Abordnet

So whether or not the bell means that meat powder is coming to Pavlov's dog depends on whether or not the dog is free to decide that it doesn't. Is that about the size of it? No. What you need to do is to re-evaluate the truth of your phrase I get what you're on about now. Reading what I said instead of what you wanted me to say would probably be a productive beginning. I carefully considered our entire exchange on this matter before it occurred to me that maybe your attitude about what constitutes meaning is bound to your concept of free will. I don't mind being wrong about that if I am, but you should at least consider it, just in case it's something you failed to notice.

not, meaning has a well understood definition that you are attempting to change in order to claim that something which doesn't contain meaning does. It's not about affirming anything, except possibly that randomly changing the accepted meanings of words is conducive neither to communication nor to the advancement of knowledge. I'm not claiming that my usage is common, but neither am I randomly changing accepted meanings of words. Let's see if there are any denotations available that comport what my usage. I took these from the first reference that comes up on a google search:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning mean·ing  (mnng) n. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance. 2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose. 3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority Conor Cruise O'Brien. 4. Inner significance: But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city? O. Henry. Quite simply, if someone or thing processes stimuli from their surrounding environment to a preconscious stage, and then acts in a self-interested way that is clearly consistent with the nature of the stimuli, the information has meaning according to denotation 1: something was conveyed. So again, this is admittedly not a common usage, but it reasonable and valid I think you're grasping at straws. Something is conveyed when a conveyor belt moves a box from one part of a factory to another, but it's not sensible to say that this action contains meaning because of it. If you're going to unconventionally use a definition, you should at least consider all of it, particular the parts that talk about signified and significance . With this example, and your talk of acts in a self-interested way , you are implying that the thing is processing the stimuli and deliberately acting in a particular way after having interpreted it. You denied this very concept in your previous post, but now you appear to be asserting it. It's futile to argue that something can act in a self-interested way if it has no choice in the matter, if it is responding automatically. To take an action requires a choice. What you are talking about here is not acting in a self-interested way , it's reacting in a preprogrammed way . Erwin Hessle, 8=3

I think we are just having difficulty relating at this time because we rely on different skill sets an it tends to show more when discussing this type of topic. Precisely. Some of the people you are discussing with possess the skill of being able to form rational conclusions _base_d on evidence. You don't. What you don't appear to understand is that this skill is a pretty important one to have when you are trying to engage in rational debate unless you are happy being correctly put into the nuisance category. Erwin Hessle, 8=3 Of course it's an important category, but it's not the only one.  Stop this Erwin!  From my perspective and skill set you can look as stupid to me as I apparently do to you... You could look slow, plodding, and lacking in the mental equipement needed to come across inspired ideas and then fully appreciate them for yourself You can appreciate them all you like. Just don't claim to be correct about them if you don't have the capability to form such judgments. Erwin Hessle, 8=3

Quite simply, if someone or thing processes stimuli from their surrounding environment to a preconscious stage, and then acts in a self-interested way that is clearly consistent with the nature of the stimuli, the information has meaning Rick, I eagerly await your explanation of how one can be confident that ones actions are clearly consistent with the nature of some stimulii, and in ones self-interest, when the actual stimulii is not known.  Additionally, with 68% accuracy (random number you used in a previous post) or even 99% accuracy, are you really saying you think it's a good idea to condition automatic behavior responses that are certain to be inappropriate 32% (or even only 1%) of the time?

I think we are just having difficulty relating at this time because we rely on different skill sets an it tends to show more when discussing this type of topic. Precisely. Some of the people you are discussing with possess the skill of being able to form rational conclusions _base_d on evidence. You don't. What you don't appear to understand is that this skill is a pretty important one to have when you are trying to engage in rational debate unless you are happy being correctly put into the nuisance category. Erwin Hessle, 8=3 Of course it's an important category, but it's not the only one.  Stop this Erwin!  From my perspective and skill set you can look as stupid to me as I apparently do to you... You could look slow, plodding, and lacking in the mental equipement needed to come across inspired ideas and then fully appreciate them for yourself You can appreciate them all you like. Just don't claim to be correct about them if you don't have the capability to form such judgments. Erwin Hessle, 8=3- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I could reverse the request upon you, but just because one may rely on a primary skill _base_ does not mean that it is the sole extent of ones repitoire.  

On Apr 29, 8:52 pm, Rick, M.A.  wrote: The point is, you can think and reason about magical correspondences all day long, and maybe doing so will help you work out some intellectual insight into some relationship or other that, but that kind of work will have no impact on magical effects. Define magical effects .  I disagree that intellectual insights have no impact on one's magical work or has no magical effects , but perhaps you mean something different with those words. I think Rick is using a peculiar definition of magick. He said before he likes the Lemegeton definition; I suspect he interprets a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things to mean that a magician understands that occult things are impossible for the magician to understand, not that occult things can be understood by the magician but remains hidden from lowly plebs. Therefore, as a crude example, building a skyscraper isn't a magical effect in the sense how to build it is knowable, but if he feels uncomfortable at the bus stop and avoids a hard buggering, then that is. You've been on the beer tonight then.   Nope. Stone sober. I reakon the lowly plebs have less barriers of perception but less means of explaining the perceptions of the lowly pleb.   By lowly plebs I meant people who get jealous, worry all the time about nothing, and generally fuck things up. I consider them to be unable to perceive things as they are, and therefore would say they have more barriers of perception .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ah well.  That's life mate.  You can trust people to be the people they are.  It doesn't have to make you cynical - people change too. What does that have to do with what I said? Recently you've been raising points that are completely irrelevant to what you're replying to. My guess is that you're over-confident in your interpretation of what you're reading, so you frequently misinterpret it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'll admit to a certain attraction to the tangential, but taking a different angle is not unrelated to the topic at hand... it just lacks a certain respect for hierarchy. I believe the term is 'lateral thinking'.  To give a real world example - if there was no tangenital flying then the hawk would be out of business, as would some branches of evolution.  Get used to it, it's a human characteristic. I accept that it's a characteristic of you to start spouting irrelevant bollocks that nobody understands because you've assumed that people will somehow magically know what you mistakenly think you're replying to. As an example, when I explained my usage of lowly plebs you said That's life mate. What you're referring to is anyone's guess, as you've interpreted something into my words that isn't there. I guess not giving a shit could be interpreted as over-confidence, but what's that say about you?   Since I do give a shit about many things, it doesn't say anything about me. I assure you, if you deprived me of food, I would give a shit. I said you're over-confident in your interpretation of what you're reading, not over-confident generally.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think we are just having difficulty relating at this time because we rely on different skill sets an it tends to show more when discussing this type of topic.   I'll agree with that. You completely lack of any sort of skill set when discussing this sort of topic. In fact, you lack the skill set required to discuss to begin with; you're almost incapable of replying to what is actually said; you reply to whatever fanciful notion you happen to concoct in your pigsty mind. The sooner you come to realise this, the sooner you'll stop leading yourself around in circles and start paying more attention to what you're reading. But frankly, I think there is little chance that that actually occurring.