> So: meaning isn't a substance, but rather a feeling. In this way, it's a lot like beauty.
If I understand correctly, author is saying, that you can't measure nor exactly define meaning, and then building follow up logical chain based on that axiom.
If so, then it's just wrong, because all human feelings are results of biochemical processes inside a brain. They arise in exact situations and they are predictable as patterns. So, we can define feelings and analyze them to the point where we can see how they are building and what is causing one or another.
> "If so, then it's just wrong, because all human feelings are results of biochemical processes inside a brain. They arise in exact situations and they are predictable as patterns. So, we can define feelings and analyze them to the point where we can see how they are building and what is causing one or another."
I doubt we know enough about these processes to make such a claim. For example, will one set of patterns always result in envy, or can the patterns behind envy also produce adoration?
Furthermore, with what we think of as the 'mind', what influence does it have over the response of the 'body'. In practice these may be one and the same thing, but phenomena related to 'mind over matter' definitely seem to exist. For example, practitioners of tummo can voluntarily alter their body temperature:
Without a deeper understanding of the relationship between the mind and the body, I wouldn't want to make any claims about how deterministic our minds are.
If I understand correctly, author is saying, that you can't measure nor exactly define meaning, and then building follow up logical chain based on that axiom.
If so, then it's just wrong, because all human feelings are results of biochemical processes inside a brain. They arise in exact situations and they are predictable as patterns. So, we can define feelings and analyze them to the point where we can see how they are building and what is causing one or another.