Sentences have no meaning

http://groups.google.com/group/argunet-users/browse_thread/thread/3bd05a1ace47eafe

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a0a0d7d315b6bede

Random has no meaning
post 140: On Feb 22, 8:30 pm, hersheyh  wrote: > *You* are the person claiming that they *do* mean something. Note the > question you ask: "[Are y]ou using selected in the pattern or design > sense?" It is up to *you* to explain the distinction you are making > if that distinction differs from the common understanding of those > English words.

Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random". Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on the intent. For example setup five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a "selection at random" by placing your hand inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol selection, pattern, design or random has any meaning, only ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use pattern and design in their relevant contexts given your overarching premises.

post 150
The selection was done "at random", it wasn't a "random selection". See how fun this game with words get. Selection doesn't mean anything, only ideas have meaning. The idea was an intentional act of "selecting" for a marble, not a particular marble, volition was still involved because only you decided to place your hand inside the bag. Elsewhere there was a discussion   http://bit.ly/19lJrY,  http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/867300c03e065027/4c71415ba9e255ba?tvc=1#4c71415ba9e255ba  at length about this issue relating to the Dawkins me thinks it is like a weasel computer program. No need to bring in computers, rather model the idea with bags of marbles. It more clearly shows that reaching the target phrase means the target was predetermined : Intent was still involved, even though the semantic label of "random" occured in the symbols used to convey a concept.

pst 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Multilevel_selection_theory

"...Specific syndromes of selective factors can create situations in which groups are selected because they display group properties which are selected-for...."

What concept does selective, selected and selected-for symbolically represent in terms of patterns and designs? And who would this person be that has such a yet to be defined concept in terms of the pattern design dichotomy.

On Feb 25, 11:29 pm, backspace  wrote: > Wilkins make big issue out the word "Darwinism" saying there is no > such thing. The word "Darwinism" has no meaning, but it can be used to > represent any idea just like Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice. Thus > what Wilkins is really saying is that a specific idea doesn't exist - > What idea symbolically represented with Darwinism by which person > doesn't exist? > > http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:XWdJK5HWXYYJ:evolvingthoughts.net...

The whole "Darwinism" semantic and what it represented in 1923 with the article by Osborn in the Nytimes was "chance" basically. A user in that time era influenced by Burroughs, Darwin,Huxley and Charles Kingsley symbolically represented the "..absolute empire of accident idea ...." under the rubric of Darwinism.

Now fast forward to 2004 with Michael Ruse, Wells on CCN where Ruse explained to Lou Dobbs that "...... Darwinism is the mechanism....." What concept did Ruse symbolically represent ? What would this mechanism be that he encoded for with Darwinism.

Thus "Darwinism" has no meaning, just like "383zcccskdRXX??dkt" has no meaning.

Lets take the word "random". 1) The man made a "selection at random" from many bags of marbles 2) The truck fell over spilling all the bags of marbles in a random manner.

With 1 the cluster of 11 symbols represents a design even though it contains "random". Wtih 2 we have a pattern or random formation of a pattern. Thus "random" has no meaning it just like Humpty Dumpty said can be used to represent any meaning in any context..

So again Howard I ask what do you mean with "design is subset of pattern" ?

yyy
http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this" or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/ propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas. Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own self. We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves propositions.

The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea

asdf asdf
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/propositions.html "......The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This shouldn't be surprising, and I assume that it is a common experience for people with eclectic vocabularies. The important fact to notice is that it suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence, eternally and without regard to context. In fact, if there is no one around to read a sentence, it has no meaning at all. A conscious subject may at any point pick up a book and interpret the sentence and she can then mean (i.e., understand) something by the sentences, and attempt to surmise what the author meant by them....................."

popper


130 
 

fdfdf 
On Feb 19, 8:51 pm, hersheyh  wrote: > > Yes, so I gather from Howard and this has been point the whole time: > > For Howard design is subset of pattern for theists pattern is subset > > of design, which is why there is such confusion when these symbol > > strings are used.  > Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by "pattern is a > subset of design". Perhaps, by that, you mean that *everything* we > actually observe is directed by a supernatural entity and the fact > that we fall toward the center of the earth if we walk out the 23rd > story window is merely God's wish and the pattern He imposes. Actions have consequences, the fools who voted for the Democrats who are bribed by the Arabs (Clintons have ammassed $100mil) to prevent oil exploration resulted in oil going to $145, inducing a recession and near economic collapse. God won't prevent stupid people from cutting of their own food supply (gas/oil prices are correlated, without gas you don't have nitrogen, without nitrogen no food). Green energy won't work because the designs on Stirling Engines are locked up in patents. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Sasecurity#Thermal_battery_powering_Stirling_engine (http://bit.ly/9WCqow) and http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HackPatents (http://bit.ly/b1s5Qb) 

> > > Words are flexible, and if you cannot understand one from the context > > > Words aren't flexible, ideas are.  > And your use of words is certainly flexible. You first imagine that > you can discern pattern with a single event or occurence, showing that > you do not understand the meaning of 'pattern'. "pattern" like my sentence "pattern is subset of design" has no meaning. What I meant by that, the idea I had is something only I know. Since I haven't said what I meant by it you can't draw any conclusion until you ask me what was my idea. </b>

> And now you show even > more flexibility by claiming that the more limited word ('design', > which requires a designer) is actually broader than the less > constrained word 'pattern' which does not, in ordinary useage, require > a designer. Since the symbol "design" has no meaning and isn't in a condition of existence it doesn't require anything. If though you meant the concept of design meaning, making decisions needs a designer then of course but this an axiom. The symbol string design like selection can be used to symbolically represent any idea. The idea is the issue not the symbol. In order thus to avoid confusion Augustus, Nero and the Xtians they fed to the lions all used "selectus" in the design sense 99% of the time. It is only with "natural means of selection" that we went of the cliff into language cloud-coo-coo land. </b>

Meaning no exact location </b>
 </b>

100 </b>
 </b>

humpty </b>
 </b>

tit </b>
 </b>

kkkk </b>
 </b>

etetet </b>
 </b>

jjjjj </b>
 </b>

<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>ljh </b>
<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> </b>

<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk></b>