How meaning can exist in the world

Quote:We are matter and consciousness at once--fundamentally united at root as the imaginative mythmaking experience.

I wish my memory were better. I know a CC posted something about the possibility of universeal intelligence, but that can not be obvious without a system for expressing the intelligence. Manifest reality being the system of the expressing that intelligence, and necessitating our capaciety for thought to be conscious intelligence.

(Nov 29, 2016 07:36 PM)Carol Wrote:

Quote:We are matter and consciousness at once--fundamentally united at root as the imaginative mythmaking experience.

I wish my memory were better.  I know a CC posted something about the possibility of universeal intelligence, but that can not be obvious without a system for expressing the intelligence.  Manifest reality being the system of the expressing that intelligence, and necessitating our capaciety for thought to be conscious intelligence.

On some level I think it is true that information is the basic substrate of reality. That information exists in a knowable form both outside of us and inside of us is a basic premise of our lives. Everything that exists can be reduced to information that is basically all interconnected, and we are information accessing entities that are part of this informative matrix.

“And a new philosophy emerged called quantum physics, which suggest that the individual’s function is to inform and be informed. You really exist only when you’re in a field sharing and exchanging information. You create the realities you inhabit.”
― Timothy Leary, Chaos & Cyber Culture

(Nov 29, 2016 09:56 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 29, 2016 07:36 PM)Carol Wrote:

Quote:We are matter and consciousness at once--fundamentally united at root as the imaginative mythmaking experience.

I wish my memory were better.  I know a CC posted something about the possibility of universeal intelligence, but that can not be obvious without a system for expressing the intelligence.  Manifest reality being the system of the expressing that intelligence, and necessitating our capaciety for thought to be conscious intelligence.

On some level I think it is true that information is the basic substrate of reality. That information exists in a knowable form both outside of us and inside of us is a basic premise of our lives. Everything that exists can be reduced to information that is basically all interconnected, and we are information accessing entities.

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but all of reality can not be reduced to facts.  Facts tend to be pretty meaningless without feeling.  For example in a Kabalah book I read something about how God can not be all knowing because I can God can not have a human experience, and therefore, can not know the meaning of human experience.  Some things must be experienced to be known, and in such an argument, Jesus had to become human.  Now that is opening a can of worms, but I think it gets the question about meaning?   How meaningful are the elements of the universe without the word and the living experience?

Quote:I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but all of reality can not be reduced to facts. Facts tend to be pretty meaningless without feeling.

Whoever said feeling isn't a mode of information gathering? I empathize with someone's misery. It is a construct of my own feelings and perceptions. Have I not acquired information about that person I didn't have before?

(Nov 29, 2016 10:31 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but all of reality can not be reduced to facts.  Facts tend to be pretty meaningless without feeling.

Whoever said feeling isn't a mode of information gathering? I empathize with someone's misery. It is a construct of my own feelings and perceptions. Have I not acquired information about that person I didn't have before?

That's not a form of information gathering, it's a form of information processing. You gain factual information through your senses, and then you process that information in relation to when you've seen or felt those postures and expressions. You do not actually have new information other than your senses. To prove that, just consider your reaction to someone you don't know is acting. Based on the same info, you would be just as likely to empathize, like movies eliciting emotional response. So how you synthesize the actual information gathered by your senses may or may not be real information. And this vagary is one of processing, not gathering.

(Nov 29, 2016 11:23 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 29, 2016 10:31 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but all of reality can not be reduced to facts.  Facts tend to be pretty meaningless without feeling.

Whoever said feeling isn't a mode of information gathering? I empathize with someone's misery. It is a construct of my own feelings and perceptions. Have I not acquired information about that person I didn't have before?

That's not a form of information gathering, it's a form of information processing. You gain factual information through your senses, and then you process that information in relation to when you've seen or felt those postures and expressions. You do not actually have new information other than your senses. To prove that, just consider your reaction to someone you don't know is acting. Based on the same info, you would be just as likely to empathize, like movies eliciting emotional response. So how you synthesize the actual information gathered by your senses may or may not be real information. And this vagary is one of processing, not gathering.

Uh no. Consider the unemotional and non empathic perception of a person expressing misery. There is no cognition of the feelings behind the expressions. Just the non-feeling awareness of the gestures. Now consider the empathic experience of a person expressing misery. There is the immediate understanding of the source of those expressions. The empathy and the feelings provide a real context to understand the nature of the perceived expressions of misery. It is a depth of information gathering that is not accessible to the unfeeling percipient.

(Nov 29, 2016 11:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 29, 2016 11:23 PM)Syne Wrote: That's not a form of information gathering, it's a form of information processing. You gain factual information through your senses, and then you process that information in relation to when you've seen or felt those postures and expressions. You do not actually have new information other than your senses. To prove that, just consider your reaction to someone you don't know is acting. Based on the same info, you would be just as likely to empathize, like movies eliciting emotional response. So how you synthesize the actual information gathered by your senses may or may not be real information. And this vagary is one of processing, not gathering.

Uh no. Consider the unemotional and non empathic perception of a person expressing misery. There is no cognition of the feelings behind the expressions. Just the non-feeling awareness of the gestures. Now consider the empathic experience of a person expressing misery. There is the immediate understanding of the source of those expressions. The empathy and the feelings provide a real context to understand the nature of the perceived expressions of misery. It is a depth of information gathering that is not accessible to the unfeeling percipient.

You seem to be agreeing that empathy is not perceived information...that empathy relies on the feelings of the percipient, as an internal processing of the gathered perceptual info. When we talk about information, we are largely talking about knowledge, and epistemology does not justify empathy as knowledge.

(Nov 30, 2016 12:01 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 29, 2016 11:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 29, 2016 11:23 PM)Syne Wrote: That's not a form of information gathering, it's a form of information processing. You gain factual information through your senses, and then you process that information in relation to when you've seen or felt those postures and expressions. You do not actually have new information other than your senses. To prove that, just consider your reaction to someone you don't know is acting. Based on the same info, you would be just as likely to empathize, like movies eliciting emotional response. So how you synthesize the actual information gathered by your senses may or may not be real information. And this vagary is one of processing, not gathering.

Uh no. Consider the unemotional and non empathic perception of a person expressing misery. There is no cognition of the feelings behind the expressions. Just the non-feeling awareness of the gestures. Now consider the empathic experience of a person expressing misery. There is the immediate understanding of the source of those expressions. The empathy and the feelings provide a real context to understand the nature of the perceived expressions of misery. It is a depth of information gathering that is not accessible to the unfeeling percipient.

You seem to be agreeing that empathy is not perceived information...that empathy relies on the feelings of the percipient, as an internal processing of the gathered perceptual info. When we talk about information, we are largely talking about knowledge, and epistemology does not justify empathy as knowledge.

To the extent that knowledge is defined as true and justified belief, it does indeed justify empathy as a form of knowing. Things that are disparate and irrational without empathy become connected and sensible with empathy. It is a level of understanding and insight that adds to the perceived beyond just being the intake of discordant sensory stimuli. It is a form of knowing that adds to the informational depth of our experience.

(Nov 30, 2016 12:11 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 30, 2016 12:01 AM)Syne Wrote: You seem to be agreeing that empathy is not perceived information...that empathy relies on the feelings of the percipient, as an internal processing of the gathered perceptual info. When we talk about information, we are largely talking about knowledge, and epistemology does not justify empathy as knowledge.

To the extent that knowledge is defined as true and justified belief, it does indeed justify empathy as a form of knowing. Things that are disparate and irrational without empathy become connected and sensible with empathy. It is a level of understanding and insight that adds to the perceived beyond just being the intake of discordant sensory stimuli. It is a form of knowing that adds to the informational depth of our experience.

The simple fact that an actor, or even a sociopath, can fake an emotional state well enough to elicit empathy proves that empathetic assumption may not be true. And that which may not necessarily be true, cannot be justified as knowledge. While the assumption may very often be right, that is reliably coincidental, not knowledge.

Besides, what is it you even "know"? You recognize an emotional state and have a mirror neuronal response. That tells you nothing of the cause, nor does it even make something like grief or misery accord with an otherwise joyous environment. You don't possess any new information than what was perceived through the senses and recognized.

(Nov 30, 2016 01:34 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 30, 2016 12:11 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 30, 2016 12:01 AM)Syne Wrote: You seem to be agreeing that empathy is not perceived information...that empathy relies on the feelings of the percipient, as an internal processing of the gathered perceptual info. When we talk about information, we are largely talking about knowledge, and epistemology does not justify empathy as knowledge.

To the extent that knowledge is defined as true and justified belief, it does indeed justify empathy as a form of knowing. Things that are disparate and irrational without empathy become connected and sensible with empathy. It is a level of understanding and insight that adds to the perceived beyond just being the intake of discordant sensory stimuli. It is a form of knowing that adds to the informational depth of our experience.

The simple fact that an actor, or even a sociopath, can fake an emotional state well enough to elicit empathy proves that empathetic assumption may not be true. And that which may not necessarily be true, cannot be justified as knowledge. While the assumption may very often be right, that is reliably coincidental, not knowledge.

Besides, what is it you even "know"? You recognize an emotional state and have a mirror neuronal response. That tells you nothing of the cause, nor does it even make something like grief or misery accord with an otherwise joyous environment. You don't possess any new information than what was perceived through the senses and recognized.

I already told you what empathy allows you to know. It is the feelings behind an expression. Without it we are adrift in a wasteland of empty gestures and meaningless tonal shifts. Empathy allows us to access the emotional state of a person not itself given in the words and expressions. It is a form of information gathering no less than perception. And an actor illiciting empathy thru his acting doesn't mean empathy isn't informational anymore than a magician fooling an audience means perception isn't informational. People can always be deceived, but that doesn't make their faculties any less reliable as informative abilities.