Hi Krim
Problem is, is meaning for us limited in this way?
Has philosophy or religion ever been so limited?
What was the point of inventing god if not to turn
the question around the other way and ask on behalf
of god or the whole cosmos? mankind do you have any value?
DM
DM
No problem with any of that as long as you accept that
mechanism or probability are no less anthropocentric too,just
different analogies, often with aeasthetic reasons for preference
not any less anthropoligical really is it?
I agree experience has too much baggage, can we split it?
Proberience anyone? or even just inorganic preferences?
[Krimel]
All probability ever does is reduce uncertainty. Meaning is reduction in
uncertainty. Uncertainty is equivalent to pure randomness which is
equivalent to thermodynamic entropy. (Well, actually entropy is a subset
of
randomness.) We are biological engines that have evolved to be very good
at
detecting patterns, assessing probability and reducing uncertainty. But
creating meaning in this way only really applies to us. Meaning only has
relevance to me and mine. It is not a property or a thing that resides in
any particular.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
