurately it points towards it, the better others, who hear these words, are able to make that leap to the truth beyond words, a truth that has always been there but has been ignored.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Words are not truth.

Truth is a Word... We can pour water into a square container, a cylindrical container, a round container but can we construct a container that when viewed might best symbolize the essence of water, one that might be most fitting for it. To do that we'd have to understand what water is and not limit that understanding to elemental values or Man might just be considered CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulphur.)

Words are not pointers but they are containers and the question is to what extent do words affect the mind. Are they simply limited by association or do they have other properties?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

At present this thread resembles bar room chat !
If you really want to get to grips with these ideas you need to specifically refer to 'theories of truth', and to a range of philosophical positions on language including, for example, 'languaging'(Maturana) and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (thought depends on language) in both its strong and weak forms.

Of course there are many lonely posters who do just come here for a chat and spend their time trying to continue a game of 'turns each' ! Hmmm.....

3 Replies

@fresco,

Robots are limited to the information given them. The processor references it's program. Humans aren't constrained to the limits of anything defined by another person.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Let me try and put it to you this way... You build a house.. how long do you have to pay attention to it's foundation? I mean... the foundation should be built to last the life of the structure but is the foundation still important to lets say.. the bedroom? Of course it is... The foundation of what we are today involves the past and as the saying goes.. all roads lead to Rome?... they actually lead to Egypt.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Its a simplistic truism to say we are all conditioned by language, including its social, historical, political and religious undertones. So what ? The 'committee nature of self' (another reference for you) may attempt to excorcise this conditioning by internal debate, but at the end of the day, the committee makes an 'expedient' decision which only hindsight can evaluate as useful or otherwise.

Ah...I've just spotted that you are pushing your Egypt /Heka reference. I would advise you that you have no chance with that with the atheists and pragmatists on this forum ! Smile

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Its a simplistic truism to say we are all conditioned by language, including its social, historical, political and religious undertones. So what ?

We're conditioned by our environment and the environment includes all things.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Ah...I've just spotted that you are pushing your Egypt /Heka reference. I would advise you that you have no chance with that with the atheists and pragmatists on this forum !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Here's your ball back ! Have fun !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Here's your ball back ! Have fun !

0 Replies

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know