The Autonomy of the mind/body ~ justification needed.

[Quantum Quack]

You response to that paragraph did not attempt to answer that point. Why do you think that our shared physical history and normal communications are insufficient to explain our commonalities? What specifically do you think a psychic connection adds, and why is such an addition necessary?

What do you think would happen if we relied entirely on the memory of communication when conversing with someone?

To maintain effective relationships the meanings have to be always current and not just memories other wise the conversation would be rather weid indeed as the meanings used "yesterday" are now obsolete.

Also "out of sight out of mind" may become quite literal.

But even these are insufficient to explain my point...am working on it....

 

[Pete]

What do you think would happen if we relied entirely on the memory of communication when conversing with someone?

A normal conversation, of course. Every word you use is one that you have learned and remember, or (occasionally) invent from learned and remembered components, or (even more occasionally) invent and explain.

To maintain effective relationships the meanings have to be always current and not just memories other wise the conversation would be rather weid indeed as the meanings used "yesterday" are now obsolete.

:bugeye: Are you serious? You seem to be implying that people learn new words by telepathy?
As common language changes, you need to learn each change and remember it before you can use it in conversation, right?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The thing is that I can not provide you with meaning in any form what so ever using covnentional mediums such as this post.

All I can provide is unconditional information for you to interpret any way you feel inclined to do.

If we presume this to be the case then I fail to see how global cohesion is possible let alone likely, given that there is no known mechanism to generate that cohesion in a way that is constant and ongoing and self validating prior to utterance.
Note the emphasis on "Prior to utterance"

 

[Pete]

The thing is that I can not provide you with meaning in any form what so ever using conventional mediums such as this post.

Then why are you posting?

If we presume this to be the case...

What if we don't?

All I can provide is unconditional information for you to interpret any way you feel inclined to do.

What do you mean by "unconditional"? Even the following text is conditional - every sentence is composed of words from one language.

Property expenses yourself occasion endeavor two may judgment she. Elkaa et salin hanna se mista ilman en ei malja. Amigo nao dotes tenho tez sol unico dever sou risco. Mo expergisci statuendum an agnoscerem tractandae praecipuum deceptorem. Θηλάσει ρυτίδες γερανού τα θα ας μισάωρο θεωρίες. Decirte vio apatico mil algunas. Vroegeren wassching inlandsen onderling er de na. So eleganza vi le proseguo stridore scoperto ha talvolta.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Property expenses yourself occasion endeavor two may judgment she. Elkaa et salin hanna se mista ilman en ei malja. Amigo nao dotes tenho tez sol unico dever sou risco. Mo expergisci statuendum an agnoscerem tractandae praecipuum deceptorem. Θηλάσει ρυτίδες γερανού τα θα ας μισάωρο θεωρίες. Decirte vio apatico mil algunas. Vroegeren wassching inlandsen onderling er de na. So eleganza vi le proseguo stridore scoperto ha talvolta.

and guess what,
I can derive any meaning I choose to derive...so how are you imparting meaning to me other than unconditional symbology?

 

[Pete]

and guess what,
I can derive any meaning I choose to derive...so how are you imparting meaning to me other than unconditional symbology?

It's called language, QQ. It's not an "unconditional symbology", it's a shared symbology that follows specific rules we have both learned.

QQ, are you arguing seriously, or are you just yanking my chain?

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's called language, QQ. It's not an "unconditional symbology", it's a shared symbology that follows specific rules we have both learned.

QQ, are you arguing seriously, or are you just yanking my chain?

not interested in arguing. Discussion is more to my liking...