Sky wrote:

A single thing does not exist, does it?

I fail to see the relevance to what I wrote. Given your expressed thoughts added to my partial description, I can see why you would think that about my understanding of meaning. I think your equivocating between things which are manmade, and thus have manmade – subjective - meaning, and that which is not and does not.

Now, I very well may be wrong here... ... but, I think that there are both intrinsic meaning - which is displayed by properties of behavior - and subjective meaning - which is dependant upon a person's point of view. Those things are not necessarily the same.

My last post only made the distinction between objective properties and subjective meaning in order to demonstrate exactly why only the objective, intrinsic properties can be used to identify a thing - in and of itself. I showed how and why subjective meaning does not necessarily correspond to an object's intrinsic properties, and therefore must not be considered a reliable means to assess an objective existence.

That post should have driven a wedge establishing the possible difference(s) between what an object actually is - in and of itself - and what the subjective meaning may be. I meant to demonstrate that difference, because that must be kept in mind while assessing what a thing actually is, rather than what it's name may mean to someone. This is especially true for a conversation concerning the inherent properties which we use to identify things in this universe. Subjective meaning is irrelevant to the identification of what something actually is(or means) - in and of itself.

I did not take enough time to hash out the differences between intrinsic and subjective meaning, and that alone is a formidable task. I believe there is an important distinction between the two, and yet those differences are often not taken into consideration when discussing the meaning of certain behavior(s). It does not always apply, because all properties of behavior do not always indicate nor reflect one intrinsic meaning. Only when examining cases like that(one possible meaning) can we even attempt to establish any intrinsic meaning behind exhibited actions/behaviors. It is only possible when such an objective display always represents but one thing.



That is what must be used to objectively assess the physical universe, because only the intrinsic properties identify it - in and of itself. Intrinsic meaning is displayed by properties belonging to objective behavior(s) as well. The properties of behavior that have an intrinsic meaning also fit the above description and exist regardless of whether or not they are observed, thought about, or compared with anything else.



Neither one - property or behavior - is a meaning, it exhibits the intrinsic meaning, because it displays that which is had - in and of itself.My smile and a cat's tail held straight up are objective properties of behavior which indicate an intrinsic meaning, that of which we call 'happiness'. The label 'happiness' does not cause the meaning to exist. The meaning is intrinsic to such behavior because my cat feels that way with or without having a name for the meaning which is responsible for causing that behavior. The cat knows what it means without thinking nor uttering a word about it, because it is intrinsic. The behavior displays the meaning - in and of itself. Therefore, in a case like this, we do not determine the meaning by naming it, rather we label that which already exists. We identify the intrinsic meaning. Those behaviors have intrinsic meaning. I smile because I am happy(I cannot fake it). A cat hold it's tail up straight because it is happy.

That is intrinsic meaning, and just like objective properties, it does not depend upon our recognition, assessment, comparison, nor label to exist.

Subjective meaning comes into play when we label things. As soon as we label it 'happiness', the intrinsic meaning displayed obtains a subjective description. The name 'happiness' begins to mesh with all of our other associations existing for the word which may or may not equate to the original intrinsic meaning being identified.



I agree that the notion of 'better' is dependent upon comparison and therefore the meaning of the term(label) is also subject to one's idea of 'worse', and those ideas vary from person to person. That is also a value assessment, and I am not claiming that those have intrinsic meaning.



A cat's tail which is being held straight up means the same thing, whether or not that particular cat ever sees a person. A cat's howling while in heat also has intrinsic meaning. A rooster's crow. A dog's growl. Etc.

While the our acknowledgement of these meaningful displays does require associative measure, the intrinsic meaning behind them does not. Acknowledging intrinsic meaning does not establish it, it recognizes and identifies that which was already established. The display is full of meaning because it is intrinsic, not because another thing has given it a label by which to reference it. A consequence of self-awareness and the need to understand the world around us can skew our perspective in such a way that we unconsciously project ourselves onto the rest of the world. In doing so, we can fail to realize that we are not the only creatures with a sense of meaning naturally intact.

fair nuff. in that case i'd like to define the term "universe" as it is understood by the physical sciences as it is the only universe that is supported by physical evidence. there being no evidence to suggest the existence of other universes.

firstly, imagination is imagination. reality is reality. secondly, i'm confused with your use of the word "frequency" here. frequency as in reoccuring? radio? electrical? sound? cannot comment without understanding what you refer to.

well as you suggested that i define the term, let's talk possibilities with science upermost in mind. scientific methodology. evidence that can be tested using scientific methodology.

So it's alright for you to do but not anyone else. I get it.

Sky:If you say so.

Go to IRCL.org and see for yourself.

I never said it was.

As I've said the universe is expanding out to heat death. Eventually any new "players" would start with nothing to work with unless they were lucky in which case they might get a single particle.

But you're saying it's one that we "get to" play forever?

No one believes me but this is really the evidence for a designer

---------) . (-----------

Yes that little dot is the evidence of how everything started.

Now stare at it for a good 3 minutes and say 'oooooooooooohhhh'

That dot is not nearly hot enough.

I’m not interested in discussing personal moral views in this thread. It’s way too far off topic.

If/when that happens, then I guess you and everyone else, as co-creators/co-players will have to start a new game – if you still want to play.

Like any other game, you play it for as long as you want or not at if you don’t want.

After reading your reply about “respawn points”, I think that would be a perfect analogy for reincarnation. You “die” and then “come back to life”. So you can go through as many lives/respawns as you want.

Personal moral views are of paramount importance if we're discussing the subjective.

-_-;
As I've been saying the game turns into a bland purgatory. Isn't there any way to not just sign out of the game but turn ourselves off as well?

I can't find where they tell me how they made their "Psyleron true random event generator." For patent purposes I could understand them not giving a schematic of the thing but you can say well enough how a nuclear power plant generates electricity without telling someone everything they need to build one.

I want to know if these things are "random" in that they're measuring radioactive decay. Showing that human thought could alter the rate of radioactive decay would be pretty huge news.

I did hear "quantum electric field" in there somewhere but they've only used it as a technobabble diversion as far as I've seen. I'd like for that to not be the case but I can't find what I need to make it anything more.

So what does it mean when you say the game is perfect? Is any game not perfect?

Naw, you respawn with the general equipment you were wearing and at least basic guns, though with a relatively small amount of ammo.

What's really important though is that it's on the same map and you go right back to the task you were working on before dieing until the end of the match. If you start up a whole new match that's "just spawning."

Hold on! I will throw a little fire on it.

The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, according to Drs. Karl Pootle and Yumble Frick, co-authors of the study. The analysis is expected to have profound implications on the theoretical underpinnings of many popular religions….

“Biodiversity is the primary stumbling block,” said Dr. Pootle. “Whoever created this cacophony of species would have had to be infinitely powerful and infinitely creative, but also infinitely schizophrenic to come up with the myriad different solutions to identical problems that the creators of the universe have. Either that, or we’re looking at a different kind of process altogether”….

“If you’re one guy designing a universe, why come up with twenty different ways of tackling the same issue?” Pootle said. “If you’re omnipotent, presumably you know perfectly well whatever the one solution is that will work best, and you go with that. The fact that the world obviously doesn’t work that way is what led us first to the committee theory. The plants and animals that inhabit the Earth show the kinds of random and incoherent thinking that can only otherwise be found in the products of design committees where there’s a lot of CYA and turf protection going on.”

I found something interesting: