Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[pErvinalia]

To be honest, I've never understood how they decoded them. There must have been some initial knowledge to function as premises to allow deduction.

Basically, there were keys, like the Rosetta stone or the Behistun inscriptions that allowed to force entry, and then they used standard cryptography methods to keep cracking the code.
Linear B was a simple use of the Frequency method, once somebody got the bright idea that it might be greek in spite of appearances.

"Cracking the code" is an example of the operator using prior knowledge to create a new meaning in their own mind. This enables a consistent model of meaning to be attached to the Cuneiform. But just because it is consistent does not mean that the original writers would agree it is an accurate reproduction of their conscious meaning. Sadly, we can never ask them, because they are dead. If they were alive, we could interact with them on all channels of human communication, including emotionally, and therefore be more confident in the consistency of our model.

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

[Hermit]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

...it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

Which is why I said that in contrast to Exi himself, his propositions are dead.

do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

Certainly. For instance, writings are aspects of the consciousness of human beings. Some of these writings are even prophetic to varying degrees of accuracy. I like the one where some long dead mind imagined mobile phones to be like in 1929:

Text written right now doesn't actually transfer anything. The meaning is created totally in the brain of the reader.

The theory of gravity is created totally by the reader?

[JimC]

I suggest Exi goes into a mosque in Pakistan to suggest that the Koran has no effect on the worshippers there...

What possible benefit to this discussion does that suggestion have?

They might treatly more harshly that the Rationalia hierarchy treats me, but there again, maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all.

It's unlikely we will hack you into small pieces...

[JimC]

Perhaps this is all down to some weird failure to communicate...

Proposition 1: Should we treat ancient writings, religious or otherwise, as vital guides as to how we should behave now?

Absolutely fucking not!

Proposition 2: Should we regard such ancient writings as important historical documents?

Yes, but with the vital proviso that they need to be checked against a variety of other evidence, both written and archeological, as they are written with an extremely subjective spin.

proposition 3: Is it true that some religious people of the present are strongly influenced by such ancient texts?

Clearly they are...

Exi5tentialist wrote:

...Text written right now doesn't actually transfer anything. The meaning is created totally in the brain of the reader....

That implies that the text itself is utterly irrelevant - it could be anything whatsoever without effecting how the reader is affected...

Arrant nonsense, really. If ancient religious texts in the christian, judaic and islamic traditions were all totally about "love thy neighbour", and were strongly against violence of any kind whatsoever, do you think we would have had the inquisition, the oppression of jews by christians, or the current spate of suicide bombers?

You are taking the fact that people do interpret what they read in terms of their own experience to extremes - the result of the reading is some sort of gestalt between the presented information and the experience of the individual reading it...

[Tyrannical]

Little known fact, the number forty in the bible as in forty days and forty nights doesn't refer to the actual number 40. It means many. Once in a blue moon similar doesn't mean 2 years, as a blue moon is the second full moon in a calendar month.

[Svartalf]

I'm not too sure of the value of the babble or quran as historical documents, extracting the truth from the shit is just to much filthy work, when it can be done at all

[Exi5tentialist]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

[Exi5tentialist]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

...it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

Which is why I said that in contrast to Exi himself, his propositions are dead.

do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

Certainly. For instance, writings are aspects of the consciousness of human beings. Some of these writings are even prophetic to varying degrees of accuracy. I like the one where some long dead mind imagined mobile phones to be like in 1929:

Text written right now doesn't actually transfer anything. The meaning is created totally in the brain of the reader.

The theory of gravity is created totally by the reader?

Indeed

[Exi5tentialist]

That implies that the text itself is utterly irrelevant - it could be anything whatsoever without effecting how the reader is affected...

Arrant nonsense, really.

Indeed. As is the supposed implication.

It's what we project onto the texts we are presented with that matters.

[Exi5tentialist]

I'm not too sure of the value of the babble or quran as historical documents, extracting the truth from the shit is just to much filthy work, when it can be done at all

Agreed. Extracting the truth from any similarly-aged documents is an exercise in denial.

[pErvinalia]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

Then why did you say this: " If they were alive, we could interact with them on all channels of human communication, including emotionally, and therefore be more confident in the consistency of our model."?

[pErvinalia]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

...it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

Which is why I said that in contrast to Exi himself, his propositions are dead.

do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

Certainly. For instance, writings are aspects of the consciousness of human beings. Some of these writings are even prophetic to varying degrees of accuracy. I like the one where some long dead mind imagined mobile phones to be like in 1929:

Text written right now doesn't actually transfer anything. The meaning is created totally in the brain of the reader.

The theory of gravity is created totally by the reader?

Indeed

Oh, so you're back to trolling again? Well done.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not too sure of the value of the babble or quran as historical documents, extracting the truth from the shit is just to much filthy work, when it can be done at all

Agreed. Extracting the truth from any similarly-aged documents is an exercise in denial.

What does age have to do with anything? You agreed earlier that your argument applies equally to any document regardless of its age.

[Exi5tentialist]

I'm not too sure of the value of the babble or quran as historical documents, extracting the truth from the shit is just to much filthy work, when it can be done at all

Agreed. Extracting the truth from any similarly-aged documents is an exercise in denial.

What does age have to do with anything? You agreed earlier that your argument applies equally to any document regardless of its age.

With documents of that age you can't check your projections with the author. Ultimately of course you can't check any channel of communication to ensure that your projections are accurate. It's all a question of where you draw the line denoting how much you trust your projections. We all have to draw it somewhere as a defence against madness, or absurdity. I just accept less absurdity than most.

Have I just handed you an insult opportunity? I wonder.

[Exi5tentialist]

Indeed

Oh, so you're back to trolling again? Well done.

Everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own. Stop accusing people of trolling just because you either disagree with them or don't understand what they are saying. It's very ignorant.