I Am Me.
- Thread starter General Mostly Electrified Steel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
h, never mind
The following statement may possibly, in an almost probable figure of the psyche that confuses the one mind that shall engulf it's hive into thinking that "Hi!" is a pronoun. Is it absurd enough?
Shut this thread down. BTW PetSmart has a new line of Troll food and toys and cages if yer looking for them.
Social Science may have nothing on this site.
Not that I care. I just want my dang peice o' pie.
Not that I care. I just want my dang peice o' pie.
Ok, so I stay away for a few days and find random people spurting randomnes.
It seems to me like this user is trying to be clever, well I must be retarded McSmacky Pants because I have no idea what this first post means. Is he trying to start a conversation about meaning? I could talk to you for a long time about meaning but It appears that my fellow escapist users have not taken kindly to you. This may have been because of a past post you may have made that angered people or prehaps your just a twat. Does that make this thread meaningles? Like the way a troll thread has no meaning.
Hey hey hey, If this is a troll lets start up another role play.
What do you think? It was fun the other time. Now we have an educted troll, far more deadly then MGG.
It seems to me like this user is trying to be clever, well I must be retarded McSmacky Pants because I have no idea what this first post means. Is he trying to start a conversation about meaning? I could talk to you for a long time about meaning but It appears that my fellow escapist users have not taken kindly to you. This may have been because of a past post you may have made that angered people or prehaps your just a twat. Does that make this thread meaningles? Like the way a troll thread has no meaning.
Hey hey hey, If this is a troll lets start up another role play.
What do you think? It was fun the other time. Now we have an educted troll, far more deadly then MGG.
No, that makes this thread ironic.Fire Daemon said:
I am of the opinion that no statement made could possibly be random, as the English language is made of rules and meaning.
Therefore any statement made in English, numbers or any defined input can not be random, as they all have meaning and pattern. A 'statement' implies that you compile the words in an order to establish meaning of the overall statement.
Therefore on an individual word basis, words can not be 'random' or without order. Words strung together in order to establish a 'statement' certainly can not be random. Only that which does not exist is meaningless to the human (or AI), and to compile a statement out of which we do not know is ludicrous.
Unless....
ceci n'est pas une statement.
What happend if I got my grubby paws on 26 sided dice that had a letter on each side and rolled that dice a few times to get a string of letters. By doing this are you creating a sentance (of jiberish) but has that sentance got any meaning. But is rolling a dice no differant to moving your lips and tongue to create a word, just that you have a less control on the dice.
I created that sentance but I had no control over it. Does that give it any meaning?
I created that sentance but I had no control over it. Does that give it any meaning?
Yes, because the letters themselves have meaning, history and context and are beholden to the rule that says that there are only 26 letters in the English alphabet. Whereas the result may appear to have no meaning according to the principles of word structure, each letter has meaning in its own context.
Besides, by casting a die you'd be invoking some of the principles that hold the universe together. Remember our friend quantum mechanics and its relationship with probabilities? Without trying to create an argument over quantum vs string and what have you, not only would the result in your scenario have meaning in context but the creation process would too.
Nonetheless, I believe the..uhh...thing's challenge was to produce a 'statement' of pure random. I interpret that this means that the statement must adhere to rules of common statement structure.
Besides, by casting a die you'd be invoking some of the principles that hold the universe together. Remember our friend quantum mechanics and its relationship with probabilities? Without trying to create an argument over quantum vs string and what have you, not only would the result in your scenario have meaning in context but the creation process would too.
Nonetheless, I believe the..uhh...thing's challenge was to produce a 'statement' of pure random. I interpret that this means that the statement must adhere to rules of common statement structure.
The control (difference between rolling a die and moving your mouth) is what makes the sentence have meaning because you can not (technically) make a sentence out of gibberish, because sentences have rules and regulations to how they are constructed. Be it English, Binary, Spanish, French, Latin, or what ever language out there, there are rules to how things are said and written. Those rules may be lax (Latin uses the conjugation to determine meaning, not the placement) or strict, but to create a sentence, meaning has to be instilled from the creation on.
The ONLY example is the 'infinite monkeys' theory* where one might consider that random chance could create a sentence of meaning. One could debate on if the sentence in that instance actually has meaning, or if the meaning is given by it's readers. Then debates could be made over the difference, if there is one.
*The 'infinite monkeys' theory my short hand for "An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters could produce the works of Shakespeare." As above, you could debate if said works of Shakespeare held meaning, or if the meaning is transfered by the readers.
The ONLY example is the 'infinite monkeys' theory* where one might consider that random chance could create a sentence of meaning. One could debate on if the sentence in that instance actually has meaning, or if the meaning is given by it's readers. Then debates could be made over the difference, if there is one.
*The 'infinite monkeys' theory my short hand for "An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters could produce the works of Shakespeare." As above, you could debate if said works of Shakespeare held meaning, or if the meaning is transfered by the readers.
Hey Joe, you are a clever man/women/internet person and have shut me up completely. The Original posters plan to try and make us come up with a post of pure random is hence impossible then.Hey Joe said:
But if a word was shown to an new born baby who had no concept of words or letters would that word have any meaning to that baby? Or would showing a blind man the image of a word hold any meaning to that man?
Are letters meaningles If they are not written down I wonder?
PS this is fun. Its fun to take a walk down trippy avenue.
I would think that letters are meaningless until meaning is assigned to them. Until that point, they're just a design to any who see them.Fire Daemon said:
Think of any foreign language that you can't read. You know the letters used have meaning, but until you're told what that meaning is and can place that meaning to the letters (and words), they're devoid of meaning.
I think the challenge was to find a statement that held no meaning whatsoever, not just a certain group, but it's an interesting point. I do agree that meaning is not inherent but is learned, but I'm rather of a constructionist myself.Fire Daemon said:
Oh! You wanna freak out a baby? Hold a mirror up.
It appears you have created illusory rules for yourself, my friends.
This is the first, and most vital step in the thousand-league journey to absolute and utter failure to create something absurd.
Randomness is not a vital component to meaninglessness.
This is the first, and most vital step in the thousand-league journey to absolute and utter failure to create something absurd.
Randomness is not a vital component to meaninglessness.
Because not all rules are mirages.Hey Joe said:
Those that are, however, are impediments to the Primary Main Objective of creating an absurd statement.