Are you introducing a non-existant term?

In NLP a belief is a feeling qualia about the meaning of something

mark
I would say …

Belief is a feeling qualia about something.

Seth
I think introducing an extra thingey called “meaning” into our model of what happens here just confuses the issue. 

Eveything is a thing, even the reaction (reflection or representation) of one thing inside another thing.  The belief i experience about something, is a reaction in me about that thing.  That reaction represents the thing to me.  If you want to call that reaction, that representation, the “meaning of the thing to me”, well fine … but it is not a separate thing from the qalia and or the representation.  The meaning of a thing to a being is the reaction that thing creates in the being.

So when you start talking about #meaninglessness, you must be talking about one thing not being represented in some being.  Well shucks, that is just unconsciousness … un-aware-ed-ness … or obliviousness.   It does happen a lot but not always.

tags #belief #meaning #qualia #reaction #representation

Comments


XOR, Nah!  … study some NLP .  It’s about the meaning specifically.  Such is why beliefs are so caustic in social discourse. If beliefs were just random qualia they wouldn’t mean anything (← null) & there would be no point in #AlreadyAlwaysArguing about them.

http://fastblogit.com/thought/17277  <– the assumptions & rules of behavior

Well i cannot make any useful distinction between the reaction-representation of a thing inside a being, and the notion you call “meaning”.   Can you?

There would be no “social discourse” if there were no reacton-representation of things of one being inside other beings.  So for me to think that is “caustic to social discourse” is for me to think nonsense.

If we are to come to a meeting of minds here, you will need to express that distinction clearly so i know specifically of what you talk and if this intermediate term called “meaning” is necessary in our model of human interaction.

I find it strange that a person who is so excited by direct knowledge, would hesitate  when an indirection is found to be unnecessary and is eliminated.

You are off – munging beliefs away in another world.
Woops!  Maybe you have found “empty & meaningless” & what you are saying is empty & meaningless!
thumbs up

Well clearly we are operating with different otologies.  There is no need in fighting my ontology against yours.  Or of insulting each other’s thinking.   We both must know by now that will go nowhere.

There is a node in your ontology that is labeled “meaning” …
there is a node in mine that is labeled “representation of a thing inside a being”.  

I’m just asking you to consider if both nodes, the one in you, and the one in me, stand for the very same thing.   Could you come up with an example of your “meaning node” standing for something that i know about and about which we already know of what we speak? …

… again, I find it strange that a person who is excited by direct knowledge, would hesitate at the door of discovering  an indirection which is unnecessary and can be eliminated.

Did you lose the ability to speak regular English? #CBF

Conversation forked to thought 24556

Note i am not tring to do away with #meaning.   Rather i am trying to make it a tangible concept which which we can think about our psychology in a practical manner.   i think this is important for us to do, because you keep talking to me  about things being #meaningless.   That thought certainly can be depressing … especially if it cannot be interpreted to mean anything practical over here.