I’m not good with mixing poetic language with analytic philosophy. I like to keep them separate. — Noah Te Stroete

The pen can do all of the above.
— creativesoul

Huh? What do you mean? Serious question. — Noah Te Stroete

So if there is some "external" thing being 'shared' then why isn't it preserved through translation. — Isaac

I'd say it's more like a process, than an extant thing.

There are certain grammatical rules understood by linguistics that can help us differentiate between a string of random squiggles and an actual language. — I like sushi

Another thing is a “dead text” can still be recognised as a text. There are certain grammatical rules understood by linguistics that can help us differentiate between a string of random squiggles and an actual language. If we know that some markings are from a language, or a means to communicate/express some thought/idea, then archeological terms it provides information. The intent of the author may be lost for ever, yet the intent can be reasonably assumed or they’d be no markings (of course they could be accidental, but certain marking ae highly unlikely - impossible - to be accidental).

Maybe you’d be better off expressing to me what you think the connection between information and meaning is? — I like sushi

Information presupposes meaning. — creativesoul

And please, give your mumbo jumbo a rest. I am not the only one who is sick of it. — S

How can we have a sensible discussion about what sort of things can be meaningful and what makes them so, without analysing what is meant by that? — S

I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless.
— creativesoul

This depends on your definition... — S

Meaning is existentially dependent upon information or information is existentially dependent upon meaning? Explain whatever you mean as best you can then I’ll disagree. — I like sushi

You’ve said something obvious. We all agree that we cannot know something we cannot know. We cannot know the meaning of something we cannot know the meaning of. That is not an “argument”. — I like sushi

...Meaning is not a concept to be given ostensively. The ostenisive giving is the expression of information which provides a shared objective meaning through language. — I like sushi

...Another thing is a “dead text” can still be recognised as a text. There are certain grammatical rules understood by linguistics that can help us differentiate between a string of random squiggles and an actual language. If we know that some markings are from a language, or a means to communicate/express some thought/idea, then archeological terms it provides information. — I like sushi

The intent of the author may be lost for ever, yet the intent can be reasonably assumed or they’d be no markings (of course they could be accidental, but certain marking ae highly unlikely - impossible - to be accidental). — I like sushi

...Maybe you’d be better off expressing to me what you think the connection between information and meaning is? — I like sushi

I’m NOT arguing. How can I when I’ve no idea what you are proposing?
— I like sushi

Fair enough. Pardon my argumentative posture.

I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless. — creativesoul

No need to “propose”. Just say it. We speak English and understand what that means. If you don’t know what this means I’ll tell you. It means “we cannot find meaning in something we cannot find”. Again, obvious. — I like sushi

As to the issue of “meaning” you appear to be conflating this with “information”. That is probably what is causing us to talk past each other.

I’m under no illusion that there is ‘the meaning’ of my words that persists through time. Whenever I interact with the words I wrote, there is meaning in that interaction, and a sense of continuity between that meaning and the ‘original meaning’ when I wrote it, seen as a relationship. When you interact with the same words, there is potentially a different meaning as a different relationship, and I can only approach your meaning by interacting with the way you then express your relationship with the words, within the context of what I understand about the English language, about this thread discussion and what little I understand about you - just as you can better approach the ‘original meaning’ by interacting with the context of the English language, etc and what you understand about me (eg. what else I have written in this thread). — Possibility

The words persist through time (also debatable as a digital entity), but meaning is found in each interaction with those words. If you talk about persistence of meaning, then you run into assumptions that this meaning exists as an entity instead of a dynamic relationship. I get that you understand what you mean, but it’s not always coming across as clearly as it appears in your mind. I don’t expect anyone to understand what I’m talking about just because I wrote it down. — Possibility

I’m NOT arguing. How can I when I’ve no idea what you are proposing? — I like sushi

The gist I’ve read is that someone writes a text (therefore the act has meaning to them). All the people die and the language dies with them. The meaning is lost. — I like sushi

From here you could argue about the actual existence of “meaning” (by which I assume you mean “stored information”?), but it doesn’t really matter. The information is lost and it would seem impossible to recover - in which case we’d infer some hidden meaning but never be able to know one way or another.

That’s my best guess as to what you mean. Amend/confirm if you can.

The historical is important. Prehistory is the issue because we tend to assume too much without written evidence/varification... — I like sushi

What “false dichotomy”? You appeared not to know the difference between “history” and “pre-history” so I told you. It is something anyone who knows a reasonable amount anout history and archeology should know. Understand you’re saying something equivalent to the differentiation between “the bronze age” and “the iron age” is a false dichotomy. — I like sushi

Why are you stating the obvious by saying if we cannot find meaning in something it has no meaning to us? — I like sushi

This is what happens when you make a statement or assertion in this forum, too. The original meaning of your statement exists only in your subjective relationship with what you wrote. You cannot assume that it persists anywhere else, let alone that anyone reading it would understand your meaning as ‘the meaning’ simply because the markings you’ve used to communicate it are regularly in use today. So when they query what you wrote, you can’t just refer back to what you wrote as if ‘the meaning’ is inherent in the markings themselves. You need to give more information about the subjective experience behind what you wrote. You need to offer more context. Otherwise they attribute their own meaning to what you wrote, or dismiss it as nonsense. — Possibility

I think we can agree that meaning of the same marks, signs, and symbols changes through time and different use. The scare-quotes are no longer necessary. The meaning of a text is determined by the users of the language. That meaning can persist through time even if there are more than one(accepted in practice) use for the marks, even if the marks are correlated to different things than the original users. The original meaning, however, could not persist if no one correlated the marks to the same things at all. The same holds good of all common use.
— creativesoul

Clearly the scare-quotes are necessary, as you continue to assert that meaning can persist through time, when I’ve already explained why it doesn’t. There is a difference between continuity of meaning and persistent meaning - the original meaning does not persist, it cannot persist because of the nature of meaning. Once the text is created, all we have are relationships between the text within context (including the author’s subjective experience) and ourselves within context. — Possibility

When we talk about meaning persisting, we mistakenly assume that we can extract the original meaning of some texts but not others, when the best we can do is approach it by understanding (often by imagining) the context of the author’s experience.

This is what happens when you make a statement or assertion in this forum, too. The original meaning of your statement exists only in your subjective relationship with what you wrote. You cannot assume that it persists anywhere else, let alone that anyone reading it would understand your meaning as ‘the meaning’ simply because the markings you’ve used to communicate it are regularly in use today. So when they query what you wrote, you can’t just refer back to what you wrote as if ‘the meaning’ is inherent in the markings themselves. You need to give more information about the subjective experience behind what you wrote. You need to offer more context. Otherwise they attribute their own meaning to what you wrote, or dismiss it as nonsense. — Possibility

How does this relate to the ancient text? Well, an ancient text, like all texts, does not stand alone - it exists in context. So it is only potentially meaningless if we are ignorant of context - of the relationships it has with anything and everything we experience and interact with today - not just the language. As long as we can relate to the context surrounding a text, we can begin to approach the original meaning, to imagine it and strive to understand it - although only the author could ever really ‘know’ it. This is not necessarily because it is ancient and the original users of the language are all dead. It’s difficult to assume the original meaning even of a modern text, if we cannot relate to its context. — Possibility

You used the word “text”. If you call something a “text” then you’re saying it is a “text”. Don’t blame me for your lack of clarity. — I like sushi

You are presupposing something lost by calling it a “text”. If not then you’re saying little more than “this text is not a text”. At best you could say this is not a text it is a pseudo-text.

Surely you can follow my thinking here?

“Either way” is miselading how? I simply said squiggles or not there is physical presence (therefore an archeological artifact). — I like sushi

You used the word “text”. If you call something a “text” then you’re saying it is a “text”. Don’t blame me for your lack of clarity.

You are presupposing something lost by calling it a “text”. If not then you’re saying little more than “this text is not a text”. At best you could say this is not a text it is a pseudo-text.

Surely you can follow my thinking here? If I miss your point assume for a second it may be due to the manner in which you’ve presented it and not just the manner in which I am reading it. — I like sushi

...I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one. — I like sushi

Either way I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one. — I like sushi