Meaning is the relationship between some effect and it's subsequent causes. — Harry Hindu
Isn't that a very particular definition of "meaning"? One which violates the Principle of Least Surprise, I would say? :chin: Merriam-Webster says this (but I'm not sure it's very helpful):
Definition of meaning
1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport
Do not mistake my meaning.
b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import
Many words have more than one meaning.
2 : something meant or intended : aim
a mischievous meaning was apparent
3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance
a glance full of meaning
4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase
b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase — Pattern-chaser
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Change (or time) within the same space is the relationship between cause and effect?And now that I think about it: what is the relationship between an effect and its cause(s)? It seems little more than that the effect is related to the cause that caused it, which hardly seems worth saying. Saying that the cause is related to the effects it has is similarly uninformative. — Pattern-chaser
Here you are engaging in anthropomorphism. The world contains many different environments. Science can explain the reason why humans choose to live in any particular environment as the result of their adaptations. That would be like saying that elephants are specially adapted to their "world", not to their environment, and then make a distinction that their representations only refer to their "world" and not to the rest of it. It's nonsensical."to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu
Where "world" refers to the physical spacetime universe plus the ill-defined and sprawling mass of human culture, in all its wonder, and all its guises? For the latter is where 99% of humans live out 99% of their lives. And some words, those that are often applied and used to describe human culture, or some smaller part of it, are equally ill-defined. I think "meaning" --- in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not 'Many words have more than one meaning' --- is one of these. Human concepts like wisdom, value, and quality are similar in this regard. We all know what they mean, but writing it down in words is next-to-impossible. :brow: — Pattern-chaser
And then I go and blow Wittgenstein apart.I actually read it, and I want my revenge on the world! I think it serves as an awful warning of the excesses of analysis. All that work, and then Wittgenstein blows the whole thing apart. — unenlightened
Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu
the image of a dog that crops up in your mind is not a dog. It is your class for "dog". Dogs live out in the world as animals, not in your mind as images. The dog class exists only in minds, not out in the world. There's a clear distinction if you just think a little. — Harry Hindu
SO what does "and" refer to? What of "jump"? What about "hello"? Not all words are nouns. Why pretend that they are?Okay, I would rephrase my first sentence into, "to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu
So you have a non-verbal experience that you put into words. And you don;t see that as problematic?What "useful" means in that context is the relationship between the word (the tool) and the intent to communicate non-verbal experiences (the goal).
A writer or speaker has the intent to communicate their non-verbal experiences to others. — Harry Hindu
The meaning can be represented by a definition. — Tomseltje
Hence you are saying that the definition does not give the meaning. — Banno
So should philosophers concern themselves with mere definitions, or should they look to meaning? — Banno
What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? — Tomseltje
The point of that would be to sound fashionable and win arguments by being the loudest and rudest. — Michael Ossipoff
Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu
Yah, that works - cause and effect is so much easier to understand than meaning... :roll: — Banno
Tell me what form the dog-class takes in your mind? Is it not an image of some dog that might even vary each time your bring "dog" to mind?You mix the dog-image with the dog-class. What is that image? A dachshund? A wolf? some weird combination of all? Does it include prairie dogs? Fire dogs? Hot dogs? — Banno
Well, your mental image of a dog was caused by previous experiences with dogs. The image on the paper is the effect of your mental image of a dog. This is a chain of causation. The image on the paper that I see contains information about your previous experiences with dogs. There is meaning in the image on the paper that refers to your mental image and your experience with dogs. Meaning is the same thing as information.What is the causal connection that links all these dogs together? Or do you vacillate between "dog" meaning your mind image and "dog" as relating cause and effect? — Banno
SO what does "and" refer to? What of "jump"? What about "hello"? Not all words are nouns. Why pretend that they are? — Banno
Uh.. no. What is your problem with it? Think about it. Words are just sounds and visual scribbles - the same as your non-verbal experiences. Words are only different in that their meaning is the causal connection with other minds, not some other mindless cause.So you have a non-verbal experience that you put into words. And you don;t see that as problematic? — Banno
Then you must be an internet bot because how does any word come to your mind without some experience to go along with it? How did you learn what words mean?Why pretend that all talk is of experiences? We do far more with words than just give descriptions, so why take mere describing as the epitome? That's why PI starts with a bunch of examples that are not descriptions, but activities. — Banno
If we don't understand cause and effect then how is it that you make so many predictions that come true, all of which are based on previous experiences? Think of all the trivial predictions you make throughout the day and engage in activities to bring those goals to their fruition (getting up in the morning, getting dressed, going to work, getting your work done, going home, eating a hot meal, going to bed, etc.). How could you do any of that without some understanding of cause and effect? :roll: — Harry Hindu
Tell me what form the dog-class takes in your mind? — Harry Hindu
Well, your mental image of a dog was caused by previous experiences with dogs. The image on the paper is the effect of your mental image of a dog. This is a chain of causation. The image on the paper that I see contains information about your previous experiences with dogs. There is meaning in the image on the paper that refers to your mental image and your experience with dogs. Meaning is the same thing as information. — Harry Hindu
I never said that everything was a noun. I said that every word refers to something in the world. — Harry Hindu
all we can talk about are concepts. Words are references to concepts, same goes for the word meaning. — Tomseltje
I don't see this as a detriment to my argument for it seems to me that you could say that for any philosophical argument. So I guess you don't find any philosophical argument convincing? Isn't the fact that we get on with our lives the result of our understanding? Could we get on with our lives without a proper understanding of anything? It seems like you wouldn't be alive long enough to get on with your life without an understanding of cause and effect.A transcendental argument. We get on with our lives; the only way we could get on with our lives is if we understand cause and effect; therefore we understand cause and effect.
I do not find it at all convincing. — Banno
So all you do when you see or hear the word, "dog" is see or hear the word, "dog"? You MUST be an internet bot without an internal mind and without any non-verbal experiences.It doesn't. There's just the use of the word "dog". — Banno
Exactly, you use the word to refer to a particular species of animal that includes all it's breeds. Which breed does "dog" refer to? Which species? To say that a word is "used in your community is to say that it is used to communicate some non-verbal idea.I don't think so. Rather, the way I use the word "dog" is the way that it is used in my community. As I explained, there is nothing that all these uses have in common apart from that use - no mental image of a dog that includes dachshunds, wolves, prairie dogs, fire dogs and hot dogs. It seems clear to me that your account cannot explain the vastness of our use of language. — Banno
"to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu
Where "world" refers to the physical spacetime universe plus the ill-defined and sprawling mass of human culture, in all its wonder, and all its guises? For the latter is where 99% of humans live out 99% of their lives. And some words, those that are often applied and used to describe human culture, or some smaller part of it, are equally ill-defined. I think "meaning" --- in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not 'Many words have more than one meaning' --- is one of these. Human concepts like wisdom, value, and quality are similar in this regard. We all know what they mean, but writing it down in words is next-to-impossible. :brow: — Pattern-chaser
Here you are engaging in anthropomorphism. — Harry Hindu
What tree rings mean are the age of the tree. — Harry Hindu
I don't see this as a detriment to my argument for it seems to me that you could say that for any philosophical argument. — Harry Hindu
It doesn't. There's just the use of the word "dog".
— Banno
So all you do when you see or hear the word, "dog" is see or hear the word, "dog"? You MUST be an internet bot without an internal mind and without any non-verbal experiences. — Harry Hindu
I don't think so. Rather, the way I use the word "dog" is the way that it is used in my community. As I explained, there is nothing that all these uses have in common apart from that use - no mental image of a dog that includes dachshunds, wolves, prairie dogs, fire dogs and hot dogs. It seems clear to me that your account cannot explain the vastness of our use of language.
— Banno
Exactly, you use the word to refer to a particular species of animal that includes all it's breeds. Which breed does "dog" refer to? Which species? To say that a word is "used in your community is to say that it is used to communicate some non-verbal idea. — Harry Hindu
No, Harry. When we use the word "dog", we use the word "Dog".
DO you have a serious argument to present? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.