Member 2394
4 entries

Gregg Shields (M)
Glasgow, UK
Immortal since Nov 7, 2009
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From BenRayfield
    Thought It Was Hard But...
    From nagash
    Does Consciousness Depend...
    From nom the puppet
    Is Space Collective too...
    From Schmuck
    Should SpaceCollective Be...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    Our understanding and perception of the Universe is greatly regulated by established forms of language and numerals.

    While the primary function of language serves to communicate thoughts between people, language also makes up a great part of our internal brain chatter, allowing us to allocate words and descriptions to stimulus that we perceive; giving order to what might otherwise be a chaotic reception of stimuli.

    While this layer of understanding can be advantageous, there is an argument to be made that such stringent regulation of how we see and understand the Universe could also have negative consequences.

    There is often confusion between the established semantics of a word, and the truth of what this word represents in the Universe.

    A good example of this is the concept of Free Will.

    The common established semantics of the term “Free Will” is the ability to make a choice uninfluenced by any external factors.

    This concept is widely accepted as a real and relevant topic, and is in fact the source of much thought and debate.

    However, what does this collection of symbols: “Free Will” actually represent in our Universe? Does it actually exist?

    The truth is, we currently have no way of knowing if Free Will even exists as any kind of rule or force in the Universe, leaving the truth of free will essentially ambiguous.

    The fact that we have to be scientifically agnostic about Free Will, but accept it without question as part of our language highlights something.

    There is potentially a huge difference between what is true in the Universe, and what is true in our language. We unconditionally accept a plethora of concepts, ideas and words as part of language, which represent things that may not even exist.

    To us, they are relevant, even though they may be utterly irrelevant to the Universe.

    This means that we run the risk of getting tied up in arguing the semantics of our syntax, when neither may be relevant or even true.

    Is this an efficient way to see the Universe? Do unfounded concepts aid in providing us with truth?

    Regardless of the answer, we may do well to make more of a distinction between what is real, and what is language.
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse