yes, that’s part of it! But meanings are not in minds either.They are “in” patterns of interaction that cross individuals’ boundaries
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
these patterns only exist as the projections of individual minds, but yes they relate the individual to (projected) systems
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Not sure what you mean by “projection”. They are objectively observable: people stop when the light turns red.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
they stop when their neocortices create a dream of red lights infused by relevance generated by their motivational systems
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
why a “dream” rather than an accurate sensory perception?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
it strikes me as unusual if Buddhists are direct realists :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
The Buddhist philosophical tradition, interestingly, has produced essentially all the same metaphysical positions as the Western one
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
I myself have no particular position; but direct realism seems more-or-less right. My thesis work was heavily influenced by Gibson,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
to me, "I see the cat" is a figure of speech; captures something meaningful. Yes, reductive decomposition is interesting
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but is reductive explanation more "real"? We can't and don't live in meta-world all the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it is mostly just theoretically important, if you want to deconstruct the processes that give rise to our self @Meaningness
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.