Jackson

Wittgenstein is talking about meaning and reference. For example, an argument against private language.

Who are those scholars? I never heard of that.

Yes, a small "p" phenomenology. No presumption about consciousness or subjectivity.

A bit paradoxical, but I think Wittgenstein is on to something. I don't think this means we understand things simply by looking at them. I think he is...

Arguing one myth against another.

I do not think meaning is a function of cause and effect or any fact. Meaning is not derived from any fact. Meaning has to do with value. Not necessar...

I answered. You should have told me you did not understand it and I would have gladly explained.

Still waiting for your proof.

You are confusing reference with meaning.

Where is your proof of that? Just asking you a question.

If you think asking questions is a form of hostility then maybe you shouldn't participate on a philosophy forum.

I never said that.

That sentence made no sense.

It is your issue not mine.

I post the relevant information. Something any philosopher knows how to do.

Why would I want to do that?

What news show are you referring to? Is this another opinion with no evidence presented again?

No, I do very well in logic.

That is just your subjective opinion.

Yes, took you a long time to figure that out.

Yes, he clearly did not comprehend.

I think you do not know what cause and effect means. You confuse cause with meaning. I think you would flunk an intro philosophy class. Your questions...

I answered it. You did not understand it. Look, I am tired of the hostility on this forum, ok?

Psychological satisfaction.

I don't see the connection because causes and meaning. A ball falls if I release it from my hand. How is meaning derived from that?

I don't think the idea of a meaningful life is based on there being causes and effects.

Get lost.

This is from Turing, " The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy; this is the assumption that as soon as a ...

Agree.

That is my point, yes.

AI is an engineering problem. No need to have a theory of consciousness.

I separate them. Consciousness is a function of intelligence. But intelligence can function without consciousness.

AI is here and getting more complex. Again, I don't see the importance of self awareness.

Much to debate here, and worthwhile. My short answer is that I think people make consciousness into a fetish. The question is about intelligence and p...

I don't think people working in AI are even concerned with consciousness.

Computers don't need to be conscious. I don't see why people make a big deal out of consciousness.

I never said that, do not lie.

Sorry, but I ignore people who think dictionaries and wiki are philosophical arguments.

Where did you hear that phrase, Art for art's sake? Then tell me what it means to you.

To be fair, I think the question refers to there being no innate meaning to the universe.

Not sure what you're saying. Art for art's sake was a motto for decorative art.

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," as the Bard said.

bye

We are different. I actually have studied those claims about beauty. They are wrong. Every opinion is not correct because one opines.

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong.

I have been an artist about 35 years. Crafts people get angry when you say it is not art. I don't see the problem. Art is not about beauty, it is abou...

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Tribalism always entails the enemy as the outsider.

The Big Bang is infinitely more inspiring than God did it. Not because science is more true, but it gives an explanation we can use. God causing the u...

I don't find "postmodern" to be one thing. Too vague.