Perfection!

[TruthWorthy]

Perfection is a word.

"Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of humans—cannot.” Richard Rorty in Contingency, irony, and solidarity

Something clever I heard once, that communication exists in a static state, the dynamic effects that it can have depend on whether another person is willing to be influenced through the interaction.

[theVOID]

That makes no sense... You can have no communication without information and no information without variables, and variables are not static.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's completely irrelevant that you don't know of such evidence. Not knowing does not constitute argument.

The amount of times you have stated this pettily obvious truth to me and I've already responded that I know that and I'm not making any argument of any kind whatsoever I'm not sure I can count.

HOPEFULLY THIS IS THE LAST TIME:

I am not making any argument whatsoever, I am merely stating the reason why I, as far as I'm concerned have no valid reason to believe in 'X' whatsoever - in this case 'perfection' - is because as far as I know I know of no evidence!!

Clear?

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

That makes no sense... You can have no communication without information and no information without variables, and variables are not static.

Language as in conversation is a static process because the words communicated, the conversation is built up in the mind's of those participants. If we were to play a game of chess and we both could agree that our 'moves' on the board were the language, you could say that the language is dynamic because there is a definate interaction and is confined to some causal properties and both parties 'should' be operating within certain 'rules'.

[theVOID]

That makes no sense... You can have no communication without information and no information without variables, and variables are not static.

Language as in conversation is a static process because the words communicated, the conversation is built up in the mind's of those participants. If we were to play a game of chess and we both could agree that our 'moves' on the board were the language, you could say that the language is dynamic because there is a definate interaction and is confined to some causal properties and both parties 'should' be operating within certain 'rules'.

I guess that makes sense if you discard the fact that languages are variables arranged in meaningful patterns attached to concepts and simply focus on the interaction between parties communicating within a framework.

So basically you are saying that an individuals use of language is considered static unless they are interacting with other individuals that dynamically respond to the communication creating a causal chain of responses?

[TruthWorthy]

quotes between me and void:

---

That makes no sense... You can have no communication without information and no information without variables, and variables are not static.

Language as in conversation is a static process because the words communicated, the conversation is built up in the mind's of those participants. If we were to play a game of chess and we both could agree that our 'moves' on the board were the language, you could say that the language is dynamic because there is a definate interaction and is confined to some causal properties and both parties 'should' be operating within certain 'rules'.

I guess that makes sense if you discard the fact that languages are variables arranged in meaningful patterns attached to concepts and simply focus on the interaction between parties communicating within a framework.

So basically you are saying that an individuals use of language is considered static unless they are interacting with other individuals that dynamically respond to the communication creating a causal chain of responses?

---

I'm saying conversations are static, so are other verbal uses say in written word. You are correct to say that the usage (as in construction) of words from language is a dynamic process, but the meanings are only useful to someone who also speaks that language. Take one word sentence like: "Never."; Never what? . . . Never, will I believe in god?; I'll never give up this argument? You see, you make it dynamic if you're willing to be influenced by my meaning. You could always ignore it like a theist ignores logic and reason. . .

[tackattack]

... nice subtle shot TW.

Are we saying that language when subjectively used on self is static, but language used in conversation is subjective and open to interpretation?

[Edwardo Piet]

In my experience... language in my own head is kind of static....

Thought loops! Of one word or two in length... and very very rarely 3, and that always hardly lasts. It's annoying.

I'm so glad for the moments I forget about my thinking and start focusing on something more external..... that kills the static, phew.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

exactly! the reason language is static is precisely because they're psychological. ie, nothing is changed by conversation, you can allow yourself to be influenced through communication, but the conversation remains outside physical cause and effects, for the most part.

I don't know what subtle shot you mean me make. Is it about the theist abandoning reason comment? If so, it was not intended as a shot at anyone, just a passing sentiment, I should probably be more considerate in my choice of words. Although I did arrive at AF because I have a lot of aggression toward religion (what it does to people's minds and how it effects lives, etc).

I suppose I'm saying I hate your god, not you.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't hate anyone. But I can hate their beliefs and even their behaviour. In the case of the latter I'm almost alarmed at the amount of people I encounter who seem to not think it's possible to not hate someone's character but still disapprove of the way they behave.

From what I've read more recently... conscious thought is to help oneself communicate with others. It's almost practice or rehearsing... kind of like when some people talk to themselves aloud when they've got a difficult problem.... it's like building yourself up for others or something.

So thinking to yourself a lot on your own and not expressing it to others I'm sure can't be good for you. Maybe that's part of my problem and why I get the thought loops... boredom from under-stimulation - not expressing the thoughts I feel the need to.

I guess I get a lot of that much needed expression out here lol. But I always feel I need more lol. I dunno why it's never enough :S

Well I partly do... I guess I'd like to know more people I can relate to offline as well as on!

EvF