An addendum for improved clearness as regards my last post, just in case it might be needed:

In the fable presented, the protagonist’s age as measured by his own personally experienced duration of time will factually be that of twenty-some years. This though, in the fable, relative to the duration of time as would be measured by all those he departed from on his initial quest, he will factually be millennia old. In both cases his age is yet measured by duration, but this relative to the vantages of different actual or (being now dead) potential observers. (This as can be just as validly said of various scenarios concerning time dilation within the theory of relativity.)

Also noteworthy, physical changes occur in both of these duration-grounded appraisals of the protagonist’s age. So the division between age as measured by “duration of time” and by “physical changes” becomes largely spurious - although I do get what you intend by the dichotomy.

Secondly, and entwined with the just mentioned, there then will not be one objectively true vantage point of the protagonist’s age, this such that the other vantage point becomes falsity. The protagonist will hence factually be both ages at the same time, with each age being factual from a different vantage point.

As regards metaphysical possibilities, this then to me sets the fable apart from the Adeline movie scenario - as well as from vampire stories, etc. - in terms to the metaphysics of time. It basically seems to addresses the metaphysics behind the theory of relativity without the implied physicalism (and the block universe model) that is typically ascribed to the theory.

Which then directly ties in with this:

So, yes if that were possible then the main character would be biologically younger than his long dead daughter. On the other hand, since Earth time is really what counts for us, we would say he has been gone for a thousand years, and is thus one thousand plus years old, even though relatively unaged. — Janus

When impartially addressed, neither the character's vantage of his own age nor our own Earth-dwelling vantage of his age is privileged. Again culminating in the conclusion that both appraisals of his age are true, i.e. conform to what is factual - but this from different vantage points of observation.

All this stands in contrast to the notion that there is a universally applicable, objective, singular time frame.

But this is not to imply there is a discord between what I've said and what you've expressed.

Should we count age as being the time of duration or physical change? — Janus

There's a fable I was acquainted with as a kid in which the hero overcomes many an obstacle to at long last arrive in a kingdom where life occurs without death and without aging (though physical changes generally speaking do occur there: folks move about, talk, etc.). Being a magical place, he looses track of time. Nevertheless, after what by all accounts is a short stay there, he becomes nostalgic and wants to see his family again - not having seen them since the commencement of his journey a long time back. Though warned against leaving the kingdom, he leaves to return to his homeland. Once he arrives back from where he started his quest, he finds that eons had gone by since his departure, with everything he once knew and loved now gone.

At this juncture in the story, should we deem the protagonist to be millennia old or, conversely, twenty-some years old?

Long story short, I don't find this question to be answerable via any one of the two options presented alone. Rather, I find the issue of his age fully relative to the conceptual context addressed. Such that in the story both appraisals of his age are simultaneously actual but in different respects.

And, although I personally find this fable far more telling in terms of possible metaphysics of time (i.e., of duration), the same can be said of Highlander movies or of any vampire story: that the the character lives for hundreds of years or more while remaining of a constant age makes conceptual (else, metaphysical) sense. These stories would all be utterly unintelligible otherwise.

This to better illustrate the following stance: The answer to the question of whether "a child can be older than her parents" - this as a metaphysical possibility - will be relative to the semantics employed for the concept of age.

So, in durational terms she is always going to be older than her daughter, and since the very meanings of 'mother' and 'daughter' presuppose that the mother exists antecedently to the daughter, then to say that the child could be older than the mother would involve a logical contradiction. — Janus

As per my previous post, I agree with this in full.

A child older than her parents' is metaphysically impossible and logically possible insofar as there is not a contradiction in terms but an inconsistency in temporal composition, or relation. — 180 Proof

Though I appreciate the effort, the movie The Age of Adaline, for one example, directly contradicts it not being metaphysically possible (Adaline mysteriously stops aging due to an accident and her daughter grows older than her). Otherwise, were one to go by the typical understanding of "a child's parent" and "a parent's child" with all the ordinary presumptions intact, it's as logically possible as is a "married bachelor".

Yes, the bachelor could be married to his work, or some such, and hence not be married to a wife, but this is not in keeping with the logical contradiction that is commonly understood to be communicated by the phrasing. As can, for further example, be the case with a "circular triangle": a triangle with convex sides, which is logically possible, is not what is commonly understood by the terms - the latter understanding conveying what is logically impossible.

Oh fudge, I'll reply. And if Hitler happened to be a vegetarian, then it would be a worthwhile thing to keep in mind that all vegetarians worldwide share Hitler's mindset.

Again, I find a glaring logical flaw in this kind of association ... rewritten as some of your posts have so far been once replied to.

Going back into a non-sarcastic mood, it was good chatting with you.

All the same, if there isn't any further ado, I'll be bowing out of this discussion.

I duly agree with you're appraisal, and am strongly inclined toward the following conclusion in respect to the perspective I've previously outlined:

there is a glaring flaw — Lionino

... maybe more than one, actually.

Touche. Your logic as to fortune tellers and such is truly out-standing.

Me: What is an example of a person in which that [metaphysically impossible to be infinite but logically possible] applies? — Lionino

In an attempt to help out:

Since “a person” signifies a subject, and since dogs are subjects of awareness, an example of an infinite person would be an infinite dog.

Dogs are infinite because, just like every other physical object conceivable, when they are for example mapped mathematically via geometric points, they contain an infinite quantity of geometric points.

Infinite dogs are logically possible because they exist in possible worlds. But they are metaphysically impossible because these possible worlds don’t exist, ergo these worlds cannot contain metaphysics.

Such is my best roundabout understanding of the perspective so far.

From some perspectives, everything is connected or related to everything. — Corvus

This misses the entire point. Modal logic is founded upon metaphysics. These being two separate entities: modal logic as one specialized subset of metaphysics at large.

As to everything being interconnected in one way or another, I should think so. Even utterly disparate possible worlds will be interconnected by one's awareness of them, if nothing else. This doesn't prevent us from distinguishing rocks from their molecules and from their environment, though - as one example.

Going in circles. "Subject" is far more ambiguous then "person". But so be it.

So what does the term "person" signify to you?

Modal Logic is a branch of Logic, not Metaphysics. — Corvus

Here's a reference:

Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements.

There could be no formalized modal logic without an underlying modal metaphysics by which modal logic is established.

This gets back into what was saying.

Apropos, to Joshs:

if I were to draw up a diagram, metaphysics would be the circle encompassing the physical and the logical. — Joshs

I agree with your take in all respects but one. To me, the possibilities/impossibilities obtained directly from laws of thought, whatever they happen to be, will encapsulate and determine all possibilities/impossibilities obtained from metaphysics and from metaphysics-bound systems of formal logic (such as that of modal logic). This would then make the laws of thought existentially fixed - again, this irrespective of what they might happen to be.

BTW, dialetheism comes to mind as a conceivable break from the law of noncontradiction. But then again, to my knowledge, not even dialetheism questions the law of identity, which to my mind can validly be expressed as "A cannot be not-A when addressed at a singular time and in the same respect" hence equating to "A can only be A when addressed at the same time and in the same respect". But then this fits into the law of noncontradiction.

In Modal Logic it is possible to have a world that nothing exists. — Corvus

Thanks for the video posting, you. Cute. This Modal Logic, which can diverge into different forms, is itself rooted in metaphysical presuppositions regarding possibility and necessity. (This in addition to conforming to the laws of thought.) So to claim that a possibility emerging from modal logic is not, by its very origin, a metaphysical possibility is to me odd. But so be it, on my part at least.

Laws of thought which facilitate all logic exist as well. Do you then agree that the concept of "a possible world of nothingness" is not logically possible ... this in addition to not being metaphysically possible as well?

Agreed. I'll rephrase: why do you find the concept logically possible to begin with?

Yeah that is the exact part where the contradiction arises, which voids the metaphysical ground of "a world with nothingness". — Corvus

In honesty, I happen to uphold that nothingness is a logical impossibility due to unavoidable contradictions and reifications. But this is contrary to this affirmation:

A world with no existence is logically possible because logically there are possible worlds where nothing exists. — Corvus

So to further in my playing the devil's advocate here, were a world of no existence to be logically possible, then why would nothingness (i.e., a world of no existence) not be metaphysically possible? (As in the possibility of there being nothing rather than something.)

But because of the concept "a world" implying the ontological entity, "a world of nothingness" would be contradiction in metaphysics. — Corvus

Yea, I could see that use of semantics, and I for the record tend to agree with it. But I'm thinking of the question which many have philosophically asked of "why is there something rather than nothing". This question makes no sense without the metaphysical understanding of absolute nonexistence as a possibility regarding what might be the case of the world. Again, akin to an empty set ... that happens to be global. So the "ontological entity" here specified would be nothingness of itself.

A world with no existence is metaphysically impossible because metaphysics deals with existence. — Corvus

Isn't the idea of nothingness a purely metaphysical construct? Hence, a world of nothingness would then be a possible metaphysical construct - about which the only thing to be said is that nothing exists in the possible world. Akin to an empty set.

I think you might underestimate the inner monologue. After all, I am guessing that animals can think visually as well. Our ability to manipulate glyphs which represent arbitrary concepts, both aloud and internally, is part of what sets our cognitive ability apart. — hypericin

I mentioned something about how animals think without words in that thread. So I felt like commenting on this aspect here.

Although animals will have wordless thoughts in one way or another, the argument can well be made that thinking via words will set limitations on what can be thought by humans, this in manners that wordless thinking will not. This limiting of thought via words that grants thought relatively stringent structure would then be a hindrance in activities ranging from novel artistic expressions to novel ideas in both the sciences and in philosophies.

For humans, wordless thought can think outside of the box in which word-driven thought resides, so to speak. Sometimes in very abstract (and logically consistent) manners.

But as I said, I think this is only the case if we consider the meaning of “morning star” and “evening star” in terms of their [physical] referent(s). I don’t think this is the case if we consider the meaning of “morning star” and “evening star” in terms of their sense(s). — Michael

While I still find the notion of a posteriori necessity suspect for reasons aforementioned - for example, such as the issue of a term's sense(s) being precisely that which the term references - I do agree with what you here state.

In the context of this discussion the terms refer to an object in the solar system. — Michael

I get that, but then how does one obtain the necessity of equivalency between terms when they each in large part specify different things, such as in different contexts?

Rephrased, that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet speaks to the necessity of the physical item's identity being unitary irrespective of how it might be termed and, hence, referenced - but not to the necessarily equivalency of terms that can be used to address said item.

Back to a posteriori necessity, then, it is not necessary (logically, metaphysically, or physically) that the term "Venus" equates to the term "Lucifer". It is only necessary that were each separate term (each laden with its own many connotations and denotations) to happen to be used to address the same physical referent, that then and only then both terms be usable as means of referencing the same physical given. But that's a tautology: if it is true that both X and Y can be used to reference Z, then it is true that X and Y are interchangeable - and in this sense alone equivalent - only in so far as both can be used to reference Z. This tautology doesn't seem to me to then support any a posteriori necessity.

What am I not comprehending here?

The sense/reference distinction. By sense it’s metaphysically possible that they’re different but by reference it’s metaphysically necessary that they’re the same. — Michael

Can you clarify the attempted distinction. Venus references love as well as a planet X. Lucifer references lucidity as well as the same planet X. The sense of each term is then obtained from the totality of what each term references - or so it so far seems to me.

It currently feels like materialism is creeping in: as though only physical referents can be deemed the actual referents of terms. This in contrast to senses being immaterial, which, in then possibly referencing immaterial attributes (such as that of love or of lucidity), aren't deemed to reference any actual givens.

180 Proof is right in a way. When formalised, "an infinite person" does not entail a contradiction. There is an X that is both i and p. No problem logically.

However if we think of the concept of a person, and then the concept of infinity, can they both be properties of the same subject? Well, inevitably it depends on what our concepts are. If we start with a concept of a person as a a thing with spatial limits, and infinity as without spatial limits, then an infinite person would be a conceptual impossibility. Is this what is meant by metaphysical possibility? — bert1

The issue is what that X innately entails. Here, X = person. That X is both A (infinite) and not-A (finite) at the same time and in the same respect will be what the very definition of what a logical contradiction is.

The only conceivable exception I can think of would be that of the Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holly Ghost as three different persons in one omni-this-and-that-being. Some of us strongly deem this to be logically contradictory (even if some subset of such might revere Jesus Christ's being/character/etc):

Jesus Christ's body was limited to a human body, as all accounts of him attest to, for example. Jesus Christ's mind was limited to, for example, what he as a subject of awareness perceived - rather than him perceiving what all subjects of awareness perceive in a simultaneously manner, for example - this, again, as all accounts of him attest to.

The Father in Genesis II onward was limited to his walking the garden of Eden, hence was bodily limited. He was also limited in in his forethought of what the serpent, Eve, and Adam would choose to do, hence was not omniscient.

As to the holy ghost being a person, I challenge anyone to cogently explain what this could possibly mean.

All that aside, a person is commonly understood to be a human being, no?

Without warrant ou ascribe the property of being "finite" to "person" which is not intrinsic to the concept. — 180 Proof

Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. Is any person, for one example, omnipresent bodily or omniscient mentally?

Also, circles (or spheres) are both infinite and finite simultaneously ... — 180 Proof

Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.

Yes, metaphysiically, not logically. — 180 Proof

How do you figure not logically? To rephrase: an infinite person is at the same time and in the same sense both a) a person that does not have end or limit to mind and body (this on account of being infinite) and b) a person that does have end or limit to mind and body (this on account of being a person). This is a logical contradiction: A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.

"Infinite person" is one person that is infinite in extent, — 180 Proof

Try it this way: "infinite" in all cases means "not finite", where "finite" means "having an end or limit". A person in all cases is finite in both mind and body. Hence, "infinite person" is contradictory.

The leading example I've seen of a posteriori necessity is that of "Venus = Lucifer". I so far find this fishy. Any bloke on the street will tell you that "Venus" does not equal "Lucifer". That they both in part reference the same physical planet is not the whole of the story.

Then again, who knows, maybe love does equal lucidity after all. :grin:

But I kept the doubt in mind: is it not a matter of semantics even then? Because in epiphenomenalism, the mental changing the material is impossible within that metaphysics. But in epiphenomenalism, isn't the inability to change the material part of the definition of what is mental? And thus the mental changing the material becomes a logical contradiction within that metaphysics? — Lionino

For what it’s worth, my current thought process on the matter is along these lines:

Logical possibility—all of it pivoting on laws of thought—pivots on what is (taken to be) ubiquitous to all subjects of awareness. This irrespective of whether subjects of awareness might hold a comprehension of what these laws of thought might be; e.g., a preadolescent child will think via the laws of thought (however imperfectly and, hence, at times, illogically) although not holding a comprehension of them.

Physical possibility—when divorced from any metaphysics regarding what the physical entails, e.g. materialism, idealism, or substance dualism, etc.—also pivots on what is (taken to be) ubiquitously applicable to all subjects of awareness. Here, though, without a metaphysics there cannot occur a comprehension by which to make sense of physicality.

So both the logically possible and the physically possible will at root address ubiquitous actualities, actualities that are thereby universal and, in this sense, singular.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, will always make use of the logical and of the physical—at least in part, to which experiences, i.e. subjective actualities, can be added as well—to arrive at understandings regarding that which is in any way actual (including, for example, that which is actually possible). There are multiple ways metaphysics could be derived via physicality-bound (as well as, at times, experience-bound) logic. Thus resulting in multiple, often enough contradicting, metaphysical models of what is.

Each metaphysical system will then galvanize its own semantics; most of the time the validity of these metaphysics-specific semantics will be evaluated by their individual explanatory power—this in explaining what is actual (be it laws of thought, be it the physical, or be it our sometimes discordant and sometimes commonly held experiences, which could then extend into things such as cultures, languages, etc.). And, by extension, these individual explanatory-power-endowed semantics that together form the given metaphysics then grants the given metaphysics as a whole its explanatory power.

So the individual understandings, or semantics, imbedded within a metaphysical system (such as that of epiphenomenalism’s impossibility of mind affecting matter) is tied into, and is justified via, a webbing of ideally fully self-consistent semantics—all minimally conforming to what is known of logic and of physicality—that work together to explain all that is actual. To deprive epiphenomenalism of the impossibility of mind affecting matter is to then nullify the entirety of the metaphysical webbing of understandings which epiphenomenalism is. This, were it to occur, would then leave a vacuum of explanatory power and, hence, of general understanding, for all those that previously upheld the metaphysics of epiphenomenalism.

This being a longer path toward saying that I fully agree metaphysical differences can be said to boil down to semantics. I’d only add that, for one example, the particular semantic of “mind” in the case of epiphenomenalism appears to me inextricably bound into the entire webbing of semantics—of logic- and physicality-bound understandings—which this one metaphysics in fact is, if not merely being a webbing of understandings from which this metaphysics is constituted.

[This, to my mind, could get deep into epistemological issues of justification: which, as per the above, I currently perceive to involve some variation of foundherentism. This being a crossbreed of foundationalism (in conforming to the laws of thought and to physicality, if not also to some aspects of experience) and coherentism (in relation to a particular metaphysics' ideal lack of self-contradiction in the understandings it holds). Likely a different issue, though.]

At any rate, this is only a rough sketch of a general idea. Still, while its likely incomplete, I nevertheless so far find it to, well … to hold a fair share of explanatory power—this in terms of the different types of modalities addressed in this thread.

Glad to hear it was of benefit. :up:

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

How do you understand “metaphysical possibility”? As 1) possible iff it is true in at least one logically possible world, as 2) possible iff it is logically consisted to the laws of some particular metaphysics, or 3) as a possibility not addressed by either (1) or (2) as just described?

If (1), and if all logical possibilities pivot on the laws of thought as I believe they do, then it so far seems to me that any possibility one can think of which conforms to the laws of thought will also be metaphysically possible. If so, then one cannot have a metaphysical impossibility that is however logically possible.

If (2), then this will depend on the laws of the particular metaphysics in question. For instance, in the metaphysics of epiphenomenalism it is impossible that consciousness could alter its constituency of brain via the choices consciousness makes, this despite such top-down process being logically possible all the same.

I'm quite open to learning about possibilities that would be encompassed by alternative (3), however.

Good is measured in deontology by intentions towards one’s duties and not the consequences they bring about. — Bob Ross

You asked for potential problems with deontology. Don't get me wrong. I've read up on deontology a bit. It's just that I so far find it lacking. Rephrasing my question in terms of your quoted appraisal: Of what ethical good is intending to keep one's established duties if so doing produces unethical results? The maintaining of duties within a community of slave-holders and slaves resulting in the lynching of those slaves that don't uphold said duties, for one example. Going hand in hand with this, Harriet Tubman then being decried as immoral for not honoring the established duties of her slave-owning community but, instead, escaping slavery. All the same, if this avenue of reasoning doesn't matter, then never mind.

Interesting. What problems can you construct for deontology? I lean much more towards that than consequentialism. — Bob Ross

Consequentialism comes in a very wide variety of forms: from “the proof is in the pudding” type mentality that can be used as evidence that might makes right (with its associated potential atrocities) to notions such as that of karma (which at base is about cause and consequence).

Having touched upon that:

Of what good is deontology if it doesn’t produce good results, i.e. good consequences? If no satisfactory answer can be given to this question other than that of affirming it to be good on account of its good consequences, then deontology (as can then be likewise said of virtue ethics and so forth) will itself be a form of consequentialism broadly defined.

Of course, this is not to confuse all forms of consequentialism as being forms of utilitarianism (which can itself be understood in different ways).

BTW, the OP gives a nifty thought experiment. At this juncture, I’ll simply object to its supposition of necessity. I can’t yet fathom any logical scenario – irrespective of possible worlds - wherein it is necessary that an innocent being A be perpetually tortured so as to grant all other beings the opportunity to live, and this in a utopian state no less (other than it being so ordained by a not so nice omnipotent deity, kind of thing; but then I don't deem omnipotent deities to be logically possible to begin with ... different topic though).

(Edit: made some typos, now corrected.)

Would you say these are like specific experiences? With phenomena? Its strange because I don't think I can express meanings without words so it is not clear to me what active cognizance of wordless meaning could be like in the moment. — Apustimelogist

Well, they're most definitely experienced. "Phenomena" technically translates into appearances perceivable through the physiological senses. In this sense, then, they are devoid of phenomena. Also, the meanings are not expressed to oneself but, instead, directly dealt with.

A different way of expressing it, this via words of course, is that it deals with appraising, manipulating, and deciding upon understandings.

I imagine that most can discern two dots on a blank page without needing to count them. Here, then, one understands the quantity involved without the need to use words. Then, were there to be two circles, one with two dots and one with three dots, a person could discern that the circle with three dots contains a greater quantity of dots simply via the faculty of understanding. This without a need to use words in the thought process. One can of course use words to count the dots ("one", "two", "three") but this in a sense slows down the process of discerning - as I was previously saying, being a kind of cognitive crutch in the process of thought.

Differently exemplified, the word "animal" evokes a fairly complex abstraction which is understood. Mammals, insects, lizards, fish, birds, these are all types of animals, while trees, and mushrooms, and rocks are not. The understanding of what "animal" conveys is grasped without the use of words by adults - else a thorough verbal listing of all concrete types of this abstraction would be required in addition to a verbalized categorization of what concrete types fit into what subcategories (cat is a type of feline which is a type of mammal which is a type of animal). As with discerning and contrasting quantities, a person could then discern the meaning/abstraction/understanding of what via words is expressed as "animal" - as well as the various types this category contains - without the use of words. So doing being wordless thoughts. As with counting by use of words being a kind of crutch in discerning quantities, so too can be said of using one's inner voice to now express the word "animal" to oneself so as to address the concept which the word is understood to convey.

Don't know if I could express it much better than this, but I find that words are only the very tip of an otherwise massive iceberg. Words (or, maybe better yet, what in this thread has been termed "word-forms") are appearances and, in this sense, phenomenal, whereas the iceberg beneath the waters consists of meaning which cannot be perceived, neither via the physiological senses nor via imaginings of one's mind. Even when one thinks via one's inner voice, one is still using word-forms to appraise, manipulate, and decide upon the icebergs beneath the waters - so to speak via a limited analogy.

The ontological reality of suffering differs in certain ways from the ontological reality of mathematics, but I think both propositions are objectively true. — Leontiskos

I'm in full agreement with what you've replied.

Here I would like to add a point about making distinction between 'subjectivity' and 'subjecthood'. It's an awkward distinction to make, but it attempts to distinguish between 'subjective' as in 'pertaining only to an individual' and 'subjective' as in 'pertaining to the state of being a subject', and to facts which can only be truly understood in the first person.

"If a truth is not universally knowable, then it cannot be universally binding; and if the ground of a truth is accessible to only a single subject, then it is not universally knowable." — Leontiskos — Wayfarer

I see the distinction you are trying to make, but I am not convinced that your second category does not collapse back into your first category. Presumably your second category is something along the lines of qualia. But the difficulty is that qualia can be understood through language. I can speak about the perception of red, and you will know what I am talking about given your experiences. — Leontiskos

Consider the distinction between "an object of awareness" and "a subject of awareness". At least some specific objects of awareness can then be classified as subjective in the sense of "pertaining only to an individual". But would one then also classify the actuality of a subject of awareness's being (subjectivity in the sense of "pertaining to the state of being a subject") as a) strictly only an object of awareness sans any subject of awareness or, else, as b) strictly pertaining only to one individual (such that it is not an actuality equally applicable to all co-existent individual beings; i.e., such that solipsism is concluded)?

If yes, I so far fail to understand the reasoning to this. But if not, then one obtains a category of subjecthood - which, if absolutely nothing else, will include the attribute of being a subject of awareness - that is not deemed to be subjective in the first sense addressed. This such that the proposition of "all individual beings are subjects of awareness" can be deemed equally objective to the proposition "rocks exist in the world".

Were morality to have anything to do with suffering and its absence, for example, and were this to itself be included in the objective category of subjectood as just mentioned, then the truth of morality could be appraised as grounded in subjectood - and this such that it could be universally knowable in principle.

How would you characterize what happens in your head when you think? Like whenn trying to solve a problen? — Apustimelogist

Since people are different, I’m here speaking only for myself. I’ve been this way (without an inner voice) in periods of my adult life. One appraises, judges, compares, and decides upon (etc.) concepts with an active cognizance of what the concept(s) at issue are—this in manners fully devoid of what maybe could be expressed as the phenomenal aspects of words, aka word-forms—i.e., devoid of the imaginary sounds that are not apprehended via physiological senses—but strictly consisting of meanings, or else the content of concepts (rather than their labels).

To emphasize, not to in any way equate any human to lesser animals, but lesser animals do not hold any language (in the sense of grammatically ordered words) and can yet arrive at Eureka moments of great ingenuity after being presented with puzzles. Needless to add, all of this thinking/cogitating about and discovering of solutions for them always occurs sans language and, hence, sans any internal voice. Included is one video to this effect after a quick scan on youtube (great apes can also do some astounding things requiring puzzle solving and hence abstract thought, thought which is again languageless).

All humans have far greater abilities of abstraction that any lesser animal. So to me it’s in no way bizarre that some humans can engage in very complex, abstract thought without in any way making use of an internal voice. From this vantage, the internal voice of thought could be viewed as a type of cognitive crutch that assists in going from one state of mind to another—such that the crutch is not necessary, at least not in principle. In many ways akin to discerning quantities without counting via use of words.

Don’t want to be overly vulgar in this, but think of the act of sex; some have a hard time with it unless they talk throughout; others might deem the sensual intensity of the experience to be unpleasantly diminished via constant verbalizations of the emotions and thoughts experienced (or were their inner voice to be active during the activity). Same rough parallel, I think, could be made to the variety of ways in which people think.

[...] and we agree on most. Word-forms are meaningless until people associate them with meaning. But this, to me, means that people are meaningful, not the word-forms. People convey the meaning, and stand ready to supply it should they come across word-forms they understand. — NOS4A2

By my appraisal, we so far seem to agree in full. If you care to further this:

As with ideas universal to a populace - such as that of a circle - words (by which I mean word-forms + their associated meaning) embedded within a particular language exist independently of individual minds, although being simultaneously dependent on all minds which hold understanding for the given word(s). They are not intra-subjective realities/actualities - such that they perish together with the individual mind that apprehends them (as would personal memories of, for example, some sentiment experienced during a certain time in childhood). They are instead fully intersubjective, pertaining to all within a certain populace while not being dependent on the individual mind of any within said populace.

So, any particular word is such due to the meaning all people in a community deem it to have - a meaning which children learn to assimilate into their own mind/being via trial and error. But the word will continue to persist unaltered with the passing away of any one individual mind within the populous which speaks the particular language in which the word is understood. Given enough time wherein babes assimilate the words of their born-to language and in which mature minds of the language community pass way, the words will themselves often enough change - in both word-form and in meaning. This can be exemplified by the reading of Beowulf in its original form (preferably, maybe, with an adjacent modern English translation).

Hence, like the reality of a circle as idea, words will all be mind-dependent but not dependent on individual minds. Unlike the idea of a circle, however, given enough time, words can change - again in both word-form and meaning - with the passing of generations; whereas the idea of a circle gives all indications of being unchangeable regardless of time-span and number of generations.

Summarizing this via different terminology, each word will then present itself as a far more plastic (or else dynamic) and as a far less ubiquitous universal than the universal of, for example, the idea of a circle, the latter giving all indication of being perfectly static across time as well as perfectly ubiquitous to all beings across the cosmos which are able to engage in sufficient abstractions. Notwithstanding, each word would thereby yet be a type of universal strictly relative to the language speakers concerned: dependent on all of their/our minds while being dependent on no one particular mind in question.

Then, going back to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, once we deciphered them via the Rosetta Stone, we then grasped the words - else expressed, the language-specific universals of that culture - which hieroglyphs as word-forms likely conveyed by comparing, assimilating, and translating them with the language-specific universals of our own language(s) - which we convey via our modern word-forms.

Hey, throwing this out there for debate and critique, what else.

Awfully narrow view of divinity as concept.

BTW, what exactly is metaphysical about the bible? Does it present any logical arguments anywhere regarding existence ... or merely tell you what is on grounds of these tellings being His word? "God did it" isn't much of a metaphysical argument for anything, after all.

My problem is that if the word-forms conveyed meaning, we’d know what they meant by reading them. It is precisely because they do not convey meaning that we do not understand them, not unless some Rosetta Stone or human being is able to supply them with meaning. The drift of meaning over time suggests much the same. — NOS4A2

I'm not yet understanding how this conflicts with words being more than their word-forms. For example via analogy, red is just a color. But cultures will associate certain psychological states of being to the color red: passion (be it love or anger) in most of the West and, for example, luck and happiness in China, or else peace and/or justice in Japan. It's via these associations that the color red can then symbolize particular psychological states of being - this, for example, in paintings or on actor's faces or clothes. Same I find holds for word-forms: they're meaningless until a group of people associate the word-form to a meaning (or to a set of such).

Apropos, by "word-form" I so far understand the strictly perceptual aspect of words, be this via sound, or via sight, or via touch. Am I mistaking what you mean by the term?

The basic question is this: are words more than their word-form? — NOS4A2

Before the meaning of hieroglyphs was deciphered, hieroglyphs were to us word-forms devoid of known meaning and, therefore, could not be used by us to convey meaning. But we presumed them to be words all the same on account of their seeming to hold some sort of grammar. Hence, before their decipherment, they were not words to us - but merely word-forms, this, again, on the presumption that they had been words to ancient Egyptians.

Words in any language we (or anyone else, such as the ancient Egyptians) make use of convey meaning - otherwise they’d be visual, sonic, or tactile gibberish, and not words.

I thereby conclude: words = word-forms + associated meanings(s). Making words more than mere word-forms.