I made my argument. You simply keep proving it for me. Thanks.

You simply can't help yourself from using words to point to states-of-affairs. Yes, we use words, but the meaning doesn't lie in your use of words. It lies in the relationship between the state-of-affairs and the words you use to refer to that state-of-affairs.

I don't see how this addresses my question. You said that we can use words but not refer to anything. So how can one use the words "the cat is on the mat" and not refer to anything, and how does this differ from using the words "the cat is on the mat" and referring to something? — Michael

When I said that we can use words to not refer to anything, I meant like this: "shoes make donkeys beat black" Does that make any sense to you? Is that meaningful? If simply using words creates meaning, then that string of words would mean something, but it doesn't - not even to myself the user of the words! It's simply a string of gibberish. You may even ask, "what do you mean?" You may even attempt to imbue meaning into the phrase by trying to get at what the words are referring to. Maybe the donkeys and black are two different soccer teams and the donkeys' shoes are better than the blacks, which is why the blacks get beat. In other words, meaning didn't come from my use of words, they come from you establishing a reference between the words and some real event or thing in the world.

Keep posting. You keep proving my point that you aren't simply using words. You continue to point to some state-of-affairs. You continue to behave in a certain way that proves my point.

Exactly. It's a behavior. Things behave in different ways make different sounds, different smells. As I said ,we simply make associations between behaviors and their causes.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you could explain the difference between saying to me "the cat is on the mat" and not referring to anything and saying "the cat is on the mat" and referring to something. — Michael

How is that NOT referring to anything? Are you not saying that there is an actual cat ON an actual mat? Is not your visual of a cat on a mat a visual of a cat on a mat, not a visual of scribbles on a screen and that is what the words on the screen refer to? That is the visual I got when reading your words. Your words were simply a temporary replacement for the visual of a cat on a mat in order for you to communicate that there was a cat on the mat. If I were there looking at the cat on the mat with you and you say that, wouldn't it be redundant? It is redundant because communicating is simply sharing information about some state-of-affairs, and if I already see the cat on the mat, saying so would just be a waste of breath.

I've been in discussions with you before and when a point is made that shows how wrong you are, you question the validity of the statement being made. If words can be relevant or irrelevant, then there must be more to language than just using words.

It doesn't really solve the philosophical problem of meaning to say that there are some 'ideas' in your mind. The fact that something is in your mind as opposed to behavior doesn't magically solve everything. It doesn't explain meaning (or rather, it doesn't tell you what meaning is), because if there is a puzzle about how mere words can represent something, there's equally a puzzle about how 'ideas' in someone's head can do the same thing. Thinking that the mind has some magical ability to simply 'mean' things is an illusion.

I already quoted some passages from Wittgenstein where he gives an argument (especially the sections about the cube picture) against views like yours, but you however completely ignored that argument. — Fafner

I have already stated that "meaning" is the causal relationship between causes and their effects. Minds, which are just sensory information processing systems, are able to establish associations with different experiences. Hearing a voice speak is no different than hearing the waves of the ocean. It's all just noise until you establish some link, or association, with some cause of hearing some thing. Once I hear and see the waves crash, or a person speak, then I'm able to establish to a connection between the sounds and what I see.

Tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree, and this isn't the result of some magical property or illusion. The tree rings are the result of how the tree grows throughout the year. The tree rings are the effect of how the tree grows which is why tree rings mean the age of the tree and it would still mean the age of the tree if no one was there to look at the tree rings.

We all believe the world is how we see it, which is why "seeing is believing" is a common phrase. Seeing something makes us think that is how some thing actually is, or exists. We seem to instinctively think that the wave isn't the sound we hear, but the thing we see, and being that the sound occurs from the direction of the thing we see, we establish an association between the sound and the visual. This is the exact same way we learn language. This is why teachers show a word and a picture so students can easily associate the word with the thing - a visual thing. Because we are visual creatures, and receive most of our information visually, most of our words are visual terms.

I keep making the argument that every time you write or say anything you are simply making noises or referring to some state of affairs. No one has yet been able to prove otherwise. All they do is say it is irrelevant to "meaning is use", or that I don't know what I'm objecting too. All these things they say is still a reference to some state-of-affairs, not some use of words, and still don't seem to understand that they continue to prove my point, not theirs. What you and the others on your side seem to think is that is all there is to language - simply using words. But that just can't be because how is it that we lie and say things we don't mean? How is it that when you simply use words but don't refer to anything with them, your words become useless and meaningless?

Again, you refer to some state-of-affairs with your words - just like every post in this thread and every thread in this forum. The only way you can use words is to refer to things, or to make artful noise (like in a poem or on a philosophy forum).

of course it does. Again we are talking about getting at the ideas in the users mind, not getting at the rules. The rules are simply there in order to more accurately represent what you are thinking. Your speach and writing can reflect the logic or illogic of your thoughts. Your thoughts may be inconsistent but the world isnt. In order to say anything meaningful your language must reflect the way the world is in some way.

Again, you can never say or write anything that isnt either just sounds/scribbles or a reference to some state-of-affairs.

With the "Man without Words", when he finally discovered language, he wasn't surprised that there was a new game to play, or that he finally discovered meaning. His surprise was that there are shared symbols for things in the world.

This is a typical response from one simply wants avoid the issue. It is a simple fact that if I didnt have an inner experience of non-words nor the intent to express them I'd never even get to the use of language. I can still attempt to communicate with another entity without either of us knowing the relationships between our sounds and gestures and the idea we are expressing. After all, we both exist in the same world and experience things in similar ways, so we are bound to reference the same things, just in different ways. It is the thing we are referencing that we are trying to get at, not how they are using gestures or the kinds of sounds they make.

I couldn't really care less about whether W. is a behaviorist or not. It's simply a matter of personal experience that I don't see myself as playing some game when I speak.

Is this entire discussion just a game of words? Is philosophy a language game? Maybe thats why philosophy doesn't produce anything useful - because it's just an artful game. Science, on the other hand, provides useful meanings through simple observations and categorizations of those observations. This entire discussion seems to be about some state-of-affairs - whether language is a game or not and that meaning is use or not, not simply a use of words. It seems to me that everything you can ever say or write is either just noise or scribbles or a reference to something else, like some state of reality.

It seems to me that "language is a game" and "meaning is use" are things a p-zombie would say. They don't have the inner experience of what words refer to - of having the intent to communicate something other than words by using words. It is my idea that isnt made up of words and my will to communicate that idea which exists prior to any use of words and it is this idea and the need to express it that causes me to speak or write. As the cause of my use of language, it is the meaning of the words I use. Intent and meaning go hand-in-hand.

"I say what I mean" is how we show someone there is an accurate representation between our words and the idea in our minds that we are expressing. What I'm saying and what I'm thinking aren't at odds. I'm not lying where lying is having an idea but using words to deflect another away from what you are thinking. In this case, you would not be saying what you mean. If meanings of words were how they are used, then how do you explain a lie? You would always mean what you say by simply using words.

Again, this is irrelevant to a thesis about how words come to mean. How words come to mean, and how those meanings are employed, are two entirely different issues. — StreetlightX

Ridiculous. If meaning is use, then how words come to mean anything is how they are employed. People change the usage of words, therefore their meaning, and that word now has come to mean something else (like slang) and then used by others in that way.

But this doesn't make the color yellow itself into a symbol for ripeness. Suppose a monkey comes to expect a banana whenever it sees a yellow object. Would we say that when the monkey sees a yellow ball that it comes to believe that the ball is ripe? Or does it believe falsely that the ball is ripe banana? From the example alone it is simply not clear what is supposed to represent what. — Fafner

There is more to a banana that just it's color. It also has a shape that isn't the shape of a ball. It also has a particular texture. It's shape, texture and color is what defines it as a banana. We have different senses that allow us to make these distinctions between yellow balls and yellow bananas.

Sure, you could stop yourself, but if you wanted to use words in some idiosyncratic way that only you understand, you could do that, too. — Terrapin Station

But why would I do that? My point is that words are only for communicating with others. Why would I need to communicate an idea that isn't composed of words with words to myself? I would simply think it without any use of words.

And indeed you can do that. Who would be stopping you? — Terrapin Station

I would be stopping myself because when I communicate, it is my intention that others understand me. If I just used any scribble to meaning anything then I wouldn't be communicating.

I don't see the relevance of the question. The reason people use words has nothing to do with how words come to mean. — StreetlightX

The reason people use words is to communicate. How they use the words is what they communicate. You have an idea you want to communicate and if you don't use the words just right, then you end up not communicating at all.

I don't see the relevance of the question. The reason people use words has nothing to do with how words come to mean. — StreetlightX

If the reason people use words has nothing to do with how the words come to mean, then meaning isn't use.

But that is only half the battle. What reason would you need words to mean anything? What reason would you use words at all if not to communicate their meaning as understood in the dictionary?

This is exactly wrong though. Dictionaries just are catalogues of word use. This is why dictionaries constantly introduce new words, and indeed, offer multiple definitions of words in some cases (not to mention drop words in some cases). They track how words are used. 'Definitions' in dictionaries track word use, not the other way around. — StreetlightX

But there aren't an infinite number of definitions. There are a limited amount. Again, if meaning is use, then I can use any word, or any scribble for that matter, to mean anything I want. Dictionaries become irrelevant. By arguing that dictionaries define specific ways of using words, is to say that words have specific meanings and can only be used in these particular ways and not in others.

What dictionaries do is to replace words which the speaker doesn't know their conventional use, with words that the speaker does know how to use, because if he didn't then the dictionary would be completely useless to him. — Fafner

Then how does one get to know and therefore use their first word if we need other words to tell us what another word means?

And if meaning were use, then why are dictionaries full of definitions rather than uses of the word? There are sentences as part of a definition, but they are examples of it's use for that particular definition. If meaning were use then why have dictionaries at all? Any way I use a word would be what it means and dictionaries would be useless.

I don't know if he did, but that's irrelevant, because he was only talking about the meaning of words. As as I said before, you're creating a straw-man by equivocating on the word "meaning". — Michael

In my first response to you I already said that something can be a symbol without being a word, and I also said that meaning is not just "associating" words with things, so I didn't say that a verbal language is necessary for symbolizing. — Fafner

LOL. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If meaning is use, then I can use the word "meaning" in a particular way, and that is what it means. What does "meaning" mean? If I use the word "meaning" to mean an association or a reference, which many people do use the word "meaning" to mean, then that is what it means.

When did W. ever address people that never learned a language? Such a case is extremely rare and strangely enough it is these extremely rare cases that teach us a lot about what we are talking about.

But you can also see the banana as yellow without knowing that it is ripe (or even knowing that it is something edible). So just seeing the banana is yellow is not sufficient to represent it as ripe. — Fafner

Exactly. That is why I mentioned that you need experience in eating yellow and black bananas.

How do you know that you have a memory of your mother, and not some other woman that just looks like her? If you consider your memory in isolation from context (or 'use') then by itself it doesn't mean or represent anything. — Fafner

Why stop there? Nothing would stop you from continuing on to question whether or not you even have a memory of a woman or even a memory of a word and how it is used.

It's not necessarily a symbol. To know a banana is ripe is to see it as yellow.

As a memory - how else? Are you going to address the "Man with No Words"? He has memories to, but had no words to associate with them.

What is true though is that for Wittgenstein 'meaning' is not an external relation (e.g. causal) between words and things: if word 'refers' to something then that something belongs to language, or has a symbolic function as much as the word which stands for that thing. — Fafner

This makes no sense. The meaning of a yellow banana is that is it ripe. It's blackness means it is rotten. We don't need language to know this. We simply need experience with yellow and black bananas.

Did we cherry pick my post? I mentioned the "Man with No Words" but neither of you addressed it.

When someone uses the word "mother" when talking about their mother, how is it that your mother pops into your head in some way or another if meaning were how it was used? They were talking about their mother, not yours. So how is it that your mother popped into your head if meaning is how the word is used?

What about the things we experience that aren't words? What does the yellowness of a banana mean, or it's blackness? What does a grey cloud mean? It seems that things other than words, and how they are used, are imbued with meaning. You don't need language to know what these things mean. You simply need prior experiences with these things to know what they mean. If you never had a prior experience with these things, then you couldn't know what they mean.

This man that never learned a language until late in life understood meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words
How did he know how to take care of himself long enough to meet someone who understood his dilemma and taught him sign language? How did he or anyone else for that matter, learn a language without first being able to see or hear AND be able to make associations between things they experience (establish meaning)?

Meaning is really just a causal relationship. Why would you say or write anything unless you had what you wanted to say or write about in your head first and what you want to say or write about aren't just other words?

Meaning-as-use doesn't entail that words don't refer to things. If I point to a chair then I am referring to a chair, but we don't explain the meaning of a pointing finger by deferring to the chair; we explain the meaning of a pointing finger by deferring to its use. — Michael

And by referring to something with your words, that is what you mean. Just pointing a finger means one thing - referring. Pointing to a chair means referring to a chair.

Hearing or reading words creates something other than the words in the mind. This association that we develop between the word and what they refer to when we learn our native language is what the words mean.

And other words are just sounds we make in particular social situations, mostly to elicit certain responses from others. — Michael

Great. So then all animals that make sounds in social situations are also using a language.

This is all well and good, but it still doesn't address the realism aspect of language. The things we talk about still occur, or exist, whether we talk about them or not and that is what we mean when we talk about things. If meaning were use, then it would be incorrect to say that we talk about things. What kind of response are you trying to elicit from others when you recall your visit to Rome, or when you describe your mother, or tell them about this philosophy forum? Aren't you trying to elicit a response to the concepts the words create in their head and not just the words themselves? When you say "internet forum", are you just making sounds or do those sounds represent some real thing in the world, like this internet forum? Is an internet forum a use of words, or a real thing that people can go to and share ideas?

That doesn't contradict what I said. It would just then mean that the meaning of "I greet you" is its use as a greeting, much like a handshake or a hug. — Michael

In other words, "hello" is just a sound we make (a social behavior) when we greet each other. We could then say that the sounds other animals make when they greet each other means "hello".

Well but that's not a philosophical question but a scientific one (about the psychological conditions under which some organism is capable of learning a human-like language). This was not the kind of question which interested Wittgenstein, and therefore it wasn't the question that he tried to answer when he talked about meaning and use (therefore the topic of this whole tread simply misses its target). What interested Wittgenstein were the logical features of language that make it function as a language, not the psychological conditions which allow some creature but not another to learn language - that has nothing to do with philosophy according to W'. — Fafner

Philosophy is a science. The conclusions of one branch of the investigation of reality shouldn't contradict those of another. All knowledge must be integrated into a consistent whole.

Another thing I thought about is how books are made into movies. Books are in a written language, sometimes with pictures. A movie is all moving pictures with audio. If meaning were use, then how is it that we can translate written words to sounds and visual action on a screen?

How is it that anyone that read the book first will automatically know the written parts when they see the action on the screen? And didn't they already have a visual of what the book describes before seeing the movie, and wouldn't that visual be similar which is why they recognize the parts in the movie as the parts in the book?

Giving a description is giving an account of some state-of-affairs in words, or using words as a tool to relay the visual of some state-of-affairs. When we say anything meaningful we are usually, if not all the time, relaying information about some state-of-affairs that isn't the use of language.

That doesn't contradict what I said. It would just then mean that the meaning of "I greet you" is its use as a greeting, much like a handshake or a hug. — Michael

Yes, you can use words as a tool, but what is it that you hope to accomplish by using words as a tool? Isn't it to trigger the concepts (that aren't words) in other people's minds? When you describe your trip to Rome, what is it that you want the listener to think about - just your words and how they are used - or do you want them to have visuals of the sights you experienced and are thinking about when you use those words? In order to say anything, you have to have in mind what it is you are referring to when you say it, or else what are you actually saying and what is it you hope to accomplish by speaking or writing?

"hello" means "I greet you". Could you use it to mean anything else?

If meaning is use then we aren't referring to anything when we talk. We wouldn't be talking about anything.

When listening to someone else's words we aren't deciphering their use we are deciphering the intent or what it is they are referring to, or thinking about, in their mind when they are talking. Using language is translating the shapes, colors, sounds, tastes and smells in your mind into other sounds and colored scribbles for others to hear or see for them to translate them back to the things that are in the speaker or writers head. This is why seeing or hearing words trigger their meanings inside our own heads. When describing your visit to Rome, you create images and sounds and smells and tastes in the listener's mind which is your intent no?

When translating words from another language, we aren't translating its use, we are translating its meaning, or what it is referring to.