The cat doesn’t need to distinguish purpose or meaning in order for her interactions to be purposeful or meaningful. — Possibility

I concur.

The relation between the cat and the aquarium may not have a particular meaning for the cat - she recognises its significance, and manifests that significance through her actions. But the relation is NOT meaningless, regardless of what the cat does or doesn’t notice or consider.

The life sustaining role is not recognized by her for she does not have the language in order to be able to draw such complex correlations. The relation is meaningful to us, and significant to her by virtue of being life sustaining. She has no clue.

Not all things significant to her are also meaningful to her. Unless something becomes part of a correlation drawn by a candidate under consideration, it is not meaningful to them. That same something may be significant to her without her ever becoming aware of the significance that it has.

Significance is not equivalent to meaning.

Not all things significant to the cat are meaningful to her. All things meaningful to the cat are also significant to her.

I’m proposing that, for those creatures unable to distinguish between meaning and significance, meaning IS that significance. — Possibility

The aquarium plays a life sustaining role in my cat's life. Since water is life sustaining and the aquarium provides water, the aquarium is a significant part of my cat's life. That is never considered by the cat. The aquarium's life sustaining role in my cat's life goes completely unnoticed by my cat.

So, meaning is not that significance.

Some things that make significant impact upon what happens next are not at all meaningful to the creature being significantly impacted.

So,

Significance and meaning are distinct.

There is a naturally occurring process by which all meaningful things become so.

I... ...couldn’t hope to match your grasp of the topic... — Possibility

I appreciate your saying that but I'm still stitching it all together, so to speak.

Damn. It looks like we have a respectful conversation happening. I appreciate that more than these words can possibly convey(pun intended :wink:). Your latest response shows some promise for more detailed explanations than just "different things" to be worth getting into. I'll incorporate significance as well by making the distinctions between it and the attribution of meaning clear.

May be a while though...

Cheers!

And certainty too?

My, my, my...

Have a look at the link I offered above. My position is clear.

What an incredibly racist thing to say — synthesis

Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't know what racism is. Gawd help us.

I did.

My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say.

Here

There's an older thread called Privilege. I suggest you have a look.

I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about... — counterpunch

No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and instigate the very racism it is purportedly intended to address.

The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy.

Freedom of speech has been rather shamelessly invoked as a means to exonerate otherwise completely unacceptable behaviour. If one's speech is used as a tool to intentionally harm an innocent, it needs to be stopped.

Unfettered freedom of speech is a dangerous, potentially world-ending thing.

I'm offended by people who seek to take offence. — counterpunch

Yeah. Let's keep an eye out for those!

:lol:

I can see how a ‘bottom-up’ emergence would appear logical from an evolutionary standpoint. But it just seems unnecessarily complicated, to me. A bit like a geocentric structure of the solar system. — Possibility

Hmm. That strikes me as rather odd. On the one hand, you point out that "things" are much more specific(and rightly so, by the way) than the term implies, but then on the other you claim that an evolutionarily amenable theory of meaning such as the one I've been advocating 'just seems too unnecessarily complicated', and further compare it to Ptolemy???

That sort of comparison - if warranted - ought at least be accompanied by some real life example that somehow shows a lack of explanatory power inherent to the position I'm advocating here. Ptolemy's position failed to be able to account for observation.

Aside from that false analogy and/or false equivalence, there's something else a bit curious about the charge of 'unnecessarily complicated' that becomes clear to one who chooses to compare our explanations here. I mean, to be clear, I would say much the same thing regarding the framework you've been employing - and have if memory serves me.

If you compare our respective positions, what are the benefits of the theory of meaning that you advocate that are found sorely lacking in mine?

...these ‘things’ are more specific than you’re implying with the term. — Possibility

There's a curious thing about both implication and entailment, but that's another topic in it's own right.

When we talk about particular circumstances involving particular individual creatures capable of attributing meaning by virtue of drawing correlations between different things, the things will be stipulated and/or more clearly identified. "Thing", however, I found fits best in a universally applicable description of that basic process(the attribution and/or misattribution of meaning). I used to use "objects of physiological sensory perception", but I become 'painfully' aware of the fact that not all meaningful things are such. In addition, I've a host of other reasons for rejecting object/subject talk. So, as any reasonable critical thinker ought do, I decided to no longer use that description as a result of finding it lacking and/or inadequate for taking proper account of all attribution and misattribution of meaning.

When I'm making the claim that all meaning is the result of drawing correlations between different things, I'm offering a basic outline which can be applied to any and all particular examples of meaning. There are no exceptions to the contrary.

So, with regard to the concern expressed in the quote at the top of this page...

When we begin talking about particular examples, as we did earlier with my cat, those "things" become less vague. It's not a flaw. It's a feature.

So, meaning exists by virtue of a correlation between not just different things, but significant objects, as in the focus or goal of a thinking subject. The potential or capacity for thought, for you, is a precondition to the possibility of meaning, then - not the other way around. — Possibility

I use "things" and not "objects" for good reason. I reject the subject/object dichotomy/framework as well as a few other inherently inadequate, but nonetheless commonly used ones.

As far as the last statement goes, I would tentatively agree, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that, especially after language use has begun. Along the evolutionary timeline, there are situations where some prior meaning is a precondition for some potential thought. But, as a matter of initial emergence, meaning and thought are co-dependent upon one another.

...at least he said it. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Cannot stand that guy. He is not a sincere person. Very dishonest, in a lies of omission sort of way. He should be impeached for openly admitting that he could not perform his sworn oath to be an impartial witness in a presidential impeachment(the first one). That was ground for recusal, but he stayed and acted as a juror nonetheless.

As far as I'm concerned, each and every public official that fostered the big lie needs to be removed. All of them. McConnell is not one of them though. He was very careful regarding what he said about Trump's right to redress grievance during the whole Trump go fund me lame duck session.

Yep. McConnell made the case clearly. He padded what may seem to be a contradiction(because of his vote of acquittal) by virtue of explaining that the impeachment process is not the place to try Trump for inciting the insurrection because if found guilty, the mandatory move/result is mere removal from office, and that would just let Trump get away with it. Nothing is stopping Trump from being charged for the crime in the justice system, aside from not doing it. McConnell even said clearly that whether or not Trump gets away with it will be determined not by the impeachment process(which had no ability to render punishment for the crime aside from removal from office), but rather by whether or not he is tried in a court of criminal law.

I would concur that the fact that an omoeba alters direction until it is traveling along a chemical gradient does not render an omoeba capable of drawing correlations between different things, the chemical gradient being one of those things...
— creativesoul

So...the chemical gradient is not meaningful to the amoeba? The amoeba is incapable of drawing a correlation between the shape of the chemical gradient and the direction of motion? — Possibility

The chemical gradient is not meaningful to the amoeba. The amoeba is incapable of drawing correlations between different things.

Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science. — Michael

So did the DNC.

I interpret your position - and I’m confident you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken - as saying that something is only meaningful when meaning is attributed by a creature capable of... distinguishing between meaning and change, or between meaning and shape, for instance. — Possibility

...drawing correlations between that something(whatever it is) and something else; roughly always between different things. Sometimes, it could be between meaning and other things.

So the fact that an amoeba alters direction until it is travelling along a chemical gradient (and I realise we may be going over very old ground here) does not render an amoeba ‘capable of attributing meaning’. Am I close, or way off? — Possibility

I would concur that the fact that an omoeba alters direction until it is traveling along a chemical gradient does not render an omoeba capable of drawing correlations between different things, the chemical gradient being one of those things...

Ok. But do you agree that existence, as a necessary precondition of becoming meaningful, has at least the possibility of a relational effect/affect prior to its own meaning? — Possibility

The question makes little to no sense on my view. Not all things that exist are meaningful. Some causal and spatiotemporal relationships exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing meaning.

...

As a thinking process prior to language use, prior to formulation into thought, existence is BOTH possible and impossible... — Possibility

Existence is not a thinking process...

In the States at least...

All it takes to become successful and financially secure(rich, if you like) is hard work, saving your money, and obeying the laws. Many people are told that one, to this day.

Another...

...with liberty and justice for all!

That one, is perhaps one of the worst.

You know this isn't the domain of analytical philosophy (deny it if you want, but I know you do.) — frank

I don't believe in domains. Not too sure I'm rightly called an analytic philosopher either, so...

The pinto bean is the focus. Specifically, faith as distinct from mere or reasonable religious belief. I agree that faith may be a relatively new aspect within Christianity, and be inapplicable to other religious belief systems, but that's not the topic.

I'm not attributing Christian faith to any other religions, however, there are certainly similarities in different belief systems, such as QAnon and many Trump supporters(not all). The kind of faith being discussed is not limited to just Christianity.


...a self-imposed future inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary - a leap into faith - actually creates an insurmountable 'self'-imposed impediment to even being able to believe otherwise. Such people will not even acknowledge that it's possible for such deeply held, unshakable beliefs to exist and be operative elements of their own self-governance.

One with faith in God will not waver. One with faith that they've attained access to God's word will not be swayed. One who knows(or comes to know) that they've long since placed faith in the truthful testimony of others may be swayed a bit more.

Fair enough, teach(as in short for teacher)...

:wink:

the search for the conditions under which expressions become meaningful, and what it is for something to be meaningful. Granted, this was under the guise of providing a very specific metasemantics, adopting the Wittgensteinian maxim distorted through Moore, but this was the first time in the specific tradition they were working in that it was done.

You can see precursors to it in the early analytic concern with meaning, especially the positivist conditions on intelligibility, but the positivists never asked the question in such an explicit way, not of which sorts of things were meaningful, but what it even meant for something to be meaningful, and how this might be made intelligible in terms of actual linguistic practices. This is a very powerful move, and one that I take to be 'naturalistic' and 'anthropological,'... — Snakes Alive

emphasis mine...

:smile: :point: :smile:

The relation is not meaningful in its entirety necessarily within language use, only as a partial render/construction of the entire relation. — Possibility

I don't talk in terms of things being meaningful in their entirety. Existing is not equivalent to being meaningful.

I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Our knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful and/or prior to our becoming aware of it is certainly limited.

I didn't look that closely. Just quickly saw that your suggestion would have improved his positions and took you at your word that that stage was a good time to castle.

Now you're saying it's not?

And here I thought you were being a good teacher.

:wink:

I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
— creativesoul

What would you call it then? — Possibility

Having an effect/affect. A necessary precondition of becoming meaningful and/or becoming part of a causal and/or spatiotemporal relation.

Existence is a relation to the possibility of non-existence. In its entirety, and prior to becoming meaningful, the possibility of existence is inseparable from its negation.

That looks like an attempt at a logical rendering to me.

Here's my issue with it...

When something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no negation.

Considering whether or not something or another exists; parsing existence in terms of the possibility of non-existence; claiming that existence is inseparable from it's negation presupposes that negation itself exists. Negation is entirely existentially dependent upon language use. Existence is not. Hence, as above, when something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no such thing as negation.

Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility

This might be our main point of contention. It seems to fit fine to me, without ending in incoherency, equivocation, or self-contradiction.

Well, my framework is not a logical one, but a relational structure which is founded ultimately on a binary contradiction. I’m okay with that, because I can relate to it. Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility

Interesting. It reminded me of para-consistent logic or rejecting bivalence or rejecting the LEM. Have you no issue with explosion? No use for truth?

Bok bok bok....

That's good advice though, regarding the stage in the game at which a castle would've been advantageous.

I prefer Othello.

You may. I'm not very good.

Didn't think one could castle as a means to get out of check. Wasn't he already in check?