The Universe of Symbols, thought, and radical skeptical idiots

This may shed a little light on the mindset of these... er, people.

Despite how well and detailed I laid out my position, my theory about all this, and then provided examples and wanted to keep getting further into it... this guy is faced with his own self-imposed limit, the leftist brainwashing that he has internalized and which has destroyed his mind. But rather than admit this and begin to repair that damage, he simply shuts down and retreats into denials.

As I have been saying, these "people" cannot be saved. Seriously, fuck. them.  



Stranger: hi
You: hi
Stranger: how are you?
You: not bad, thanks
Stranger: i'm glad
Stranger: what brings you here?
You: looking for someone intelligent for good conversation
Stranger: hopefully i can help
Stranger: what domain(s) within philosophy interest you?
You: I'm thinking about truth and consciousness and thought
Stranger: think you could expand upon that?
You: i think we live in a world of symbols, what we normally think of as language and images/ideas
Stranger: are you a student of philosophy?
You: i think we are taught now to make symbols and relate to them, and we are introduced to rudimentary symbols, all as children; then we take it upon ourselves to begin making our own symbols and symbol-relations, and we push these out into the world and negotiate them with other people, namely by talking
You: *taught how
Stranger: define 'symbol'
You: what we normally think of as language and images/ideas
You: so any word, and any image in your mind, and any idea you might have
You: also even physical symbols like written language and art
Stranger: okay. sure. i don't disagree with anything
You: so we basically create this universe of symbols for ourselves, and then we push ourselves into that universe... this is what consciousness is
You: but we still maintain a connection to the bodily proprioception, a feeling of the physiological self; then emotions are like mediating movements between this body-feeling and the universe of symbols
Stranger: how do you account for sense data from the world? are those merely symbols themselves or?
You: sense data is incorporated into perceptions, and our symbols often refer to our perceptions, so there is a connection there too between body and mind
You: in fact, i think it is symbolic consciousness that even allows us to have perceptions... otherwise we would experience an endless stream of raw and mostly meaningless sense data
You: but when we name something and form a coherent image of it in our minds, as a symbols, we create a percept
You: *as a symbol
You: so now that percept is recalled whenever we sensorily experience that to which the percept refers
You: its why i experience and see a "can of beer" on my desk rather than seeing all the minute details, the aluminum, the curves of it, etc etc
You: i just see one thing, basically
Stranger: right. this is just a more in-depth look at basic psychology, i feel
You: what do you mean by "just"?
You: i actually have degrees in psychology and philosophy, and I've never seen consciousness explained in this way before
Stranger: ah, alright
You: have you?
Stranger: i'm not a student, no (not yet, at least)
You: what is interesting is that all of these levels of the process of consciousness are equally real
You: the sense data, the thing being sensed in that, the percept we make, the symbols in general, the languages we use to relate them
You: and those truth to which the higher more comprehensive symbols refer
You: *truths
You: at every stage of this, it is all real
Stranger: was that primarily what your study was in? philosophy of mind? if so, i've got a few questions
You: i studied philosophy in many areas
You: but we are just getting started... what I'm more interested in is how the symbols themselves reveal truths, allow us access to understanding facts
You: and what might be the difference between a cluster of symbols-in-relation which are able to reveal or point to facts, versus another cluster of symbols-in-relation that do not do that, or do it very imperfectly
You: and beyond that, regarding the clusters that do reveal facts, what is the order or continuum of facts, which are more significant and meaningful?
You: so it is like the symbolic universe is indirectly organized in reverse, retroactively from the perspective of those contents which it evokes
Stranger: you're going to have to break this down a bit further. could you give me a real-world instance in which a cluster of symbols-in-relation reveal or point to a fact?
You: the easiest example i can come up with is when we use math and language to understand a ratio; so 10 miles divided by 2 miles is not 5 miles, it is just 5
You: the miles cancel out and disappear
You: so we are left with a pure understanding of a fact, namely "5x"
You: and from there the ratios expand endlessly, because 1:5 is 2:10 etc
You: and we can substitute any other unit than miles, and it still holds
You: and we learn that an arbitrary unit like a mile, by using a system of language that employs the same units, we are able to achieve understanding of something non-arbitrary
Stranger: give me a moment to parse this out in my mind
Stranger: okay
Stranger: sure
You: so basically, the truth that "5x" means something objective and factual, is revealed to us by our use of these symbolic systems which are mostly arbitrary to begin with
You: we make up what the symbols are and what they mean
You: but something about their relation to each other in a system which employs the same units or symbols, is where the magic is... because then all those units cancel out
You: and we just experience what is left over, what didnt vanish
Stranger: would there be an issue if you were to simply replace 'symbols' with 'concepts' and 'symbolic' with 'conceptual'?
You: you could do that, but i think of concepts and symbols as different. the concept is the meaning itself, whereas the symbol is like the "word" that indicates or points to/represents the concept
You: so in my example, the concept is the fact of 5x
You: this fact, which is objectively true and means something on its own; our actual understanding of this fact as fact, is the concept
You: at least in my view
Stranger: does every concept have a symbol attached to it? for instance, what symbol would be attached to the word 'abstraction' other than the word itself?
You: abstraction could be the concept, if we understand what abstraction means on its own, and then the symbol would be both the word "abstraction" as well as any examples we might come up with or any examples or representational images that come to mind when we think about the concept of abstraction, or any other words or images we use to communicate this
You: so basically the "concept" exists outside of us, in the realm of pure truths or facts, however it only becomes a concept by becoming a part of a person's symbolic universe
You: as soon as my symbolic universe contains a given fact, that fact is now a "concept" to that particular symbolic universe
You: so yeah, for a concept to exist, it has to be in our symbolic universe, which means it has to have some symbol/s attached to it somehow
You: even if very vaguely and not yet well formed symbols
Stranger: i usually approach 'facts' and 'truths' with trepidation. why do you think we're even capable of truly acquiring facts or truths?
Stranger: are you using somewhat of a colloquial understanding of these terms?
You: no. if you measure out a distance of 10 miles and then a distance of 2 miles, you know FOR A FACT that the shorter distance is 1/5 the longer distance. this is a fact, it is true
You: how could you possibly doubt that you are able to truly acquire understanding of this fact?
Stranger: aren't you presupposing that anything can be meaningfully derived from logic?
You: where is the flaw or reason for doubt in the example i gave?
Stranger: i was simply asking in what way are you using these terms
You: i showed you
Stranger: can you say that with absolute certainty, in other words
You: it is absolutely and objectively true that a distance of 10 miles is 5x longer than a distance of 2 miles
You: of course i can say it with absolute certainty
Stranger: okay
You: what reason do you think we arent absolutely certain about this?
Stranger: we all hold a number of properly basic beliefs that are ultimately assumed and necessarily cannot be justified
You: I'm talking about my example
Stranger: i don't want to get into this because i don't find it particularly useful but it would include everything you've said
You: it is important for you to admit that my examples shows a case where we can have absolute certain knowledge of something objectively true
You: and if you disagree, then show how or why you disagree with that
Stranger: i just told you earlier
Stranger: do i need to elaborate?
You: yes
You: because you didnt say thus-far
You: you have given no reason at all to doubt or disagree with my claim that "my examples shows a case where we can have absolute certain knowledge of something objectively true"
You: *my example
Stranger: as i suggested earlier, we all hold a number of properly basic beliefs that necessarily cannot be justified. a few of these things are: the uniformity of causality, the reliability of our sense perceptions, other minds exist, the mind-body relation exists, etc.
Stranger: another one of those beliefs are the usefulness of logic/reason
You: then you'll have to show how 1) that specific doubt works, why you would doubt it in general, and then 2) how that doubt specifically invalidates or calls into question my example
You: so for example, explain to me what reason you have to doubt the uniformity of causality, and then explain why that factors into my example
Stranger: i cannot prove to you that all events have a uniform causal chain. it's impossible. i also cannot prove to myself that my sense perceptions are reliable. it's impossible. if i ask the same of you, you won't be able to either. the same applies to reason and logic. if i ask you to provide an argument as to why reason is a useful tool to meaningfully derive anything, you'll simply use circular logic. unless you appeal to things like epistemic circularity, you'll have to accept that we cannot be absolutely certain about anything. this is why (at least, why i thought why) truth is such a lengthy and contentious subject within philosophy. there's different models for it. i wanted to know why you felt we could access pure truths or facts, that's all
You: that doesnt answer my question. i asked "explain to me what reason you have to doubt the uniformity of causality, and then explain why that factors into my example"
You: if you are claiming there is reason to doubt uniform causality, then show me a reason
Stranger: my reason is, i don't have a justificatory path that establishes the uniformity of causality. i just assume it
You: you cant just say "you cant prove all events have a uniform causal chain", i dont have to prove that. you made the claim that we can doubt uniform causality, so I'm curious what your reason is for believing that
You: causality is understood as pretty much the most basic definition possible, namely that nothing happens for literally no reason
You: that every single thing or event in existence has some reasons for being what it is
You: it is called the principle of sufficient reason
Stranger: that statement, 'nothing happens for literally no reason'
You: and that to even speak of something existing or occurring is always already necessarily to also be speaking about the reasons for it being that way rather than some other way, else you couldnt even be speaking of it as it is
Stranger: can you prove that everything that has happened has had a reason?
You: yes
Stranger: how?
You: because it is necessarily impossible that the alternative hypothesis is the case, as i said
You: unless you can explain how something could happen for NO REASON AT ALL
You: which makes literally no sense
You: "You: and that to even speak of something existing or occurring is always already necessarily to also be speaking about the reasons for it being that way rather than some other way, else you couldnt even be speaking of it as it is"
You: just thin about it
You: *think
You: think about something happening for literally no reason
You: ...and you will realize how insane that idea is
You: it is a pure self-contradiction
Stranger: i find it even more insane to think anybody could be absolutely certain of anything. i think it'd be easier to admit an epistemological barrier that obviously exists. are you saying that just because something doesn't make sense to you, it cannot be possible? how do you know your cognitive faculties are working properly?
You: its not about it not making sense to me. it is about it not making sense, period.
You: basically, your position is default radical skepticism of everything because you essentially doubt your own mind
You: therefore you could not possible consider the idea that you might actually be able to know something
You: for instance, you cant even come up with a single counter example to my examples
You: yet you doubt them anyway
Stranger: yes. this is why i didn't want to get into this. i don't find this conversation particularly meaningful
You: I'm quite sure you dont
You have disconnected.

These people are already dead. Therefore their lives do not count. I hate to feel this way, but it is simply a fact.

What is also interesting and I didn't have a chance to get into with this retard, is how concepts in the symbolic universe tend to produce 'resonances' with each other based on either similarity, proximity or implicit relational significance, and this causes new concepts to begin to emerge spontaneously within the symbolic universe (within our minds).

This helps to explain why we have concepts for which we have no clear names or symbols. The mind is spontaneously producing derivative, tertiary, etc. new concepts for which no symbol yet exists by which that new concept could be clearly or accurately expressed to the larger symbolic universe as such; this causes confusion and forces us to be constantly re-evaluating our symbols and symbolic-relations (languages and complex ideas, for example).

"Stranger: aren't you presupposing that anything can be meaningfully derived from logic?"


^ this person just invalidated his entire existence, in total, in sum, and absolutely, with that single line. Now it is simply an undeniable fact that his existence means nothing whatsoever. He is a non-entity, an anti-self-valuing.

The leftist brainwashing is literally dissolving the minds of humanity, like acid. Fuck them for allowing it to happen to themselves. They apparently have no basic structural integrity or self-coherence sufficient to not allow that to occur to themselves.

FUCK these assholes. I'm going to get coffee.