Sentences have no meaning

back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
=== ref ===
http://groups.google.com/group/argunet-users/browse_thread/thread/3bd05a1ace47eafe
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a0a0d7d315b6bede
=== Senteces have not meaning ===
http://www.raherrmann.com/zsgs.zip or http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46925.htm, Robert A. Herrmann ,Professor of Mathematics (Ret,tenured), U. S. Naval Academy
:Scientific truth is obtained empirically from evidence, evidence that's gathered at the present time and that verifies specific theory predictions. But, due to the existence of the MA-model, scientific theories that describe events that may have occurred in the far fast or might occur in the far future have no scientific truth value. Such descriptions are not "true in reality," not partially true in reality, not 90%, 50%, 25% or any percentage "true in reality." You cannot associate the concept of truth as it is empirically determined by the scientific method with any of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy A word is judged to be polysemous if it has two senses of the word whose meanings are related. Since the vague concept of relatedness is the test for polysemy, judgments of polysemy can be very difficult to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and their intent, it is not possible to infer the meaning with confidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern This article does not cite any references or sources.
The Epicureans documenting their world view on Wikipedia don't formulate what they understand with "patternx" because they don't even cite a dictionary in the article2010-09-22. How would one differentiate between an actual patternx and something which only has the appearance of a pattern Dr. Howard Hershey at Automated_Selection, http://bit.ly/bkDtOd views design3 as subset of patternx.
The YEC world view is that everything is in terms of an order/disorder, pattern/design and cause/effect dichotomy sense. Thus HoWard1 world view is that order is subset of disorder, intentionality subset of unintended , light subset of darkness and truth subset of lies. The disconnect between the world views is what does either view actually mean with design/order and pattern/disorder. To comprehend what is meant with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/selectionx, the supporting lexicon of pattern/disorder , design/order , random and non-random must be documented using Berry's paradox style subscripts.
Patterns1 represent only themselves . Designs are Patterns2 that represent something other than themselves like DNA, bridges, horses and computers. There are different types of patternsx in the pattern and design1 and/or design2 sense. Design3 would be a known/seen designer such as a human designing the bridge(the bridge represents something other than itself). Design4 is the subscript for an unseen designer who is known though such as Christ. The symbols can be used to represent a designx or patternx concept depending on context and overarching religious belief system.
Synonyms for design is information, purpose, data, will , meaning, Irreducible_Functionality etc. Informational patterns(Designs1,2) is the symbolic representation of something other than itself. The theist position is that most(all?) design1,2,3,4 can be physically represented but representation of design doesn't constitute design,mind,volition or will itself because information is neither matter nor energy - Perry Marshall.
Rules of Revealment
RichardDawkins says that all design are only apparent design if the designer isn't seen/known. In laying down his
Rules of Revealment to the Designer, he made his position self-defeating because his sentence "I only have the appearance of design" has thus only the appearance of design itself and thus we can't believe anything he says - Mind_or_Matter.
Whatever is meant with selectionx will be in the context of a patternx and designx.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design This article needs additional citations for verification.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology) Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy) In idealist models of reality, the material world is either non-existent or is a secondary artifact of the "true" world of ideas.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random This article doesn't exist and the Wikipedia Epicureans won't allow its creation. They don't want to define what the materialist belief system understands under the rubric of non-random. Do they consider non-random as a synonym for design, volition and intent?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection This article does not cite any references or sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ".....The modern evolutionary synthesis ascribes the observed diversity of life to natural selection, in which some random genetic mutations are retained in the gene pool due to the non-random improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them...."
Dawkins speaks of non-random natural selection. There is no non-random article on Wikipedia to document what is meant with it. Non-random is usually used to represent volition,intent as in somebody did the selection or made a decision. Dawkins though isn't representing a volitional concept.
To resolve the fact that a large part of the entire English lexicon is polysemous, tag the words with subscripts as per the idea from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox . The words selectionx, fitnessx, designx, patternx, naturalx , artificialx, random and tautologyx are used in the current origins debate in various contexts. In order to document the world views projected with these words Berry's paradox style subscripts must be used. It allows us to avoid much of the ambiguity and crossed lines between the different world views using the same symbol strings.
http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links by poster http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/
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. - SentencesHaveNoMeaning
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/05/on_ontology_and_metaphysics_su.php wrote:
".....Ideas, whether "simple" or "complex" exist solely as semantic relations between individuals in language communities. They are originated at some time, evolve over time in response to various conditions and influences, and eventually will become extinct or atavistic. They have no ontology other than this. This means that every idea has a history, and only a history......"
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox as formulated arises because of systematic ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..." the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity. Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] To resolve one of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which may avoid them. More rigorously, this family of paradoxes can be resolved by incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their interpretation. The number not nameable1 in less than eleven words' may be nameable2 in less than eleven words under this scheme.[4]
Prof. Herrmann at http://www.raherrmann.com wrote ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".
This same logic should be extended to the word "tautology", name a 'necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1 as per Naming Conventions. Tautological expression Tautology2. Rhetorical tautology Tautology3 etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics states "...In mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable"...". In English the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - [(Agape, Phile or Eros (Eros is never used in the bible)]. By using subscripts we thus simulate the power of the Greek lexicon in English and other languages.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/02/21/the-ontological-fallacy/
".....The term ontological fallacy has great currency in social philosophy, where it is used to denote the mistake of assuming that because there is a term for something, like a social institution, that the object it denotes really exists. A similar couple of fallacies are Whitehead’s “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness”, in his Science and the Modern World, which he engaged against a certain kind of scientific realism, and Marcuse’s “Reification Fallacy” in One Dimensional Man...."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction or hypostatization , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
=== Random has no meaning ===
post 140: 
On Feb 22, 8:30 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> 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 <stephan...@gmail.com> 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" ?
=== pst.5 ===
=== 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
=== fdfdfdf ===
=== 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 <hershe...@yahoo.com> 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. 
> 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. 
=== Meaning no exact location ===
 
=== 100 ===
 
=== humpty ===
 
=== tit ===
 
=== kkkk ===
 
=== etetet ===
 
=== jjjjj ===
 
=== ljh ===
 
Category:TauTology