The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[ironchef texmex]

Ahh, locked in a two-front battle with a Philosophy professor and a guy that writes thirty-pages papers for fun.......... Life is good!

Faith isn't knowledge, Texmex - which is why we use a different word to refer to it. Whatever knowledge is, it certainly seems to be public. Unlike faith, opinion, or guesswork, knowledge compels consent. Faith is simply conviction without compelling justification. Conviction is cheap (everyone has it); compelling justification, on the other hand, is hard to come by. The only institution we possess that's capable of reliably producing knowledge in this sense is science, and if anything, it seems antithetical to meaning. In fact, it's what's put us in this dilemma in the first place, by discrediting all our prior 'meaning-friendly' world-views.

I didn't say anything about faith. But while on the topic, faith doesn't equate to either opinion or guesswork. That's not faith. That's blind-faith. The definition you give is fine as long as the word 'compelling' is taken in the legal sense -- below the level of 'beyond resonable doubt', and not in the modern sic of 'anything a reasonable person would be interested in, drawn toward'. Faith does imply a measure of doubt. What it doesn't do is tell you what that measure is. To do that you would need a hyphenate ie: blind-faith, reasoned-faith. More about that in a minute. First, a brief moment to pause and enjoy the one institution that is beyond all those pesky little issues of faith and doubt -- SCIENCE.

A while back, Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Raymond Moody dropped this little bombshell at a conference on death and dying at Berkeley. "The evidence is now conclusive: there is life after death." Which must have been fun to watch them say, because apparently neither is very religious. Actually, I'm guessing the whole speech was pretty interesting. You see, they researched 400+ Near Death experiences, talked to doctors and patients, went over medical record, blah, blah, blah. Apparently the experience of death was virtually unanimous for everyone who 'died and came back'. So anyway, you want to know what happens when you die? Anyone? Anyone? Oh shoot, I'll let them say it:

"There is a buzz or a ring at the moment of death. Followed by a rapid progression through an enclosure, or tunnel, toward light. There is a surprise at being outside of ones body. Next comes a panoramic review of ones life."

The report includes a bunch of stuff about blind people who could describe the exact details about the hospital room where they went flatline, plus all the rooms above theirs (cause they were floating up... get it ).

Oh, I know, I know, but that's just conjecture. That's scientific method. Not scientific fact. Correct. But I'll bet alot of you non-science types don't realize just how much "science" is just that -- conjecture. Quantum physics, Plate tectonics, the function of all those little structures inside of the cell, all faith, not blind-faith mind you, but faith nonetheless. Oops, sorry, they don't like that word. The term is THEORY.

Which brings me to this --


"Besides, I'm not 100% certain that I even exist as an entity outside of a dreamer's illusion. I could be a disembodied brain floating in a jar, or delusioned in other matters. I could be. But while accepting those possibilities, I just choose to believe that I'm a 30 year old male typing methodically on a keyboard communicating doubts and ideas to other individuals across a spherical object we have labelled as Terra, Earth, Tierra, etc."


Lucky for you, Aldarion, we have science, just like No Dog mentioned. And not only can science proove that, in fact, you do exist, but if you're really concerned about it, they can even give you a little GPS monitor that can pinpoint your location here on Terra to about six inches.

Now about those darn "certain" people. I'm still fuzzy on why it is that their certainty about a thing is the danger, and not the thing in which they are certain (like killing people who believe differently than they do). Now, let me just say, I'm in total agreement with you that a questioning mindset is a good thing. A little questioning and the Waco standoff could probably have been avoided. Not only that, but maybe somebody would have noticed that pastor Jones' Coolaid smelled a little funny. I'm all for questioning. Absolutism doesn't mean that you don't question. It means that you don't question the 'absolute'. You do, however, constantly question your ability to interpret and apply those absolutes.

I'm all about questioning. I'm still waiting for an answer to the one about how those two towns on the southern tip of the Dead Sea could have 'spontaneously combusted'. If you guys run into a scientist who has more than just fai.... oops, sorry, did it again... I mean than just a theory on how that happened, be sure to send him my way.

 

[Larry]

Ahh, locked in a two-front battle with a Philosophy professor and a guy that writes thirty-pages papers for fun.......... Life is good!

More like someone who's had to write his fair share of papers as well. I left teaching last year and before then I was a history grad student and even an adjunct professor before taking a high school position. But point taken

I didn't say anything about faith. But while on the topic, faith doesn't equate to either opinion or guesswork. That's not faith. That's blind-faith. The definition you give is fine as long as the word 'compelling' is taken in the legal sense -- below the level of 'beyond resonable doubt', and not in the modern sic of 'anything a reasonable person would be interested in, drawn toward'. Faith does imply a measure of doubt. What it doesn't do is tell you what that measure is. To do that you would need a hyphenate ie: blind-faith, reasoned-faith. More about that in a minute. First, a brief moment to pause and enjoy the one institution that is beyond all those pesky little issues of faith and doubt -- SCIENCE.

A while back, Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Raymond Moody dropped this little bombshell at a conference on death and dying at Berkeley. "The evidence is now conclusive: there is life after death." Which must have been fun to watch them say, because apparently neither is very religious. Actually, I'm guessing the whole speech was pretty interesting. You see, they researched 400+ Near Death experiences, talked to doctors and patients, went over medical record, blah, blah, blah. Apparently the experience of death was virtually unanimous for everyone who 'died and came back'. So anyway, you want to know what happens when you die? Anyone? Anyone? Oh shoot, I'll let them say it:

"There is a buzz or a ring at the moment of death. Followed by a rapid progression through an enclosure, or tunnel, toward light. There is a surprise at being outside of ones body. Next comes a panoramic review of ones life."

The report includes a bunch of stuff about blind people who could describe the exact details about the hospital room where they went flatline, plus all the rooms above theirs (cause they were floating up... get it ).

Oh, I know, I know, but that's just conjecture. That's scientific method. Not scientific fact. Correct. But I'll bet alot of you non-science types don't realize just how much "science" is just that -- conjecture. Quantum physics, Plate tectonics, the function of all those little structures inside of the cell, all faith, not blind-faith mind you, but faith nonetheless. Oops, sorry, they don't like that word. The term is THEORY.

Which brings me to this --


"Besides, I'm not 100% certain that I even exist as an entity outside of a dreamer's illusion. I could be a disembodied brain floating in a jar, or delusioned in other matters. I could be. But while accepting those possibilities, I just choose to believe that I'm a 30 year old male typing methodically on a keyboard communicating doubts and ideas to other individuals across a spherical object we have labelled as Terra, Earth, Tierra, etc."


Lucky for you, Aldarion, we have science, just like No Dog mentioned. And not only can science proove that, in fact, you do exist, but if you're really concerned about it, they can even give you a little GPS monitor that can pinpoint your location here on Terra to about six inches.

Actually, the point I was making was that I can only go on the available evidence, which is 99.44% (Ivory pure) in favor of what I have decided to believe. I was just riffing off of certain beliefs regarding existence. It's a very educated belief that I have, whether or not one wants to call it faith or theory depends on the rules of engagement.

Now about those darn "certain" people. I'm still fuzzy on why it is that their certainty about a thing is the danger, and not the thing in which they are certain (like killing people who believe differently than they do). Now, let me just say, I'm in total agreement with you that a questioning mindset is a good thing. A little questioning and the Waco standoff could probably have been avoided. Not only that, but maybe somebody would have noticed that pastor Jones' Coolaid smelled a little funny. I'm all for questioning. Absolutism doesn't mean that you don't question. It means that you don't question the 'absolute'. You do, however, constantly question your ability to interpret and apply those absolutes.

I'm all about questioning. I'm still waiting for an answer to the one about how those two towns on the southern tip of the Dead Sea could have 'spontaneously combusted'. If you guys run into a scientist who has more than just fai.... oops, sorry, did it again... I mean than just a theory on how that happened, be sure to send him my way.

More than a theory? That's the issue at hand - a theory is just a statement about what can be observed that has been tested and retested and shown likely to be valid, nothing more, nothing less. Don't conflate theory with interpretation, because those can be totally different things.

Of course, the very title of this thread could be called into question, as I'd favor the use of "interpretation" of Fantasy, but then again, it IS a model, a theory of how to interpret the facets of Fantasy, that I'm exploring, as No-Dog very well knows.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Faith does imply a measure of doubt.

I'd agree, so long as you change 'does' to 'should.' Those pesky people with the pamphlets at my door seem to have a different definition.

I take the controversies of science to be a given: they're the very things that make science the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of the human race. It's self-critical, and therefore self-correcting. Are you saying it's not?

Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in your response, Texmex. Are you saying that 'faith' and 'knowledge' are one and the same thing? If not, then what do you think distinguishes the two? Something must... I mean, there's a rather large difference between consoling theories of God's special purpose for me and theories that makes things like moonshots, computers, and thermonuclear explosions possible - isn't there?

(btw, I've been told many of the near death experiences you mention have been replicated using transcranial magnetic stimulation).

 

[Larry]

I'd agree, so long as you change 'does' to 'should.' Those pesky people with the pamphlets at my door seem to have a different definition.

Reading this made me chuckle, especially considering that I currently live in what is self-described as "The Buckle of the Bible Belt"

In regards to theories of religious purpose and of scientific inquiry, while I agree that the two are vastly different, I also believe that there is a possibility for both to co-exist, at least on the practical level of consoling people with the possibility of an afterlife while allowing for the obvious state of there being computers, bar codes, and online shopping with Amazon Well, at least I think it's obvious

 

[ironchef texmex]

(btw, I've been told many of the near death experiences you mention have been replicated using transcranial magnetic stimulation).

transcranial magnetic stimulation produces a feeling of euphoria accompanied by the sensation of observing a distant light (they usually describe it like seeing the moon on a clear night). As for allowing blind people to observe the conditions of a hospital.... uh, no.

"I mean, there's a rather large difference between consoling theories of God's special purpose for me and theories that makes things like moonshots, computers, and thermonuclear explosions possible - isn't there?"

Is there? Well, I'll give you this; I can think of one very obvious difference with each of your examples -- math. There's no mathimatical formulas that govern the relationship between man and his creator(s)... h-m-m, now that I think about it, there's no math for any relationships involving humans. So is psychology science? How about biopsychology?

No Dog, just because some things must be derived indirectly, does not make them any less valid. The gravitational constant is as certain as it is because we can drop objects from off of the leaning tower. Not so with people... sorry. My point about faith was this: faith can be firmly rooted in knowledge. When I say I KNOW the meaning of my existence I'm referring to a lifetime of experience, of testing and proving a way of life, as well as dabbling with other ways (my mother isn't reading this, is she?) . Knowledge is the residue of things learned, faith is inductive reasoning based on things learned, which then fills in the open blanks with 'things hoped for'. Many religious people have a tiny speck of knowledge surrounded by a thick rind of hope. I am not one of those people.

You don't have to check your brain at the door to be an absolutist. Thinking that TMS has anything to do with Near Death experiences on the other hand, now that might be a good time to put the 'ol brain on somebody's coatrack.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I have been out of this loop all day, and frankly, it's hard to catch up. But one thing I need to ask is why do some of you have this compelling need to be certain about everything? Or even some things? What would being certain even mean? And how would it change anything? Is there any relationship at all between certainty and meaningfullness? I don't see it. We create meaning in our own lives if we choose to, and I am not trying to simplify the existential dilemma in any way, but I often think it is most painful when we refuse to recognize that there is value in simple things. Joy is a real emotion, as is sadness and happiness and anger etc. They are REAL things, even if they are not scientifically defined. We live and exist on more than the mental plane. We are physical beings and we interact with everything around us in ways we are not even remotely aware of. Even if science could explain why we cry and why we feel happiness, it wouldn't define the emotion, but simply explain it in a different language.

Feelings and thoughts are not the same things. Certainty is not always necessary. Faith may provide sustenance regardless of its logical foundation, so it is therefor efficacious, and it is therefor real! How's that? It need not be grounded in truth. Belief transcends truth. Belief renders truth and science unnecessary for the believer. So it may be irrational. And so what? I think it is irrational to assume that we are ever going to be absolutely certain about anything. I reiterate Wittgenstein's statement: If you do know that here is one hand, we'll grant you all the rest.

 

[ChrisW]

Gemquest do you believe all these deep and meaningful threads will actually help you write better stories? Or are you just curious to see what people think?

 

[Scott Bakker]

"I mean, there's a rather large difference between consoling theories of God's special purpose for me and theories that make things like moonshots, computers, and thermonuclear explosions possible - isn't there?"

Is there? Well, I'll give you this; I can think of one very obvious difference with each of your examples -- math.

Classic redherring, Texmex. Neither this, nor what follows (unless you are indirectly implying that there is no difference (!!)), answers my question.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Belief transcends truth. Belief renders truth and science unnecessary for the believer.

Belief is cheap. Anyone can believe anything anytime. People believe the USA is the great Satan. That sex with children is natural. That displays of emotion are effeminate. And the list goes on and on. The difficult thing, the important thing (particularly given our growing technological power), is to find some way of arbitrating between beliefs. As it stands, only science possesses a remotely decisive way of doing this. All of our other beliefs - including the scary examples I give above - have no such recourse.

Much the same could be said for 'self-made meaning,' couldn't it? I actually know people who are convinced the whole point of their lives is to party while it lasts without any real regard for the future or their fellows (and as an implicit attitude (as opposed to an explicit belief) I think this characterizes a great number of people - how else could you explain SUVs?). The fact that we, as a society, have no compelling arguments against this view is very scary - or so I think. Don't you? Or do you think we actually possess regress enders for questions of meaning and value?

I think it is irrational to assume that we are ever going to be absolutely certain about anything.

I'm not sure anyone here ever expressed a commitment to absolute certainty, did they? Texmex questioned why Aldarion and I were so critical of it, but nothing more, I think. All I want are some practical regress enders for questions of social and personal meaning.

 

[Gary Wassner]

You think, No Dog, that science is really able to arbitrate between beliefs? That seems odd to me. In what way could science make value judgments? Or choose between one or another? Some things simply are relative, and there is no real way around that. It seems to me that you have a very strong and unwavering belief in science and its ability to answer questions that may be outside of its realm.

 

[Larry]

You think, No Dog, that science is really able to arbitrate between beliefs? That seems odd to me. In what way could science make value judgments? Or choose between one or another? Some things simply are relative, and there is no real way around that. It seems to me that you have a very strong and unwavering belief in science and its ability to answer questions that may be outside of its realm.

If I'm understanding No-Dog correctly (and he and I have mentioned this before on a few occasions over the past few months), what he's trying to get at is that there really isn't a good working model. Science is the closest thing to an all-embracing critical examination, but there are indeed limits to it, especially in the realms of value judgments and the interpretations that lead to meaning.

So isn't not like he has a strong and unwavering belief in science's ability to answer questions of value and worth as much as he's expressing a negative here - there's an absence that NO model really approaches.

As for relativity, don't things have to be defined not just in relation to one another, but also to an agreed-upon "standard"? One may talk of relative good and evil, but it's really only valid when examined through the prism of the society/individual holding certain beliefs as to what constitutes good and evil in certain situations. Just as I'm very hard-nosed when it comes to people trying to declare absolute certainty, I'm very much the same when people try to pass things off as "it's relative." Then again, I had a few really good history professors that used to grill me well-done for trying to argue relativity without defining the nature of that relativity

 

[Gary Wassner]

You two should teach a class together somewhere. You explain each other, better than you explain yourselves. And, when either of you break down your comments into the component ideas, they are far more similar to what everyone else is saying anyway. Who would disagree that science is the closest and probably most organized means we have of analyzing many subjects. But isn't that accepted? Isn't that exactly what science is supposed to be and do - provide critical analysis in a methodical and thorough manner?

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

But tell me again what this has to do with values like courage, honor and
sacrifice?

I am not arguing that a method cannot be found. That's what the study of ethics is primarily about. I am not a proponent of ethical relativism, except in limited and clearly circumscribed ways, yet I do find the quaqmire of ethical relativism to be a deep and confusing one, and therefor often a compelling one for lack of any other way out of the maze. Yet, I still am drawn to the sense that the physical world, the world of action and emotion, has rules of its own and that they may not all be discoverable. Survival of the fittest and the Will to Power were just two theories that attempted to explain motivation and behavior. But then, compassion rears its unlikely head and confuses everyone once again.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Just to note, I posted this before seeing your response to Aldarion...

You think, No Dog, that science is really able to arbitrate between beliefs? That seems odd to me.

So you're saying science can't arbitrate between beliefs and belief sets (ie., theories/hypotheses)? If not, I'd like to know how it made your computer possible. Blind luck?

Or are you referring exclusively to questions of value here, rather than matters of fact?

In what way could science make value judgments?

But this has been my point all along, Gemquest - you're forgetting our earlier debate in the Appeal thread. This is the very crux of the problem: the only institution we possess capable of producing reliable theoretical truth-claims has almost nothing to say about value. And I say 'almost nothing' because what it does say seems to infer that meaning and value are illusory. Really think about it: the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of humanity suggests (more and more as neuroscience makes further inroads) that meaning and value are nothing more than subreptions.

AAIEE!

Some things simply are relative, and there is no real way around that.

How about the claim that some things are 'simply relative'? How about the Holocaust? Or how about female circumcision in the Sudan? Are you saying these things are only right or wrong depending on your particular 'subject position'? If they are, then why subscribe to ANY moral beliefs?

To me this just leads to nihilism.

It seems to me that you have a very strong and unwavering belief in science and its ability to answer questions that may be outside of its realm.

I'm not sure where this comes from - if anything it's the exact opposite of my position! I think science is the problem. But by the same token, I'm not about to underestimate its power to fix factual beliefs - particularly since this power (which has utterly transformed the world in a matter of four centuries) is precisely why science is such a problem. It's manifest success at 'disenchanting the world' is the very thing that has made worlds patterned on ancient, prescientific models 'fantastic.'

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Larry]

I'm not sure where this comes from - if anything it's the exact opposite of my position! I think science is the problem. But by the same token, I'm not about to underestimate its power to fix factual beliefs - particularly since this power (which has utterly transformed the world in a matter of four centuries) is precisely why science is such a problem. It's manifest success at 'disenchanting the world' is the very thing that has made worlds patterned on ancient, prescientific models 'fantastic.'

And thus the genesis of what's led to us trying to develop a working model of relating fantasy to the past, or as I've half-jokingly said, Connecting Fantasy with the Story. Come to think of it, that might make for a decent title for all this - what do you all think?

 

[ironchef texmex]

Classic redherring, Texmex. Neither this, nor what follows (unless you are indirectly implying that there is no difference (!!)), answers my question.

I thought it was pretty clear, but okay, one more try.

1) "It's self-critical, and therefore self-correcting. Are you saying it's not?" Sure it is... sometimes it has to wait until all the adherents of a specific theory die off to do it, but it certainly does it. But you know what, some religions do the same thing, often in light of scientific/archeological/etc. discoveries... then they get to wait until all the proponents of the 'old way' die off so they can move on.

2) "Are you saying that 'faith' and 'knowledge' are one and the same thing? If not, then what do you think distinguishes the two?" No, I said they were different and then gave working definitions for each. If you take exception to the definitions, just let me know what your issues are.

3) "I mean, there's a rather large difference between consoling theories of God's special purpose for me and theories that makes things like moonshots, computers, and thermonuclear explosions possible - isn't there?" Yes to the first two examples, no to the third. My statement was that, yes, practicing and exploring ones faith is much too complex to equate to calculus, a better corrolary would be something like medical science, where many of the practical applications are derived indirectly. Rocket science is nothing compared to human science.

Also yes, I am an absolutist. For the sake of debating only the all-encompasing questions and not trying to sound as though I'm preaching, I try to make my statements as general as I can (which may be why some are unclear). Also, I will happily attempt to give you regress enders, I think... but uh, first somebody is going to have to tell me what a regress ender is.

 

[Gary Wassner]

No Dog, I have to apologize then. I must have misunderstood you for a while now. I agree that it has succeeded in disenchanting the world, but partially because of the false hope it lends us needy human animals that it can and has answered things so adequately.

I am not a moral relativist! Not at all. I am very much the opposite. I just find it frustrating and even frightening that I can't succintly argue against it without invoking non-cognitive explanations. Why I find that frustrating, I am not certain. In essence, I am schizophrenic on the subject. I find Nietzsche to be one of the most appealing thinkers regarding ethics and moral behivior, yet I find the consequences of his ideas appalling and unacceptable. Hence, my interest in Epic Fantasy as a possible means of discovery and understanding, when all else has failed for me throughout my life.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Really think about it: the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of humanity suggests (more and more as neuroscience makes further inroads) that meaning and value are nothing more than subreptions.

AAIEE!

Just so you know, there's nothing to about, not yet anyway. There are plenty of pop science books coming out that interpret the current findings of neuronal interactions and chemical transmission to prove that meaning is a construct.... and there are plenty that are taking the same findings and using them to prove the opposite. At the moment it's a little like the old cosmological argument -- which I've never understood how you it could prove or disprove anything without begging the question.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Knowledge is the residue of things learned, faith is inductive reasoning based on things learned, which then fills in the open blanks with 'things hoped for'.

Was this the definition you were referring to, Texmex? If so, I'm not sure it really addresses the differences between faith-based and science-based theories.

Here's some obvious differences:

1) scientific theories tend to be refutable, whereas theological theories tend to be not.
2) scientific theories tend to possess comprehensive explanatory power, which is systematically consistent with other scientific theories. Take evolution for instance, which not explains a ton o' stuff, but is remarkably consistent with genetics, geology, and now, even computer programming!
3) scientific theories tend to be efficacious, whereas theological/philosophical theories do not. Science tells us how things work, allowing us to intervene in all sorts of ingenious ways to makes things work for us. In other words, scientific theories make technology possible.
4) scientific theories tend to generate further discoveries, whereas theological theories tend to not.
5) scientific theories tend to command broad rational consensus, whereas theological/philosophical theories do not. This is why scientists in Muslim nations tend to agree with scientists from Christian or Hindu nations regarding their subject matter.
6) scientific theories tend to be 'nonauthoritarian' in the sense that their conclusions follow from rather than precede their justifications. This is why the portrait of the world painted by science is so damn alien - it runs counter to our hopes (in a sense, that's all scientific method is: an elaborate way to protect our conclusions from our biases). Theological theories, on the other hand, begin with conclusions (like 'there is a God,' and so on), then provide justifications after the fact (which is why things like creation theory tend to be so painfully ad hoc).

I could literally go on and on... These differences are powerful, so much so that it now seems absurd to call a priest or a philosopher as an 'expert witness' - though this wasn't the case a few centuries ago.

By 'regress enders' I simply mean ways in which societies can come to rational consensus, and then move on to build on that consensus. This is the very thing that makes science 'progressive.' I take it to be a platitude that this isn't the case with either philosophy or theology, where every premise you offer in support of a conclusion, is itself a conclusion requiring justification. In philosophy, for instance, Plato is almost as relevant today as he was thousands of years ago. We feel comfortable chuckling over Aristotle's 'scientific' theories, but we still take his philosophical points very seriously.

 

[Archren]

I'm obviously quite behind here, but I'll just make one quick comment.

Someone back there mentioned that psychology might not be a science. In most of the ways that it is used, it isn't. Science is at its best when dealing with replicatable phenomena, and psychology isn't usually that well-behaved. Maybe someday our measurement techniques will be up to the task, but for now it has much more in common with pseudo-science.

Someone also mentioned two cities around the Dead Sea spontaneously combusting. This is another thing that falls into that replicability problem. As soon as it happens again, we'll be all over it. Until then, there's not a lot to be said.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Just so you know, there's nothing to about, not yet anyway. There are plenty of pop science books coming out that interpret the current findings of neuronal interactions and chemical transmission to prove that meaning is a construct.... and there are plenty that are taking the same findings and using them to prove the opposite. At the moment it's a little like the old cosmological argument -- which I've never understood how you it could prove or disprove anything without begging the question.

Titles please, especially for books of the former variety. 'Naturalizing intentionality,' or the quest for a scientific theory of meaning, remains the holy grail of philosophy of mind. I've read the likes of Chalmers, Dennet, even the more 'pop' accounts of neural researchers like Leroux and D'Amasio, or physicists like Penrose, and aside from handwaving (mostly on the part of the latter), and pragmatic redefinitions that leave everyone save certain professional philosophers dissatisfied (mostly on the part of the former), no one has come up with an argument even approaching the clarity and force of the case against intentionality (meaning) - and I say this as someone who desperately wants there to be one!

There simply has to be more. I'd just like a robust way to argue for it...