From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   oldernow  writes:   
      
   > To my way of thinking, that's a good description of one aspect of why   
   > word-mediated "knowing" seems to be accomplishing very little. "People   
   > have various meanings attached to the word consciousness". Exactly! So   
   > what's accomplished when beings using private   
   > definitions-of/meanings-for words use those words between themselves   
   > to discuss something?   
      
   The meaning of a word can be refined with discussion. We may never share   
   the exact same meaning of a word, but we can get closer to the same   
   meaning. We can eliminate some of the most obvious misunderstandings.   
      
   >   
   > Ever hear of the "Tower of Babel"? ;-)   
      
   Considering we don't live in the same country, or at least I don't think   
   we do based on looking at the headers in your article, we are doing   
   pretty well.   
      
   >   
   > That's all this exercise in futility known as online interaction is.   
      
   I think you are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater   
   there. The fact that the meaning of words is not precise, does not mean   
   they are of no use, or that they are futile. Language has done wonders   
   for human beings. The evolution and widespread use of language is   
   evidence that it works and it is useful. Do you read books? or do you   
   regard them as futile?   
      
      
   > I've no idea what 'futility' - or any of the other words I've used -   
   > means to you.   
      
   I think you have some idea.   
      
   > Like AI, I can try to draw conclusions from your usage of other words,   
   > especially those most often surrounding your usage of   
   > 'futility'. Ditto on 'consciousness'. Ditto on *'ditto'*, even! And so   
   > on.   
   >   
   > The reason they don't work between separate minds is because they   
   > don't even work - in the sense of drawing nigh unto underlying   
   > (i.e. beneath representation) reality - for us personally.   
   >   
   > We learn a word, i.e. how to pronounce it, spell it, and what set of   
   > other words is said to define it. But for us individually/personally,   
   > the words in that "set of words" are also privately defined, and   
   > actually have considerably more to do with each other (by perpetually   
   > repeating their relationships to ourselves, and between ourselves with   
   > others) than with any underlying reality. That remains safely out of   
   > "word reach".   
   >   
   > But we pretend it doesn't. We think we "know" the underlying reality   
   > by attempting to comprehensively labeling it. We even label the   
   > labeling! (e.g "describing", "knowing")   
   >   
   > Conceptuality seems to be an endless labeling exercise while being   
   > careful not to notice the circularity of it all lest its efficacy for   
   > bridging the gap between our separate selves and some "reality" come   
   > into question.   
   >   
   >> I'd like to know if dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, dogs, cats,   
   >> whales, are conscious, even though it is not of any use to me to   
   >> know.   
   >   
   > But you already essentially admitted the only thing we know about   
   > "consciousness" is some spectrum of other words we associate with the   
   > word 'consciousness': "These terms like conscious, unconscious,   
   > subconscious, awareness, knowledge, perception, all get mixed together   
   > with woolly boundaries."   
      
   I didn't admit that was all we know about consciousness. This problem is   
   about communication, not knowlege. Given enough time people can refine   
   the shared meaning of the word until they understand each other, or at   
   least nearly enough. Today's word should be 'pragmatism'. But we could   
   proceed like Wittgensein, not that I profess to have read much of him,   
   but we can make statements about consciousness and then see if we both   
   agree the statement is true. E.g.:   
      
   You are unconscious when you are asleep.   
      
   You were not conscious of the name of the tallest mountain in the world   
   before you started reading this statement.   
      
   > So there's some alleged reality labeled 'consciousness'.  But   
   > sometimes that label isn't satisfying for "what we really mean". So we   
   > pick another label we think is closer to "what we really mean". And   
   > then that's not quite it, so we pick another. And everyone's doing   
   > that round robin word thang within (mind) in real time, and each has   
   > all those words privately defined, and the words "doing the defining"   
   > privately defined, and... and...    
   >   
   > Now I'm wondering if "knowing" ever really anything more than word   
   > games....   
   >   
   > But, whatever. The important thing is my typing skills improved   
   > incrementally while I so enjoyed seeing words appear on the screen   
   > while the typing of this.... ;-)   
      
   Imagine a chair. Now tell me you don't know what 'chair' means. How many   
   different kinds of chair can you imagine? and yet none of them is a   
   tree, I think you will agree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)