Whether it works or not is irrelevant.
"Bizarre concept"?
How will I know?
You might think so but it wasn't.
Not just the word. Please to show meaning absent consciousness. You claim to have done that but I can't prove a negative. You've only explained that events take place whether or not there is consciousness. a.) You can't prove that. b.) You can't prove a material world. c.) You can't show meaning without consciousness.
Well that is what words do they represent things, some conscious and some not, one of the “meanings” that word is used to convey is “cause meaning effect”. If as you have asserted “Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori” and “The cause and effect are a priori” or with out conscious observation then the meaning of “rocks” “exist” “roll down hills” “cause”, “effect” and thus even “meaning” are the same given a lack of consciousness as given consciousness. Without consciousness only the ability to convey meanings goes away but meaning themselves, what the words were constructed to represent, remain.
You do not have to prove a negative just prove your assertion that “meaning” requires consciousness. So far you have mostly argued that the conception, contemplation, assessment, qualification and perception of “meaning” require consciousness, which I have not argued with. Then you’ve made an assertion that claims meaning (cause and effect) without consciousness.
a.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence. If you have a better way to explain the evidence please provide it.
b.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence. If you have a better way to explain the evidence please provide it.
c.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence and your more recent assertions. If you have a better way to explain the evidence and your more recent assertions please provide it.
They are not modifiers. Words are used to convey meaning. I chose these words to convey meaning. That meaning can only be conveyed, understood, contemplated or perceived via consciousness.
Indeed, but words are not the meanings that they convey but only represent them. Remember
This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.
If constituent parts are not “the self same thing” then representations are not either. Without consciousness the word “chair” would not be able to convey meaning but the meaning that word represented, the chair itself, remains and has meaning or consequences (cause and effect). By later including words specifying only the conscious aspects of meaning you of course limit your relevance of meaning to what we call consciousness. Those words were not included in your original assertion that brought us to “meaning”.
No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.
Their introduction was a modification of the applicability of “meaning” to specifically limit it to only your preferred conscious applications. If all you care to refer to now are the conveyance, conception, contemplation, qualification, assessment and/or perception of “meaning” requiring what we call consciousness, then I do not see an issue.
Please to show meaning conveyed, contemplated or perceived without consciousness?
I never made those claims, repeating them will not change that.
What does it mean to say there is meaning without consciousness?
I have said it before, if you need it repeated I’ll let you do it this time.
Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori…
It doesn't mean anything.
It means just what you said. Also it means what I have said before that such “a priori” “cause and effect” enables what you choose to perceive as consciousness.
You are in essense saying that colors exist without light.
My car is blue that color is due to absorption, reflection and scattering properties of its surface, those properties do not change just because of the absence of light.
