…Sound or text patterns as received form (sensation) are undoubtedly separate from meaning (perception). They are clear as the difference between ear and nerve, and brain. The failure of the ear or nerve necessarily means the brain will not receive form from the outside. A person given the gift of sound for the first time with a prosthetic ear will likely break down in tears especially when sound matches vision. The world is a richer place with sensation. It has more meaning.
There was an issue concern what contradiction means. So I will begin with an example.
Any “philosophy of…” will have its real valid points. This is true.
Those initial statements represent an example of how there is two ways of understanding knowledge going on at the same time. In the context of explaining the Two Routes, of course we can understand the two statement as arising in one context. Here, the context is assumed, rather than given. It is assumed because the meaning of the assumed context is, on one hand, not explicit, and yet, due to the further elaboration of meaning, not implicit either. We find that there is no given context which contains the two statements. It is not proper to further reduce the two statements to what is given through an explanation, because the explanation itself will arrive, again, in a context of two routes, one which is assumed as given.
(1) Any “philosophy of…” will have its real valid points.”
I am not sure why any one would argue that this post is not true. I am likewise unsure why anyone would try to argue it untrue. For, even if we were to point out that a particular philosophy for something, activity, attitude, or whatever, has no valid points somewhere, we would nevertheless have to admit that the the point which it makes which is invalid is itself a valid point in that context. In order for me to find something wrong with a “philosophy of…”, I would first have to understand something valid about it.
If anyone can come up with a philosophy which does not have any valid points, I am open to hear about it.
(2) Statement (1) is true.
If it is not true, then again, I am open to hear about it.
I am often heard to say, for this example, these statements cannot be reduced to another unitive way of understanding them. For, as I suggested above, in the presentation of a way to reduce them is itself a “philosophy of…” how the statements are involved in another one given context, which will have its valid points, and thus also some not valid points which would make its thus not true in truth but only relatively or argumentatively so; but indeed this noticing is absolutely true. It is not true due to a further context; it is true in-itself because the first statement is contingent. I call the reality of things contingent because regardless of what the truth actually is, the way we come upon and deal with reality is always contingent, always negotiated.
Now, as to the philosophy of language.
Because the discourse which arises upon the conditions of the two routes speak to a different manner of coming upon things which we can call true, I will try to stay consistent with what is true given the real context of the post.
I maintain that language is a vehicle or theological mechanism which upholds the modern religion.
I repost the post:
Now the mic on the computer is like a mic on any recording like my PCM recorder. It picks up sound. But, while my PCM recorder records the sound as pure audio data and does nothing with it, my computer, when I am dictating to it, does at least one extra step – it transforms that sound into written text. This extra step is like thinking; it needs to recognise the sounds to convert them into the text. In other words, sound and text are not one but two things.
When I dictate to my computer the computer does not initially “know” the meaning of the words. It only recognises the sound patterns then transforms them into corresponding written patterns. From experience, I know that I must pronounce the sounds clearly for the computer to be able to do its job – to transform the sounds into text. But even when I being most careful the computer cannot accurately do this and returns what it thinks the sound patterns it heard. The problem could be
- my pronunciation,
- the mic’s inability to pick up the sound because of incidental noise,
- low level of the sound because I was too far away from them,
- the quality of the mic,
- the inability to distinguish similar sounds.
Most of the time I am required spend time to go through the text and edit it. (But, in the end, it still saves me a lot of time.)
Most days, too, I would say to my smartphone things like, “Hey Siri, play music,” or “Hey Siri, what’s my schedule for today?” And it (it isn’t a “she” or “he”, for we can choose and change the voice we desire to hear) would play some songs it thinks I like or maybe tell me I have a doctor’s appoint at 9pm.
Like my computer my smartphone also has a mic. Unlike my computer it is constantly “listening”. Until it hears a sound pattern that is Hey Siri it does nothing (it isn’t converting the sound pattern to the text Hey Siri every time, for that would use too much power). But once it does, it is instructed to
- listen for new sound patterns,
- transform the sound patterns into text,
- decide on the meaning of the text, and then
- do something (like play music or find and read out the day’s schedule).
What my computer or smartphone isn’t first doing is recognising meaning. It is listening for sound patterns. And before the advent of voice recognition it was looking for written text patterns.
The Hey Siri process is essentially no different than the text conversion process, except it is not converting to text but another action directly – the act of listening for what to convert into text.
As I sit here my wife is doing things like carrying laundry, washing the cups, turning on and off taps, removing plates from dishwashers. But none of these are sounds that I need to convert to text (except for me to translate that for here as to what is physically happening here). These are sound patterns of non-words. But nonetheless they all “translate” to have meaning (that I should feel guilty and start to help her with the day’s work) because I am processing them.
Sound or text patterns as received form (sensation) are undoubtedly separate from meaning (perception). They are clear as the difference between ear and nerve, and brain. The failure of the ear or nerve necessarily means the brain will not receive form from the outside. A person given the gift of sound for the first time with a prosthetic ear will likely break down in tears especially when sound matches vision. The world is a richer place with sensation. It has more meaning.
The argument that is presented is founded upon a particular manner of making sense, and this particular manner is not necessary. Rather, it is but a particular way of ordering sense. It is not common sense, but neither is it sense unto a necessary logical application, for logic is a tool to use; it does not find for us the truth.
However, the argument above does indeed propose a truth. I would challenge anyone to suggest that the argument is made to present thing to us that is false. Indeed, the intention (subject) behind the post is to offer something that is true, and indeed, true of reality.
But I would counter that, while I agree with his logic and meaning, and I find it interesting and useful, I could equally use logic and sense to come to a different conclusion. I could very well say, in all sanity and sense, that it is not difference (in the phone or computer) in processing function, but difference in applicability. I could suggest that the meaning is intact through every instance of the computer/voice/text and the mode through which we are engaging with the technology is granting us the forms of the applications. This is to say, that the voice dictation is indeed processing meaning, as well as Siri, but the meaning we are applying to the situation is granting for us what logic should be applied to the situation. The sound itself at all times thus carries meaning, but it is the technology which is being applied which shows for us how we are deficient in whatever moment of understanding — yet as well, where our understanding is but a particular way which is deemed to give us a true reality.
My argument here is not that Sig 101 is incorrect, but that indeed the meaning that we both are agreeing with is arbitrary, but indeed enforced. We see this evidenced by the fact that if I were to argue that the meaning of the sound waves is actually spirits moving in psychic ether, I would be summarily dismissed in most academic circles, even of a “philosophy of…” humanity, say, would want to allow me to let people do and think whatever they want to. Such open and free idealism, is itself truly a manner of coming upon reality. It is true, despite what we would want to argue about its “untruth”, or however one would want to speak of it. And it is true everywhere at all times…
So, we cannot reduce to say that humans just make meaning and leave it there with things that arise outside of meaning. Where we leave it there is to rely upon a given-as-true reality which contains the discourse and meaning that appears. So indeed, we find a truth of reality through this kind of argument and discussion. We do indeed. There is no argument which can deny that we are indeed discussing and arguing about things and etc… because, the argument which would suggest such a thing (that there is a truth beyond negotiation of it) is indeed involved in the real negotiation of true things.
Nevertheless, what is true of the situation does not reconcile with the real method of discerning what is true. On the contrary; what is true of the real situation is true despite what the real negotiation would want to argue.
The two routes arise at the same time, and indeed thus out of time, to grant us what is actually true of the situation. This is the true meaning of subjective-phenomenalist irony; that is, what is actually occurring in the universe.
And this is to say, where a larger context is implicated and relied upon, there is religious faith. Again, regardless of what one would want to argue. This is true. For, any argument would be inherent to the theological ideology of context, again, regardless of what one would argue it is. Any the use of language enforces and reifies that the ideological (theological) sense is real and true. But this notice has to do with the truth of the situation. It is not real, but true.