Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Exi5tentialist]

When axioms underpin data, some objective meaning can be derived from them.

More woo from the predominant ideology.

Objective meaning? How on earth can you prove that even exists? Objectivity is an abstract model, not a physical reality. We are all subjective beings.

Unless you believe in God, obvious. He is the ultimate in objectivity!

[pErvinalia]

Dualist nonsense. Behaviours are the result of genetics and environment (i.e. includes written text). There is no "person".

Genetics, environment and written text are physical. Ideas are physical too - they occur as biological processes inside a single brain. What makes you think they can be transmitted across generations? A beating heart can't. What makes ideas so special?

In order to transmit ideas - these physical mental processes - you would need a second medium other than the human body. That medium would have to be non-physical, i.e. a second realm of reality, like telepathy or a spirit. I don't believe in second realms of reality - that comes from my atheism, which means I am not a dualist.

In that case, how is what I say "dualist nonsense"?

I was responding to your claim that everyone is responsible for their own actions. That relies on there being a "person" that has will and agency inside the body somewhere. I.e. dualism. No one is responsible for anything as there is no one. There's just bags of meat interacting with their environment via the laws of physics like everything else in the universe. Ironically, to argue otherwise, is to engage in religious mumbo jumbo.

How does text written 1000yrs transfer meaning? The exact same way that text written right this second transfers meaning. Time has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[pErvinalia]

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

"Transmit Information", "transfer knowledge", "inherit ideas from the past". It's all the same mumbo-jumbo. All the same supernatural woo.

If two people have an agreed set of rules for decoding text, then ideas and knowledge can be transferred. To suggest otherwise is wibble.

Again, you are drawing on the predominant ideology. What you call "decoding text" is the projection of prior knowledge by a human brain onto the medium in which the text is held. The communication does not transmit the other way, any more than the word of God does, or the words of Jesus or Mohammed. If two people, as you say, "agree", it just means that they have projected their prior knowledge in a way that enables outcomes that appear similar. It's a happy confluence of the actions of two human brains.

To believe in the "transfer of knowledge" is the same as believing in telepathy. Woooooooooooooo!!!!

Nonsense. Language and syntax is the shared set of rules, even if they aren't perfect.

[pErvinalia]

When axioms underpin data, some objective meaning can be derived from them.

More woo from the predominant ideology.

Objective meaning? How on earth can you prove that even exists? Objectivity is an abstract model, not a physical reality. We are all subjective beings.

Unless you believe in God, obvious. He is the ultimate in objectivity!

As I said above, syntax is an axiom, and we can objectively identify what is an object, what is a subject and what are descriptive words in text.

[JimC]

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

[pErvinalia]

Exactly.

[Svartalf]

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

"Transmit Information", "transfer knowledge", "inherit ideas from the past". It's all the same mumbo-jumbo. All the same supernatural woo.

If two people have an agreed set of rules for decoding text, then ideas and knowledge can be transferred. To suggest otherwise is wibble.

we never had a proper transmission of knowledge nor agreement of code, yet we can read Cuneiform and Linar B tablets... or are those decipherments wibble?

[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.

[pErvinalia]

And to be clear, Exi is saying that meaning can't be transferred. That's what is wibble.

[Svartalf]

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

How does text written 1000yrs transfer meaning? The exact same way that text written right this second transfers meaning. Time has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Well, that's just my point. Text written right now doesn't actually transfer anything. The meaning is created totally in the brain of the reader.

It's just a different way of looking at things, but it leads to different conclusions about Islam.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

And to be clear, Exi is saying that meaning can't be transferred. That's what is wibble.

So you think meaning is a physical thing that can be transferred, like a parcel? If not, what is the medium that carries meaning? If possible, can you explain without using circular arguments. It is necessary to get to an understanding of the actual process involved, not abstracts that don't explain it.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

[pErvinalia]

And to be clear, Exi is saying that meaning can't be transferred. That's what is wibble.

So you think meaning is a physical thing that can be transferred, like a parcel? If not, what is the medium that carries meaning? If possible, can you explain without using circular arguments. It is necessary to get to an understanding of the actual process involved, not abstracts that don't explain it.

I've already explained it with the concept of axioms. You haven't rebutted that successfully. Until you do, there's nothing more that can be said. And that's probably a good thing considering the knots you tied yourself in the last couple of times you tried to talk about the concept of "ideas".