ENTER MEET FLIRT LEARN CREATE DEBATE PITCH REFLECT FIGHT SETTLE PERFORM PONDER ESCAPE
The Napping Cat's Dream (Archived Forums) >> DEBATE

 
1
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Inferring meaning from context new
      #643992 - Sun May 10 2009 11:19 AM

The topic of this debate: What does the text in the next post mean? Or, more specifically, what do each of the ALLCAPPED words mean?

The two central terms (given their initial position and repetition) to me seem to be RECTOP and MISSOM. So far, my best guess for those would be the following:

RECTOP: "functional capacity" - the idea of what something is able to do. A pen, for example, is able to make marks, as well as be used for poking things, a small amount of prying, being disassembled into an impromptu spitball gun, and other things. Those are all functions it has within its capacity.

MISSOM: Some kind of "price/value" idea. Perhaps "how much payment one would require to willingly exchange a thing" or "how precious something is to someone".

That said, I'm still trying to work out the terms, and rather than bias folks with some of my ideas on other terms, I'll put this out in the marketplace of ideas and see what other posters can contribute.



This thread referenced in this post
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Re: Inferring meaning from context
      #643993 - Sun May 10 2009 11:20 AM

Someone, elsewhere, said:

I've often written of “RECTOP/MISSOM” just that way; as interchangeable and compound terms and SIMDARs. Recently I have been wondering what difference there is between “RECTOP” and “MISSOM” (and not just on the level of quoting a dictionary).

Everything has a “RECTOP” but not necessarily “MISSOM.”

It seems that “RECTOP” is intrinsic but “MISSOM” extrinsic.

For example, a hockey stick has a RECTOP: to slap pucks. Yet, a hockey stick that was given to me by Wayne Gretzkey has RECTOP and now also has MISSOM since I gave it MISSOM.

Thus, stones, chihuahuas, tomatoes, quasars, humans, etc. all have RECTOP as an automatic consequence of the fact that they exist.

Another example, a human PARALOC has a RECTOP such as passing on DNA. Yet, MISSOM does not seem like a kind of thing that we take for ourselves, nor that we can assign ourselves. Rather, it's something that's given unto us. Others bequeath it upon us.

For instance, when my wee offspring sees a word that she does not yet know, even if she can actually read it, she'll ask, “What's that mean?” If we spontaneously suffered worldwide amnesia then written texts would be without MISSOM-- due to the agreed upon MISSOM(s) that we've given them , we give MISSOM to words even as the original author employed the words.

Moreover, it seems that whatever MISSOMs we've to other human PARALOCs are KIROM. Ultimately, if you assume absolute materialism; everything's with RECTOP but without MISSOM. This is because our RECTOP is a function while MISSOM is of a whole different category more like something ethereal--a SIMDAR.

Our RECTOP is "we perform certain functions", and the function is done with after it serves a certain RECTOP. However, if MISSOM's something we give to ourselves or that other, SILREN humans, give to us then it's fleeting because one day--whether we are a Mahatma Ghandi or a Pope Urban II--everything and anything that we've ever thought, said or done will not ATROS in the least bit: wheteher tomorrow, in a month, in a solar year, in a decade, in an epoch, in a millennia--we'll be gone and nothing that we've ever thought, said or done will be the least bit ATRAS.

So, to recap: since RECTOP's part of a process RECTOP serves its, well, RECTOP and is done with.

However, since MISSOM's a SIMDAR that exists within a RUTIN--either that of others or our own (which I would be willing to entertain but do not accept) --once the RUTIN ceases to function the MISSOM ceases and so we see that, ultimately, everything's without MISSOM once the consoling delusion, or façade, of KIROM are exposed for what they are--nothing. Well, perhaps a transient chemical reaction within the RUTIN of a transient organism, but I count that as nothing.

If we were not conscious, we would merely be pretty much what we are on a naturalistic/materialistic view: organisms who are moving about one day and worm food the next--worms which are merely organisms which are moving about one day and food for something else the next.

As an aside: I really wonder why we seek for, long for, live, for, strive for, die for, MISSOM.

Ok. So. Let's suppose that MISSOM truly does exist.

What's MISSOM?
It's a SIMDAR.
What's a SIMDAR?
A SIMDAR is a RUTEL.
Where does a RUTEL exist?
A RUTEL exist in a RUTIN.
Is MISSOM non-SILREN or SILREN?
If it's SILREN then it's not truly MISSOM (though it could be RECTOP), so it's non-SILREN.
Does MISSOM DESIVO or is it unDESIVOable?
If it DESIVOs then it's not MISSOM (“DESIVO” here meaning from MISSOM to something else and not just a DESIVO within the original MISSOM in which case it's still MISSOM).

Thus, MISSOM is a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTEL that exists in a RUTIN.

What sort of RUTIN contains a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTEL?
A RUTIN that's non-SILREN and unDESIVOing.
What sort of PARALOC possesses a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTIN?
A non-SILREN and unDESIVOing PARALOC.

Therefore, while everything and everyone has a RECTOP only the non-SILREN and unDESIVOing PARALOC can give us MISSOM.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Gumba Masta
Member #1032
Posts: 1211
PA #288
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644001 - Sun May 10 2009 01:34 PM

I can say that I fully do not understand the question that you ask here, or if in fact if it even is one.My first honest impression was that it's either a pure nonsense or parody thread in light of DEBATE's recent surge of essential, uhh, thingies.
Language does have only the meaning we give it and when someone who does'nt understand that particular one it's more or less worthless to him. I might understand it if I can get the general gisht of it and draw conclusions from that, but then again I just as might not.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644003 - Sun May 10 2009 02:14 PM

Gumba Masta said:
I can say that I fully do not understand the question that you ask here


Here are two pieces of context that may be useful:

First, in response to me saying "If someone told me 'Daw is Bleesome', I wouldn't know what they meant", Jack Dawkins replied:

Jack Dawkins said:
Daw would be a name and bleemsome is an adjective, which we can pick up from proper, Strunk & White-approved English grammar (the lack of an article preceding "daw" would indicate it's not a noun. It could be a new pronoun but that's less likely). If we also throw out strict reliance upon grammatical rules, we are in a bit of a fix but let's not go out of the box yet.

If we had a second sentence, we could pick up a lot more but we don't.


That is, in part, the kind of response I am looking for.

The other piece of context is that, a long time ago, in a place far far away, someone made a post very similar to the one I put up, but instead of words like MISSOM that clearly do not have a shared meaning, they used words like "torture", which are often treated as if they have a shared meaning but (after much irreconcilable disagreement) it turns out that people don't mean the same thing by the word.

Rather than post the original, in which statements such as "grinding someone's fingers to stubs on a grindstone is not torture" or "Providing anything less than five square meals a day is torture" would make the reader stop, cross their eyes, and get a WTFache, I've posted a modified version with statements such as "Grindin someone's fingers to stubs on a grindstone is not RECTOP" or "Providing anything less than five square meals a day is RECTOP".

Since nobody has any particular meanings attached to RECTOP already, it's easier to focus on figuring out just what someone means by the word (whatever it is) they were using in that spot in the sentence, and move the focus away from how what they're talking about isn't Really Torture. You can't say something isn't Really RECTOP... you can only try to figure out what RECTOP is supposed to be.




I will admit that it does look a lot like pure nonsense, but I assure you that the original poster believes with all of her heart that what she wanted to convey was not nonsensical. (I can't assure you that it actually is sensical, but it's at least not meant to be nonsense.)

It's definitely not supposed to be a parody. I am, honestly, still trying to figure out what this person was trying to get across... but sadly they used so many vague terms that there's a lot of work to do to piece the puzzle together.

I'm not sure it's completely impossible, though. For example, if I were to say that I have a QUNTILE, and that my QUNTILE has soft fur, and four legs, and likes to bask in the sun, and hisses at other QUNTILEs... I might have said enough for you to get an idea of what I would and would not call a QUNTILE. Not a complete idea, necessarily, but you could probably guess correctly whether a QUNTILE was larger or smaller than a towtruck, and you could probably guess whether a QUNTLE was alive or not, and if a QUNTLE was a tool for assaying the carbon content in ore, and if a QUNTLE had an event horizon.




Before this is really a debate thread, there need to be a few differing ideas on what at least one CAPWORD is supposed to convey... and then there can be some debate over who (if anyone) is correct. Until that point, however, the pre-task will be to come up with suggestions for what kind of concept each word is supposed to get across. See the end of my first post for an example of taking stabs at RECTOP and MISSOM.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Gumba Masta
Member #1032
Posts: 1211
PA #288
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644004 - Sun May 10 2009 02:29 PM

Just to be sure...did those vague interchangable words just...change?
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644005 - Sun May 10 2009 02:49 PM

Gumba Masta said:
Just to be sure...did those vague interchangable words just...change?


Yeah, I had saved the original version of the posts and had been doing performing a FIND/REPLACE on each capitalized word when I thought I had a good handle on what it meant. The version I saved refers to "QUABBIN/HONEOKE" while this new version refers to “RECTOP/MISSOM." Also, there seems to be a change of the preceding articles in front of the capitalized words, which changes the analysis that would be done to the word.

I kinda had a response ready for the "QUABBIN/HONEOKE" version, so can we go back to that because I don't want to have to rewrite my analysis. (While I wasn't able to assign meaning to every word, I was able to assign meaning to most of them.) Why was there a change made?
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Gumba Masta
Member #1032
Posts: 1211
PA #288
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644007 - Sun May 10 2009 02:55 PM

Maybe to drive the point home that the words used to describe vertain atributes or ascribe them to these words was not only vague but that the same vagueness could be reached with several other words.Or maybe just to mess with us.Or a bit of both.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644009 - Sun May 10 2009 03:03 PM

Gumba Masta said:
Maybe to drive the point home that the words used to describe vertain atributes or ascribe them to these words was not only vague but that the same vagueness could be reached with several other words.Or maybe just to mess with us.Or a bit of both.


Well, it seems mean to change it when people have already started working on it.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Gumba Masta
Member #1032
Posts: 1211
PA #288
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644010 - Sun May 10 2009 03:08 PM

Either mean, or simply a ploy to get us debating about the reason, if any, of such an action.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644016 - Sun May 10 2009 04:03 PM

Gumba Masta said:
Just to be sure...did those vague interchangable words just...change?


Yes. A kind PMer informed me that they could easily find the original document (the one with ambiguous but everyone-knows-what-it-means terms like 'torture'), so I performed some modifications to reduce the lexical similarity.

(Jack, I'll ask you to not use your saved offline copy to do a Google search for the original, in order to avoid biasing the attempt at analysis with the nigh-unavoidable assumptions about the meanings associated with the original word choices.)

Also, there were some parts of speech which were incorrectly formed (an ROBE -> a ROBE, for example) which should not have any substantive impact on the meanings, but would A> make the text a little jarring and B> potentially bias the reader toward assuming certain words ("an ROBE... hmm... so the /real/ world (BAD BAD BAD!) must have started with a vowel...")


Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644018 - Sun May 10 2009 04:07 PM

Gumba Masta said:
Either mean, or simply a ploy to get us debating about the reason, if any, of such an action.


Actually, I was hoping I'd caught it before anyone but Gumba and Thalamasa had seen the post, so definitely not trying to be mean, and the goal was to better insulate the posted text from mistaken assumptions arising from the original text, so not a play to spur debate on the reason, either.

I apologize for the inconvenience, Jack. However, if you would trust me that the change is aimed at improving the discussion and run one more find/replace set to switch from the old terms to the newer ones, I would appreciate it.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644020 - Sun May 10 2009 04:17 PM

A google search would just be cheating. ;)

OK, since your reasons weren't malicious and have merit, I'll redo the analysis. Of course, I can't "unring the bell" so any analysis from "a/an" distinctions, which I used, I can't just forget about but I'll try not to use.

I'll probably need another day or two to start over.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644077 - Tue May 12 2009 09:47 AM

OK, this is going to be an incredibly long post.

When going through the statement you provided and analyzing it, I tried to go with the simplest word that I could when trying to determine what was actually meant by the capitalized words. While "functional capacity" seems to work adequately for RECTOP, I think "purpose" fits better.

I initially thought about "price" for MISSOM as well but when talking about the price of words and people, that just didn't make sense. A word that makes much better sense for MISSOM when applied to words is "meaning," and it works very well in the rest of the essay. While meaning is used in the essay, that is the verb meaning while MISSOM would be the noun "meaning".

PARALOC seems to be "being." "Person" also seemed to work but "human person" doesn't make grammatical sense so I went with "being."

I have no idea about KIROM. Even when I replaced RECTOP and PARALOC in that sentence, it just doesn't have a definition jump out. I'd say it's an adjective of some sort.

Filling in the words I already have defined, it becomes easier to determine what the next words are. SIMDAR is something ethereal related to meaning. I'm going to go with "idea"

ATROS is easy in context, "matter." ATRAS is also easy, "important"

RUTIN is a noun. It is used in a very specific sentence that refers to chemical reactions in an organism. Since we are talking about ideas, I think RUTIN is "brain"

What is RUTEL? It seems to be the same thing as a SIMDAR. What is the same thing as an idea? An idea is a "concept."

SILREN is difficult. It is something that has a direct opposite and seems related to meaning. My initial idea is "real" and that's supported because a real thing could have no meaning but how would it have a purpose? Well, it's an adjective, I can say that for sure.

Same problem with DESIVO. Like, SILREN, it is something that has a direct opposite and seems related to meaning. It also seems to be used as an adjective.

Now we have enough to to a rather complete "FIND & REPLACE" to see if this one, makes sense, and two, if it will provide hints as to what the missing words are.

To recap: here is the "translation" so far:
RECTOP: purpose
MISSOM: meaning
PARALOC: being
KIROM: ?
SIMDAR: idea
ATROS: matter
ATRAS: important
RUTIN: brain
RUTEL: concept
SILREN: ?
DESIVO: ?

I've often written of “PURPOSE/MEANING” just that way; as interchangeable and compound terms and IDEAs. Recently I have been wondering what difference there is between “PURPOSE” and “MEANING” (and not just on the level of quoting a dictionary).

Everything has a “PURPOSE” but not necessarily “MEANING.”

It seems that “PURPOSE” is intrinsic but “MEANING” extrinsic.

For example, a hockey stick has a PURPOSE: to slap pucks. Yet, a hockey stick that was given to me by Wayne Gretzkey has PURPOSE and now also has MEANING since I gave it MEANING.

Thus, stones, chihuahuas, tomatoes, quasars, humans, etc. all have PURPOSE as an automatic consequence of the fact that they exist.

Another example, a human BEING has a PURPOSE such as passing on DNA. Yet, MEANING does not seem like a kind of thing that we take for ourselves, nor that we can assign ourselves. Rather, it's something that's given unto us. Others bequeath it upon us.

For instance, when my wee offspring sees a word that she does not yet know, even if she can actually read it, she'll ask, “What's that mean?” If we spontaneously suffered worldwide amnesia then written texts would be without MEANING-- due to the agreed upon MEANING(s) that we've given them , we give MEANING to words even as the original author employed the words.

Moreover, it seems that whatever MEANINGs we've to other human BEINGs are KIROM. Ultimately, if you assume absolute materialism; everything's with PURPOSE but without MEANING. This is because our PURPOSE is a function while MEANING is of a whole different category more like something ethereal--a IDEA.

Our PURPOSE is "we perform certain functions", and the function is done with after it serves a certain PURPOSE. However, if MEANING's something we give to ourselves or that other, SILREN humans, give to us then it's fleeting because one day--whether we are a Mahatma Ghandi or a Pope Urban II--everything and anything that we've ever thought, said or done will not MATTER in the least bit: wheteher tomorrow, in a month, in a solar year, in a decade, in an epoch, in a millennia--we'll be gone and nothing that we've ever thought, said or done will be the least bit IMPORTANT.

So, to recap: since PURPOSE's part of a process PURPOSE serves its, well, PURPOSE and is done with.

However, since MEANING's a IDEA that exists within a BRAIN--either that of others or our own (which I would be willing to entertain but do not accept) --once the BRAIN ceases to function the MEANING ceases and so we see that, ultimately, everything's without MEANING once the consoling delusion, or façade, of KIROM are exposed for what they are--nothing. Well, perhaps a transient chemical reaction within the BRAIN of a transient organism, but I count that as nothing.

If we were not conscious, we would merely be pretty much what we are on a naturalistic/materialistic view: organisms who are moving about one day and worm food the next--worms which are merely organisms which are moving about one day and food for something else the next.

As an aside: I really wonder why we seek for, long for, live, for, strive for, die for, MEANING.

Ok. So. Let's suppose that MEANING truly does exist.

What's MEANING?
It's a IDEA.
What's a IDEA?
A IDEA is a CONCEPT.
Where does a CONCEPT exist?
A CONCEPT exist in a BRAIN.
Is MEANING non-SILREN or SILREN?
If it's SILREN then it's not truly MEANING (though it could be PURPOSE), so it's non-SILREN.
Does MEANING DESIVO or is it unDESIVOable?
If it DESIVOs then it's not MEANING (“DESIVO” here meaning from MEANING to something else and not just a DESIVO within the original MEANING in which case it's still MEANING).

Thus, MEANING is a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing CONCEPT that exists in a BRAIN.

What sort of BRAIN contains a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing CONCEPT?
A BRAIN that's non-SILREN and unDESIVOing.
What sort of BEING possesses a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing BRAIN?
A non-SILREN and unDESIVOing BEING.

Therefore, while everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-SILREN and unDESIVOing BEING can give us MEANING.


Because this post is so long, I will continue the analysis in the next post.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644078 - Tue May 12 2009 10:11 AM

OK, so I did the FIND & REPLACE and that seemed to make sense. The grammar isn't fantastic but the essay seems to make some sort of sense. Already we can discover that it's discussing the role of meaning and purpose. However, I still have to figure out what KIROM, SILREN and DESIVO mean.

KIROM is still pretty difficult. From context in its first usage, I want to say that KIROM means "arbitrary" since that would make sense in context. However, it doesn't fit as well in the second usage. It fits much worse than the previous word substitutions but it seems to at least fit in terms of what is conceptually being discussed. So, I guess I'll stick with "arbitrary."

My first thought for SILREN is "fake." Based upon the subject matter in it's first usage, I initially wanted to say "real" but that is the opposite of how the next sentence uses it." However, if a concept is fake, how can it deprive the concept of meaning but not purpose? That doesn't make sense so "fake" is out.

I can't even think of anything for DESIVO.

OK, let's read through it again. So, the essay doesn't seem to be just talking about the role of purpose and meaning but who can assign it. It also seems to say that people can't really assign true values of meaning. So who can?

Well, this essay was posted as a result of a conversation about God so maybe the essay is saying God is the only one who can assign meaning.

Suddenly, it becomes easier to look at the meanings of SILREN and DESIVO. They seem to be describing qualities of God.

So, what are qualities that God is supposed to possess? Well, the essay talks about Gods brain (I guess mind would work better here so let's change RUTIN from brain to mind). God's mind is supposed to be good but why would evil be involved in meaning and purpose? OK, what else?

All-knowing. God is supposed to be all-knowing. So his knowledge is infinite. Let's try "infinite" for SILREN (DESIVO doesn't seem to be "infinite" because when is something "un-infinite-able?" That grammar is just way out.)

It doesn't fit. Humans are referred to as "INFINITE" and that's just wrong. OK, maybe I flipped the meaning. Let's try "finite" for SILREN

It fits! Whoo! OK, so besides being infinite, what else is God supposed to be? God is supposed to be perfect. So, let's try "perfect" for DESIVO.

No, that really doesn't work. OK, let's do another round of FIND & REPLACE, replacing SILREN and KIROM and brain for mind and see what we got.


I've often written of “PURPOSE/MEANING” just that way; as interchangeable and compound terms and IDEAs. Recently I have been wondering what difference there is between “PURPOSE” and “MEANING” (and not just on the level of quoting a dictionary).

Everything has a “PURPOSE” but not necessarily “MEANING.”

It seems that “PURPOSE” is intrinsic but “MEANING” extrinsic.

For example, a hockey stick has a PURPOSE: to slap pucks. Yet, a hockey stick that was given to me by Wayne Gretzkey has PURPOSE and now also has MEANING since I gave it MEANING.

Thus, stones, chihuahuas, tomatoes, quasars, humans, etc. all have PURPOSE as an automatic consequence of the fact that they exist.

Another example, a human BEING has a PURPOSE such as passing on DNA. Yet, MEANING does not seem like a kind of thing that we take for ourselves, nor that we can assign ourselves. Rather, it's something that's given unto us. Others bequeath it upon us.

For instance, when my wee offspring sees a word that she does not yet know, even if she can actually read it, she'll ask, “What's that mean?” If we spontaneously suffered worldwide amnesia then written texts would be without MEANING-- due to the agreed upon MEANING(s) that we've given them , we give MEANING to words even as the original author employed the words.

Moreover, it seems that whatever MEANINGs we've to other human BEINGs are ARBITRARY. Ultimately, if you assume absolute materialism; everything's with PURPOSE but without MEANING. This is because our PURPOSE is a function while MEANING is of a whole different category more like something ethereal--a IDEA.

Our PURPOSE is "we perform certain functions", and the function is done with after it serves a certain PURPOSE. However, if MEANING's something we give to ourselves or that other, FINITE humans, give to us then it's fleeting because one day--whether we are a Mahatma Ghandi or a Pope Urban II--everything and anything that we've ever thought, said or done will not MATTER in the least bit: wheteher tomorrow, in a month, in a solar year, in a decade, in an epoch, in a millennia--we'll be gone and nothing that we've ever thought, said or done will be the least bit IMPORTANT.

So, to recap: since PURPOSE's part of a process PURPOSE serves its, well, PURPOSE and is done with.

However, since MEANING's a IDEA that exists within a MIND--either that of others or our own (which I would be willing to entertain but do not accept) --once the MIND ceases to function the MEANING ceases and so we see that, ultimately, everything's without MEANING once the consoling delusion, or façade, of ARBITRARY are exposed for what they are--nothing. Well, perhaps a transient chemical reaction within the MIND of a transient organism, but I count that as nothing.

If we were not conscious, we would merely be pretty much what we are on a naturalistic/materialistic view: organisms who are moving about one day and worm food the next--worms which are merely organisms which are moving about one day and food for something else the next.

As an aside: I really wonder why we seek for, long for, live, for, strive for, die for, MEANING.

Ok. So. Let's suppose that MEANING truly does exist.

What's MEANING?
It's a IDEA.
What's a IDEA?
A IDEA is a CONCEPT.
Where does a CONCEPT exist?
A CONCEPT exist in a MIND.
Is MEANING non-FINITE or FINITE?
If it's FINITE then it's not truly MEANING (though it could be PURPOSE), so it's non-FINITE.
Does MEANING DESIVO or is it unDESIVOable?
If it DESIVOs then it's not MEANING (“DESIVO” here meaning from MEANING to something else and not just a DESIVO within the original MEANING in which case it's still MEANING).

Thus, MEANING is a non-FINITE and unDESIVOing CONCEPT that exists in a MIND.

What sort of MIND contains a non-FINITE and unDESIVOing CONCEPT?
A MIND that's non-FINITE and unDESIVOing.
What sort of BEING possesses a non-FINITE and unDESIVOing MIND?
A non-FINITE and unDESIVOing BEING.

Therefore, while everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-FINITE and unDESIVOing BEING can give us MEANING.


OK, one more post to finish this out.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644079 - Tue May 12 2009 10:17 AM

OK, actually, I got nothing else. Nothing else is coming to mind.

All I got so far is this:

RECTOP: purpose
MISSOM: meaning
PARALOC: being
KIROM: arbitrary
SIMDAR: idea
ATROS: matter
ATRAS: important
RUTIN: mind
RUTEL: concept
SILREN: finite
DESIVO: ?

So 10 out of 11 words. That's good, right? Plus, I got most of the meaning out of the essay or at least I think I did.

I think this exercise killed my brain. I'm gonna take a nap. Possibly for a couple of days.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
A different take new
      #644127 - Sat May 16 2009 04:08 PM

Alright, so Jack's got a vote in for

RECTOP: purpose
MISSOM: meaning
PARALOC: being
KIROM: arbitrary
SIMDAR: idea
ATROS: matter
ATRAS: important
RUTIN: mind (brain)
RUTEL: concept
SILREN: finite
DESIVO: ?

I'm countervoting for

RECTOP: potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do
MISSOM: a kind of KIROM (a non-concept)
PARALOC: A variety of human.
KIROM: things which are not/which do not exist (nothing)
SIMDAR: idea
ATROS: change
ATRAS: altered
RUTIN: A RUTEL-container
RUTEL: An idea-like thing
SILREN: real/exists, in the sense of having the capacity/function of interacting in a meaningful way with the world
DESIVO: No expectation to get this one from the text, so I cheat - it's something like 'improve' ;)

Here's how I started looking at it...

Someone, elsewhere, said:
I've often written of “RECTOP/MISSOM” just that way; as interchangeable and compound terms and SIMDARs. Recently I have been wondering what difference there is between “RECTOP” and “MISSOM” (and not just on the level of quoting a dictionary).

Everything has a “RECTOP” but not necessarily “MISSOM.”


I think this line, right here, disqualifies RECTOP from being 'purpose'. Not everything is an intentionally created artifact, and those are the only things I know of which have a purpose. Now, perhaps whatever RECTOP is supposed to be, the original writer would call 'purpose', but I'm not trying to figure out what words they would have used to make sense to themselves, I'm trying to figure out what concepts they're trying to convey. The result may not make for pretty reading - for example, everything does have a "potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do"... which the original writer might call 'purpose' or I might call 'functional capacity', but since the word 'purpose' is not associated for me with a concept which 'everything has', it's not an ok drop-in for RECTOP.

That said, I'll concede that, so far, MISSOM=meaning is a candidate from my perspective... though I think there are people who say that "Everything has meaning", so I don't think it's a very strong candidate.

On the other hand, RECTOP="potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do" and MISSOM="value for exchange, replacement, or creation attached to something by one or more people" do fit what they've been described as so far.


Someone, elsewhere, said:

It seems that “RECTOP” is intrinsic but “MISSOM” extrinsic.


Here I think we run farther afoul of the MISSOM=meaning proposal, since for some people, 'meaning' is definitely an intrinsic property. There's a good chance that there may not be a nice drop-in word for MISSOM, either, but up to this point my suggestion of something along the lines of MISSOM="value for exchange, replacement, or creation attached to something by one or more people" does still hold up.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
For example, a hockey stick has a RECTOP: to slap pucks. Yet, a hockey stick that was given to me by Wayne Gretzkey has RECTOP and now also has MISSOM since I gave it MISSOM.

Thus, stones, chihuahuas, tomatoes, quasars, humans, etc. all have RECTOP as an automatic consequence of the fact that they exist.


Further support that RECTOP isn't 'purpose': quasars with a 'purpose'? Not something I'd say unless I was in the middle of making a joke.

Someone, elsewhere, said:

Another example, a human PARALOC has a RECTOP such as passing on DNA. Yet, MISSOM does not seem like a kind of thing that we take for ourselves, nor that we can assign ourselves. Rather, it's something that's given unto us. Others bequeath it upon us.


So, apparently MISSOM is supposed to be something that 'we' can have... albeit not voluntarily. If there's a way to legitimately say that I have meaning, it's almost certainly going to be something I took on or assigned myself, rather than something that others dumped on me, so another point against MISSOM being 'meaning', at least as I understand the concept.

That said, this also stretches my 'value' take on MISSOM a bit. I'm neither an actuary nor a slave trader, so the idea of assigning such value/MISSOM to humans is reasonably foreign to me... but at the same time, every time a decision is made to tax X amount for safety regulation Y aimed at saving an average of Z lives, I guess there's effectively a value/MISSOM being set, so while stretched, my suggestion isn't yet broken.

I agree that 'human being' reads just fine here, and fits in context as a choice of word-noises, but I'll withhold judgement on whether PARALOC (when not prefaced with 'human') continues to make sense.

Someone, elsewhere, said:

For instance, when my wee offspring sees a word that she does not yet know, even if she can actually read it, she'll ask, “What's that mean?” If we spontaneously suffered worldwide amnesia then written texts would be without MISSOM-- due to the agreed upon MISSOM(s) that we've given them , we give MISSOM to words even as the original author employed the words.


I can totally understand replacing MISSOM with 'meaning' in this location... but that would indicate it's a very different kind of 'meaning' than the 'meaning' of a cloud or the 'meaning' of a person - words are intentionally constructed symbols, clouds not so much. Unless we're going to accuse the original author of equivocating between different definitions of a word (an ungenerous thing to do), I think this is pretty much the last nail in the coffin for the MISSOM=meaning suggestion.

The MISSOM-as-value take still holds up so far, though, since the ability to say "I feel this written text is worth twenty pieces of green paper" or "I would work five hours in order to acquire that written text" depend on knowing something about the contents of the text, so worldwide amnesia would royally mess up both personal and agreed-upon valuations. Granted, the bit about giving value/weight/worth to words 'even as the original author employed the words' is a bit hard to make sense of, but at the very least it doesn't support the 'meaning' interpretation: look at all the contradictory interpretations of Judeo-Christian holy texts and you'll see that 'we' don't give meaning to the words in the same way the author gave meaning... or, at least, most of us don't.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
Moreover, it seems that whatever MISSOMs we've to other human PARALOCs are KIROM. Ultimately, if you assume absolute materialism; everything's with RECTOP but without MISSOM. This is because our RECTOP is a function while MISSOM is of a whole different category more like something ethereal--a SIMDAR.


So far, KIROM=aribtrary and SIMDAR=idea seem to fit. I'm hesitant to say that ideas are 'ethereal', but I'll give the original author a little poetic license on this one. As for our "property which goes away if everyone gets amnesia" to other human whatevers... arbitrary is probably a reasonable word for such a vanish-able property. Not the only one, however.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
Our RECTOP is "we perform certain functions", and the function is done with after it serves a certain RECTOP. However, if MISSOM's something we give to ourselves or that other, SILREN humans, give to us then it's fleeting because one day--whether we are a Mahatma Ghandi or a Pope Urban II--everything and anything that we've ever thought, said or done will not ATROS in the least bit: wheteher tomorrow, in a month, in a solar year, in a decade, in an epoch, in a millennia--we'll be gone and nothing that we've ever thought, said or done will be the least bit ATRAS.


I'm curious what this "SILREN" term is about. The suggestion of 'finite' proposes a term that, when used in carefully controlled mathematical settings, is very useful, but tends to be nonsensically used anywhere else I've seen it, so I'm not willing to accept it without substantial refinement and clarification. So far, all that I think can be said about it is that it is something that applies to at least some other humans. Maybe all, maybe not all. It could just as well be "Brown-haired", though. I think that given the context, a case could be made for SILREN="identifiable as an intent-ful agent only during the span of up to a dozen decades"... which might be what some people mean by 'finite' but is definitely a lot more specific.

Saying that things don't matter or aren't important simply because they're in the past, or because the person who did them is dead, does not match up at all with what I'd consider mattering or important. Nuclear weapons that went off, and the actions of people involved to make them go off, in the 1940s? Fiercely important. Planetary accretion that put the Earth at a particular distance from the sun? Nobody alive can honestly say that doesn't matter.

So, for the ATR- words, I'll counter-propose that ATRAS=altered and ATROS=change. Given that MISSOM is something assigned and dependent on opinion, then if at any point you have a property which is reduced to a fact, it can't be MISSOM. People's views and opinions are only contingent things "in the now"... once they're in the past (and especially once the person is dead and gone) they're simply a matter of static fact, and what was once a MISSOM is now merely a matter of historical record... no longer a MISSOM, because it's no longer subject to change or alteration. That is to say, MISSOM itself is something fleeting.


Someone, elsewhere, said:
So, to recap: since RECTOP's part of a process RECTOP serves its, well, RECTOP and is done with.

However, since MISSOM's a SIMDAR that exists within a RUTIN--either that of others or our own (which I would be willing to entertain but do not accept) --once the RUTIN ceases to function the MISSOM ceases and so we see that, ultimately, everything's without MISSOM once the consoling delusion, or façade, of KIROM are exposed for what they are--nothing. Well, perhaps a transient chemical reaction within the RUTIN of a transient organism, but I count that as nothing.


There's "KIROM" again. Apparently "KIROM"s are illusory, consoling delusions, next to nothing, and transient epiphenomena associated only with certain kinds of life. That's in addition to the earlier information that "MISSOMS we have to other human PARALOCS" are also KIROM(s?).

The 'arbitrary' take on KIROM doesn't fit too well grammatically here, nor does it fit meaning-wise. Things which are arbitrary are not inherently illusory. They are not inherently 'consoling delusions'. As best we know, the outcome of certain subatomic processes are arbitrary... which does not make them transient chemical reactions within organisms of any sort.

At this point, it seems like KIROM='persistent social structures akin to religion' might be a useful direction for substitution. On the one hand (from the earlier reference), saying that "whatever fleeting-memory-retained-properties we have to other human thingies are basically religions"... well, it's not exactly what I'd call religion, but if we're talking about a broad category of social structures (called KIROM) which are defined by their property of being collections of MISSOMS had to PARALOCs, it could make sense. Such social structures could certainly be seen as 'transient chemical reactions' within some part of 'transient organisms'... though calling them nothing would be to deny a whole lot of history (or have a weird take on what 'nothing' means.)

That said, there is actually a clear statement of what KIROM (an intrinsic plural, apparently) are -- nothing. Or, for the list, KIROM="things which are not".

Also, this part seems to contradict the earlier idea that "MISSOM" is something agreed-upon. Why should a certain "MISSOM" stop being agreed upon just because one of the agreeing parties kicks the bucket and their "RUTIN" (whatever that is) presumably ceased to function? Generally, there's other people out there to carry on the agreement. Sure, if there's only one person in the world left who thinks something has a certain "MISSOM", then if they die, that "MISSOM" vanishes with them... but since "MISSOM" is supposed to be something agreed-upon, once you're down to one person it's not really a "MISSOM" anymore, is it?

Apparently, this leads to the idea that nothing actually has any "MISSOM" (it being a self-contradictory concept), which is in accordance with the author's earlier statement that MISSOMS are KIROM - things which are not. (Well, MISSOMS that we have to certain PARALOCS are KIROM... but if all MISSOMS are KIROM, then any specified group of MISSOMS are KIROM as well.)

With that, I abandon my suggestion that MISSOM is a form of agreed-upon value, since that's not a non-concept.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
If we were not conscious, we would merely be pretty much what we are on a naturalistic/materialistic view: organisms who are moving about one day and worm food the next--worms which are merely organisms which are moving about one day and food for something else the next.

As an aside: I really wonder why we seek for, long for, live, for, strive for, die for, MISSOM.


That's a big question. I wouldn't agree that everyone seeks for non-concepts AND longs for non-concepts AND lives for non-concepts AND strives for non-concepts AND dies for non-concepts... but history is riddled with people who do one or more of the items on the list. Why anyone would have non-concepts be a significant part of their life is something I'd like to know... I suspect in most cases they don't realize they're fixated on non-concepts, but sometimes I think it's the case they realize what they're centered on is a contradiction, and persist in it none the less.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
Ok. So. Let's suppose that MISSOM truly does exist.


Given that MISSOM has been pretty much established as a self-contradictory non-concept, I can only assume that this is like when Pentagon John says "Ok. So. Let's suppose that one truly does equal zero." It's an invitation to join into an exploration of a meaningless and content-free world and see what kind of wonders you can achieve when you check your mind at the door.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
What's MISSOM?
It's a SIMDAR.
What's a SIMDAR?
A SIMDAR is a RUTEL.
Where does a RUTEL exist?
A RUTEL exist in a RUTIN.



We've seen SIMDAR before... and saying that non-concepts are ideas does still work. I balk at saying "ideas are concepts", though, without a lot more specificity. Just swapping out SIMDAR for idea and RUTEL for concept doesn't make the text any more clear... I just wonder what the author means by 'idea' and 'concept' rather than wondering what is meant by 'SIMDAR' and 'RUTEL'.

I'm willing to say it seems clear that a "RUTIN" is some kind of container for "RUTEL"s, and that a "RUTEL" is an abstract collection of things of some sort, among which can be found "SIMDAR"s, but that's about as much as I think can really be inferred at this point.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
Is MISSOM non-SILREN or SILREN?
If it's SILREN then it's not truly MISSOM (though it could be RECTOP), so it's non-SILREN.



Ok, so "SILREN" applies to some other humans and possibly to both "RECTOP" and "MISSOM" as well. At least, the question of whether "SILREN" applies to "MISSOM" is supposed to be a meaningful one. Since MISSOM is a non-concept, the question of whether /anything/ applies to it or not is equally meaningful, so both "brown haired" and "identifiable as an intent-ful agent only during the span of up to a dozen decades" are still (trivially) in the running for SILREN. Indeed, if something is brown-haired then it's not truly a non-concept, and if something is identifiable as any sort of agent, it's not truly a non-concept... so that fits so far.

At the same time, it's also possible that a SILREN thing could be RECTOP. Recalling that Jack's initial suggestion of 'finite' is too vague and ambiguous to be a candidate for SILREN, we want to find things which can A> have a property which also applies to at least some humans B> which is a property that everything (including the property itself) has as an intrinsic part of existing, and C> is some kind of function.

Starting at the simplest point of intersection, I'm going to propose that SILREN="real/exists, in the sense of having the capacity/function of interacting in a meaningful way with the world". That matches up with everything we've seen so far. Only 'real' humans matter in an earlier paragrph. Alleged MISSOM (non-things) which are SILREN (real/meaningful) are not truly MISSOM... so MISSOM is non-SILREN: non-things/things which don't exist - aren't real/don't exist. That's just about tautologically true!

On a different track: I'm concerned that here in the conclusions/argument section of the quoted material is a brand-new assertion about "MISSOM"/"RECTOP" - that there is a 'true "MISSOM"' which is non-"SILREN", and that "SILREN" "MISSOM"s are 'not true "MISSOM"'. It's not cool to go redefining terms in the middle of an argument. If I've accurately pegged the meanings on SILREN and MISSOM, it's not a big problem because this just amounts to a restatement... but if I haven't, then the original author is being disingenuous here.

Someone, elsewhere, said:
Does MISSOM DESIVO or is it unDESIVOable?
If it DESIVOs then it's not MISSOM (“DESIVO” here meaning from MISSOM to something else and not just a DESIVO within the original MISSOM in which case it's still MISSOM).



Again, another redefinition mid-argument. Also, something about the sentence just reads... weird. I suspect that this is not only a mid-stride redefinition, but also a case of using the incompletely defined term itself in the process of redefining it. Don't get me wrong, I adore properly constructed recursive definitions! I just don't appreciate improperly constructed ones.

I think Jack's lack of success here is due to muddled thought on the author's part. I don't have any reasonable stab for DESIVO either.


Someone, elsewhere, said:
Thus, MISSOM is a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTEL that exists in a RUTIN.

What sort of RUTIN contains a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTEL?
A RUTIN that's non-SILREN and unDESIVOing.
What sort of PARALOC possesses a non-SILREN and unDESIVOing RUTIN?
A non-SILREN and unDESIVOing PARALOC.



Ah-ha! Apparently a "RUTIN" (a "RUTEL" container) is something that can be possessed, and they come in different varieties. And, moreover, there are some kind of discriminatory ownership restirctions - only some sorts of "PARALOC"s can possesses a "RUTIN" that is unable to "DESIVO" and isn't "SILREN".

Moreover, "SILREN"ness is something that can apparently apply or not apply to a "RUTIN".

Well, saying that real-ness may or may not apply to a RUTIN (RUTEL container) doesn't say much about them (and curse the ongoing definition of new terms in the middle of what should be a conclusion that brings things together!) aside from that perhaps you can think of RUTINs that don't actually exist. Some PARALOCs can't have an un-real RUTIN, but apparently some can do so.

There also seems to be some sort of transitive container effect going on. That "non-things are non-real and unDESIVOing RUTELS in a RUTEL-bag (RUTIN)" apparently prompts the question "What sort of RUTEL-bag contains an unreal and unDESIVOing RUTEL?" Not only is a non-thing a RUTEL, but they are an unreal/meaninless/inconsequential variety of RUTEL. That, for me, lays to rest the idea that a RUTEL is a concept, because I think plenty of people have perfectly real concepts about stuff that is meaningless/nonexistent. They may not be useful concepts, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't exist at all.

Moreover, only unreal RUTINs can contain unreal RUTELs... well, that I'd buy. Nothing (real) can (meaningfully) contain things that don't exist, but if you pluck your RUTEL-bags out of la-la land, they can contain books and barks and blue and the best friend of the abstract concept of names which are not names... no problem.

Now, either"SILREN" is not yet defined, or it means something like 'real', and in either case this doesn't convey much about what kind of "PARALOC" can own certain kinds of "RUTIN", but it does at least indicate that some "PARALOC"s can be "SILREN" (i.e. certain other humans) while it's also sensical for a "PARALOC" to be non-"SILREN" (at least, it may be sensical for "PARALOC"s incapable of "DESIVO"... whatever that means... so perhaps this is a clever way of saying 'no "PARALOC"s can own a non-"SILREN" and un"DESIVO"able "RUTIN"'?)


Someone, elsewhere, said:
Therefore, while everything and everyone has a RECTOP only the non-SILREN and unDESIVOing PARALOC can give us MISSOM.


Before even worrying about "SILREN"ness, I suspect that the human "PARALOC" certainly doesn't fit the bill for 'the unDESIVOing "PARALOC"', nor does the broader notion of 'the living "PARALOC"'. I could go on wild ventures that the 'newly dead "PARALOC"' (insofar is you can call anything non-living a "PARALOC") is still going to be decomposing, but possibly this works for 'the sufficiently-long-ago-dead "PARALOC"'. No more physical "DESIVO"s, and you might stretch a bit and say the dead "PARALOC" can be said to exist (be a "PARALOC") in the memory of the living "PARALOC". If enough time has passed, that amounts to either 'forgotten'... which I'll discount as a form of "PARALOC"-in-memory... or 'ossified to a static but memorable footnote that is reliably passed down through the generations'.

All that is moot, though, since saying that only non-SILREN PARALOCS can give MISSOM indicates that, whatever PARALOCS are, only ones which aren't actually real can bestow things which are non-things.

That's nothing from nothing.

Um... Big whoop?
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
My rewrite: new
      #644449 - Tue Jun 02 2009 05:32 PM

So, my rewritten version:

Someone, elsewhere, said:

I've often written of “‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››/‹‹a kind of non-concept››” just that way; as interchangeable and compound terms and ‹‹idea››s. Recently I have been wondering what difference there is between “‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››” and “‹‹a kind of non-concept››” (and not just on the level of quoting a dictionary).

Everything has a “‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››” but not necessarily “‹‹a kind of non-concept››.”

It seems that “‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››” is intrinsic but “‹‹a kind of non-concept››” extrinsic.

For example, a hockey stick has a ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››: to slap pucks. Yet, a hockey stick that was given to me by Wayne Gretzkey has ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› and now also has ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› since I gave it ‹‹a kind of non-concept››.

Thus, stones, chihuahuas, tomatoes, quasars, humans, etc. all have ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› as an automatic consequence of the fact that they exist.

Another example, a human ‹‹A variety of human›› has a ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› such as passing on DNA. Yet, ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› does not seem like a kind of thing that we take for ourselves, nor that we can assign ourselves. Rather, it's something that's given unto us. Others bequeath it upon us.

For instance, when my wee offspring sees a word that she does not yet know, even if she can actually read it, she'll ask, “What's that mean?” If we spontaneously suffered worldwide amnesia then written texts would be without ‹‹a kind of non-concept››-- due to the agreed upon ‹‹a kind of non-concept››(s) that we've given them , we give ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› to words even as the original author employed the words.

Moreover, it seems that whatever ‹‹a kind of non-concept››s we've to other human ‹‹A variety of human››s are ‹‹things which are not/which do not exist››. Ultimately, if you assume absolute materialism; everything's with ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› but without ‹‹a kind of non-concept››. This is because our ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› is a function while ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› is of a whole different category more like something ethereal--a ‹‹idea››.

Our ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› is "we perform certain functions", and the function is done with after it serves a certain ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››. However, if ‹‹a kind of non-concept››'s something we give to ourselves or that other, ‹‹real›› humans, give to us then it's fleeting because one day--whether we are a Mahatma Ghandi or a Pope Urban II--everything and anything that we've ever thought, said or done will not ‹‹change›› in the least bit: wheteher tomorrow, in a month, in a solar year, in a decade, in an epoch, in a millennia--we'll be gone and nothing that we've ever thought, said or done will be the least bit ‹‹altered››.

So, to recap: since ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››'s part of a process ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› serves its, well, ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› and is done with.

However, since ‹‹a kind of non-concept››'s a ‹‹idea›› that exists within a ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container››--either that of others or our own (which I would be willing to entertain but do not accept) --once the ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container›› ceases to function the ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› ceases and so we see that, ultimately, everything's without ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› once the consoling delusion, or façade, of ‹‹things which are not/which do not exist›› are exposed for what they are--nothing. Well, perhaps a transient chemical reaction within the ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container›› of a transient organism, but I count that as nothing.

If we were not conscious, we would merely be pretty much what we are on a naturalistic/materialistic view: organisms who are moving about one day and worm food the next--worms which are merely organisms which are moving about one day and food for something else the next.

As an aside: I really wonder why we seek for, long for, live, for, strive for, die for, ‹‹a kind of non-concept››.

Ok. So. Let's suppose that ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› truly does exist.

What's ‹‹a kind of non-concept››?
It's a ‹‹idea››.
What's a ‹‹idea››?
A ‹‹idea›› is a ‹‹idea-like things››.
Where does a ‹‹idea-like things›› exist?
A ‹‹idea-like things›› exist in a ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container››.
Is ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› non-‹‹real›› or ‹‹real››?
If it's ‹‹real›› then it's not truly ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› (though it could be ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››), so it's non-‹‹real››.
Does ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› ‹‹improve›› or is it un‹‹improve››able?
If it ‹‹improve››s then it's not ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› (“‹‹improve››” here meaning from ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› to something else and not just a ‹‹improve›› within the original ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› in which case it's still ‹‹a kind of non-concept››).

Thus, ‹‹a kind of non-concept›› is a non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing ‹‹idea-like things›› that exists in a ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container››.

What sort of ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container›› contains a non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing ‹‹idea-like things››?
A ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container›› that's non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing.
What sort of ‹‹A variety of human›› possesses a non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing ‹‹‹‹idea-like things››-container››?
A non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing ‹‹A variety of human››.

Therefore, while everything and everyone has a ‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do›› only the non-‹‹real›› and un‹‹improve››ing ‹‹A variety of human›› can give us ‹‹a kind of non-concept››.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Jack Dawkins
Member #4704
Posts: 225
Re: Inferring meaning from context <final file in DEBATE> new
      #644455 - Tue Jun 02 2009 09:55 PM

I went through your translation notes and two things bugged me. One is that the final translation isn't very readable, which one would hope to get from a translation.

For example, "Everything has a “‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››” but not necessarily “‹‹a kind of non-concept››" is almost up there with "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Meanwhile, my version reads "Everything has a “PURPOSE” but not necessarily “MEANING" which is much more readable. Yes, the translated terms are different but what exactly is "a kind of non-concept"? If a term isn't well-defined, using it when trying to write a translation just makes the final product difficult to muddle through.

Another example is "...a human ‹‹A variety of human››..." which makes "a variety of human" look like a poor translation of PARALOC as it forms a redundant phrase. This is similar to "A ‹‹idea›› is a ‹‹idea-like things››" which is pretty much the definition of a redundant phrase.

It just doesn't seem very readable, the way you translated the text.

On a complete different point in this topic, you also didn't seem to discuss the meaning of the text you posted. It seems like you really couldn't discuss it because the translation you used eliminates most of the meaning (OK, so it's the same point).

I want to end this post on a way to promote further posting in this thread but nothing is coming to mind, so hopefully you can think of more to say than I can, Kaylo, because it would be a shame if we merely just argued about why we don't like each other's translation (which unfortunately, this post by me seems to be. I had hoped to write something better but it escapes me at present).
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Ichak
Member #4378
Posts: 441
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644457 - Tue Jun 02 2009 11:13 PM

Huh...threads are being consolidated in Meet?

Anyway, if rectop is 'purpose' and missom is 'meaning', it seems to me that desivo would be 'reason' or something very close to it.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Hollis
Member #13
Posts: 30
PA #3
Re: Inferring meaning from context <final file in DEBATE> new
      #644458 - Wed Jun 03 2009 12:06 AM

"While everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-FINITE and unDECEIVEing BEING can give us MEANING."

I don't know if there is a "right answer" to this, but Jack's solution made perfect sense to me when I swapped out 'DESIO' with the similar-sounding DECEIVE.

I confess that Dr. Kaylo's solution seemed overly complex.

--------------------
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
Dr Kaylo Epsilon
Member #1906
Posts: 1084
Home Thread 
PA #398
Re: Inferring meaning from context new
      #644466 - Wed Jun 03 2009 09:13 PM

Jack Dawkins said:
I went through your translation notes and two things bugged me.

One is that the final translation isn't very readable, which one would hope to get from a translation.


I take partial responsibility for that, but not full responsibility. Some of the problem is that the author's original text uses the same words with different meanings in different places, but I was providing the text as if they were not equivocating. Garbage in, garbage out. That said, by eliminating even more semantic content from my version (i.e. using words like 'function' rather than '‹‹potentially empty collection of things which it can do or which it can be used to do››') I could make it a lot more readable.

but what exactly is "a kind of non-concept"? If a term isn't well-defined, using it when trying to write a translation just makes the final product difficult to muddle through.


Your question is almost exactly what I was trying to figure out. The original author was using a word, which I provided as "MISSOM", and based on the properties they supplied (some things but not all things have MISSOM, MISSOM are KIROM, KIROM are nothing, etc) I couldn't tell you exactly what MISSOM is. I can narrow it down a bit... MISSOM is a kind of KIROM, and as KIROM are nothing, MISSOM is some kind of nothing (whatever the heck that means)... but I agree that the reader is still left wondering what exactly is MISSOM.

Another example is "...a human ‹‹A variety of human››..." which makes "a variety of human" look like a poor translation of PARALOC as it forms a redundant phrase. This is similar to "A ‹‹idea›› is a ‹‹idea-like things››" which is pretty much the definition of a redundant phrase.


Wholeheartedly agreed. I don't believe that the author's writing provided enough information to unambiguously and demonstrably nail down PARALOC to anything more specific than something like ‹‹A variety of human››. And since that particular tidbit of information /came from/ the phrase "a human PARALOC", it is not surprising that when the replacement is being used in the spot where it was essentially defined, it'll be awfully redundant.

On a complete different point in this topic, you also didn't seem to discuss the meaning of the text you posted. It seems like you really couldn't discuss it because the translation you used eliminates most of the meaning (OK, so it's the same point).


This is an excellent point, and one I wish the original author could come to. My translation - one made from the perspective of a person who isn't making presuppositions about what MISSOM or PARALOC or all these other terms mean and who isn't assuming that all people automatically assign the same meaning to the words - ended up concluding that the original document was pretty devoid of meaning. If you don't leap to the conclusion that you know what the author is talking about already, and just try to figure out how their concepts work with each other, you find that some of their concepts are probably self-contradictory and intrinsically meaningless, and that there isn't much meaning in their conclusion as it's based on those very self-contradictory, meaningless concepts.

If I tell you that when I say you have YEO red things I mean that A> you have a red thing, and B> you also have a different red thing, I've just started down the road to making up a new word for 'two'. If I tell you that when I say you have DLK red things I mean that A> you have one or more red things and B> you do not have one or more red things... in that case, any translation you come up with for DLK should "eliminate most of the meaning". It's not really elimination, though, it's more a case of you seeing there's not meaning there in the first place. That's whether my original text had been using "holy" for DLK or "nine" for DLK. Whatever word I was using, if it's supposed to mean two contradictory things, the concept I'm trying to use has a problem.

Similarly, the concepts the original post was trying to use had some problems. They were used in inconsistent and contradictory ways, and the original post didn't have enough understandable structure to make their meaning (not the original word, mind you, but the meaning behind those words) clear.


My "not the original word" bit is important, because your (Jack's) choices for the words almost exactly match the choices the original poster made. In terms of a syntactic analysis to restore the original text, you did a great job, and I commend you for it.

The problem is, your restoration leaves me no closer to understanding what the original author actually is trying to convey when they use the word 'purpose' or the word 'meaning'. I know what I mean by those terms, but it is clear that they do not mean what I mean (Everything has a purpose? Not in any sense I can make sense of!) Similarly, I am no closer to understanding what the original author is intending by their use of 'mind/brain' or their use of 'concept' or especially their use of 'finite'. I'm a multiple-postgraduate-degree bearing mathematician, and I know a lot of useful and meaningful ways to use the term 'finite', but the original author's usage doesn't match a single one of them.

I assume that the original author was actually trying to get some point across, and that they were trying to make some argument. Using the substitutions provided by Jack, you get back almost exactly the original text... but that doesn't serve to reveal what argument the original author was trying to make, or what point they actually thought they were making. Sure, we can say "While everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-FINITE and unIMPROVEing BEING can give us MEANING" or "While everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-FINITE and unREASONing BEING can give us MEANING" or "While everything and everyone has a PURPOSE only the non-FINITE and unDECEIVEing BEING can give us MEANING", the questions still remain:

What does the author want to convey when they use the word PURPOSE? (It's certainly not anything I understand the word to mean.)
What does the author want to convey when they use the word FINITE? (It's not being used to convey any well-defined concept of 'finite' that I've seen.)
What does the author want to convey when they use the word BEING? (I've yet to encounter a non-contradictory application of that word which allows a being to be non-finite, or absolutely unimproveing/unreasoning/undeceiveing.)
What does the author want to convey when they use the word MEANING? (If my own 'meaning' for MEANING is plugged in, their text becomes problematically inconsistent.)

It's not enough to just say "Oh, well PURPOSE means purpose, and FINITE means finite, and so forth". If PURPOSE is supposed to mean purpose, then I'm sorry but the original text is flawed and nearly meaningless from the first line. If FINITE is supposed to mean finite, then I'm sorry but the original text is written in abject ignorance.

Perhaps these things truly are the case, but keep in mind that I'm trying to assume the original author actually has something worthwhile to communicate... so the problem has to be that they're using words to mean different things. PURPOSE/MISSOM means whatever it means. I don't know what it means, but I can at least tell that it isn't what I would call 'purpose' (or 'cabbage', or 'upside-down', or 'gravitational potential'), so rather than be confusing and use the term PURPOSE, I prefer to go with MISSOM and infer the intended meaning.

Sadly, this may result in a terribly awkward-to-read 'translation'. Saying "When a thing and another thing like it and another thing like both of them are collected into one location, you may say that there are ‹‹the quantity achieved by increasing, by a lone item, a collection whose size is ‹‹the quantity achieved by increasing, by a lone item, a collection whose size is ‹‹the quantity achieved by having a collection consisting of a lone item›››››› of those items" is hideously cumbersome! However, unless we agree on a word like THREE, however, just saying that the proper translation is 'three' doesn't help communicate much.

So, Jack, well done on restoring the original choice of letters... your methods of syntactic analysis coupled with some rough (but insufficient) semantic matching did a good job at that. But I'm still wondering what those words mean.
Remind Me!   Opens new window with Post ID URL in browser address bar  
Show Signatures  Hide Signatures
 
1