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

You're conflating products of your imagination with my words. More of the same. Red herring. Non-sequitur. Strawman. Etc...

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

Why would I bother?

You've disagreed with several true claims already.

Where have I disagreed? What “true claims”?

Which is existentially dependent on the other? Why not simply answer the question and explain why you say so?

Your actual question:

Is the meaning of written text existentially dependent upon it's use? — creativesoul

The “meaning” is it’s “use”. An exmaple would be that the meaning of “a seat” is in how it is used. The “meaning” is not some disembodied entity.

I suggest you click on my avatar. Click on comments, and take a bit of your precious time to learn about what you are arguing against. It would very foolish of you to assume I've not already done everything you've said ought be done, and more...

Help yourself.

We could always take this to the appropriate place. I mean, if you want a real debate, I'm down. — creativesoul

I'm not going to do either of those things. I'd rather you just make a clear point in support of adopting your definition over mine, and a point which I haven't already addressed, or if I have already addressed it, then address that. Again, this is how this works.

I'm still not sure you get the real problem here, because you're still saying completely pointless and unhelpful stuff like this:

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, so it is trivial in and of itself. You need to start talking about why you think that we should adopt your definition. Everything else is just pointless distracting noise which only looks like doing philosophy. That includes all of the usual "this is existentially dependent on that" mumbo jumbo. But I get it: it's hard to break out of bad habits.

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

No. It doesn't. It depends upon what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. Meaning is prior to language. That which is prior to language is not existentially dependent upon it. Definitions are. Definitions of that which exists prior to language can be wrong.

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

No. It doesn't. It depends upon what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. Meaning is prior to language. That which is prior to language is not existentially dependent upon it. Definitions are. Definitions of that which exists prior to language can be wrong. — creativesoul

This is basically a parody of itself, so I don't really have to lift a finger. But I will, because I can't resist pointing out what's wrong with your reply.

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? It really isn't complicated. It's simple. And it is trivial.

If you mean "meaningful to us", which you basically do, then the logical consequences are easy to work out. Is that all you want to do here? No one will actually disagree with you on that. They'll just question the supposed value in doing that.

Yes, any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless (per your meaning of meaning). That is a trivial logical consequence. Is that what you wanted?

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

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

Do you not already know what that means?

:yikes:

I'd be more than happy to discuss what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so.

Do I get an answer?

Which question? I left several unanswered. You and I may find productive(or at least interesting) dialogue concerning "meaning is use". You may be surprised that I reject that as written here. There is no equivalence.

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

Well my good man... Ya know, it's not like you're being physically restrained against your will, arms and legs securely bound, eyelids propped open by toothpicks, sat in front of the computer screen, and forced to do whatever it is that you think you're doing here...

Scroll up and look

Mirror mirror...

The existential question was already answered...

Which one was not that you want to be?

You don't really think that para-consistency will work out here do you?

:kiss:

If you're here as a sparring partner... thanks!

5 pages, no sense, no clarification, lots of evasion and ending on lie about answering a question.

I’m out.

Information presupposes meaning. — creativesoul

Fine by me.

So the current question is what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so?

I'm happy to accept each and every notion of "meaning" here. What makes them meaningful? Certainly they all are. I would posit that it is the same thing that makes anything and everything meaningful that is so.

You see, there's a bit of common sense here. While there is no doubt that there are several different competing conceptions/notions of "meaning", some of which are negations of others and/or are otherwise incommensurate/incompatible with one another, they are all still meaningful.

From this, we can certainly surmise that being meaningful is not a mere matter of definition.

Existing account and the rest of the information you requested?

Huh?

:worry:

Sorry. Wrong number.

What text are you reading?

What sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so?

Language use is meaningful. That covers everything ever spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered. What makes all language use meaningful? Well, there's quite a bit that does. There are all sorts of different kinds of meaningful language use. The differences here, just as the differences in notions of "meaning" aren't helpful for the task at hand. They all set out different kinds of meaning. The question - of course - is what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so? Different sorts of language use can be meaningful. Different kinds of meaning are expressed and/or shared with different kinds of language use.

What makes them all meaningful?

What makes them all meaningful? — creativesoul

Use, friction and all that other Witty jazz you've heard up to your ears about?

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

Ok. Some markings are from a language. Granted. You say that the text provides information. Sure. You say that the intent of the author may be lost forever, sure... maybe. I can go with that. I would grant that the author had intent.

So what?

It does not follow from this that the text is still meaningful.

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

This is an interesting claim, given that there is no universal syntax, grammar, nor form that all currently spoken and/or otherwise understood languages follow.

On what ground could one claim that what they are looking at is not language, when talking about ancient marks?

Ok. Some markings are from a language. Granted. You say that the text provides information. Sure. You say that the intent of the author may be lost forever, sure... maybe. I can go with that. I would grant that the author had intent.

So what?

It does not follow from this that the text is still meaningful. — creativesoul

I would suggest that the text is meaningful if a correlation can be made between subjective human experiences through their interaction with the text.

Do you not already know what that means?

:yikes:

I'd be more than happy to discuss what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. — creativesoul

I know what I mean. Do you think that we mean the same thing? :brow:

You might well be more than happy to talk past me, but I think that that would be a problem. We need to get meaning sorted first before you get ahead of yourself.

I think that I mean one thing and you mean another thing, and that your discussion is trivial, because all it does is say that according to your meaning, such-and-such a logical consequence follows. Why do you seem to think that that's significant?

Well my good man... Ya know, it's not like you're being physically restrained against your will, arms and legs securely bound, eyelids propped open by toothpicks, sat in front of the computer screen, and forced to do whatever it is that you think you're doing here... — creativesoul

Okay, then continue with your mumbo jumbo, even though it does you no good.

So the current question is what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so?

I'm happy to accept each and every notion of "meaning" here. What makes them meaningful? Certainly they all are. I would posit that it is the same thing that makes anything and everything meaningful that is so.

You see, there's a bit of common sense here. While there is no doubt that there are several different competing conceptions/notions of "meaning", some of which are negations of others and/or are otherwise incommensurate/incompatible with one another, they are all still meaningful. — creativesoul

You've not said anything relevant there again. That is just truism. You've had that problem throughout this discussion.

From this, we can certainly surmise that being meaningful is not a mere matter of definition. — creativesoul

No one even made that claim as far as I'm aware.