All right Harry. If you are not going to read what I write. there's not much point in my writing it. Have a good day. — Banno
Perhaps we can agree that your desire for definitions has its roots in a certain theory of meaning, one more or less in line with the ideas that Harry espouses and that I have discussed elsewhere. That theory of meaning was closely critiqued during the middle of last century, by philosophers from diverse backgrounds. — Banno
Are you suggesting that all must agree upon certain definitions of terms before the discussion can even begin? — Arne
I find that the important thing in discussing philosophy is that you (as in this case me) have a definition for the terms I use that I can clearly articulate to those who ask. In addition, it is equally important to know when someone is using a term that is inconsistent with your definition and that you press them to define their term. — Arne
Although the age of a tree can be measured by tree rings, this isn't what they mean. I submit that they have no meaning at all. Clouds have no meaning either. Nor do black holes. They just are. — Pattern-chaser
I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser
Meaning is the same thing as information. — Harry Hindu
indeed. if we were live, so to speak, you could simply ask for them. But given the nature of this particular medium, having them in advance would be best. — Arne
Although the age of a tree can be measured by tree rings, this isn't what they mean. I submit that they have no meaning at all. Clouds have no meaning either. Nor do black holes. They just are. — Pattern-chaser
Nonsense, if as you stated
I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser
following it's logical conclusion, you'd have to admit that to humans for who the age of a tree is relevant and know about how trees grow, the three rings indicating the age of the tree have that meaning.
Perhaps you meant that it has no meaning to the tree, but why would you with your preference to consider matters relevant to humans? — Tomseltje
I meant that it has no meaning. Not to a tree, and not to a human. As I said, the age of a tree can be determined by examining its rings. But this is not their meaning. They have no meaning. They are a physical attribute of a tree, but you assign meaning to them. Why, and on what basis? — Pattern-chaser
...the outside world... — Harry Hindu
The context is the causal relationship. What something means is what caused it. What tree rings mean are what caused them, which is how the tree grows throughout the year. Even alien visitors would understand what tree rings mean. The causal relationship is objective in the sense that there is only one correct interpretation of tree rings. Any other interpretation would be subjective and therefore useless to others - that is unless you find arbitrary and anthropomorphic interpretations useful.I disagree. Data is the same as information. Meaning is essentially derived from the context of the available data/information. — Arne
Thanks to how the tree grows throughout the year.DOn't look to meaning, look to use: tree rings can be used to dermin the age of a tree. — Banno
Perhaps you would be better named "Harry Homunculus"? — Banno
TomseltjeThat's also where Pattern-chaser goes astray, rightly noticing that we impart meaning to tree rings while also concluding that this means tree rings have no meaning at all- apparently without noticing this contradiction.
Don't look to meaning, look to use: tree rings can be used to dermin the age of a tree. — Banno
but you assign meaning to them — Pattern-chaser
Note that the Socratic Dialogues themselves are discussions about the meaning of various terms; working out what we mean is pivotal to philosophy. If we begin by simply stipulating meaning, then arguably we are not actually doing any philosophy. — Banno
TomseltjeThat's also where Pattern-chaser goes astray, rightly noticing that we impart meaning to tree rings while also concluding that this means tree rings have no meaning at all- apparently without noticing this contradiction — Banno
Tree-rings have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is assigned arbitrarily to them by humans. Even using tree rings to determine the age of a tree is a human thing: we kill the tree to see how old it was. The rings simply reflect the way the tree grew. They have no intrinsic meaning, and they were not put there for the use of humans. — Pattern-chaser
I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser
Note that the Socratic Dialogues themselves are discussions about the meaning of various terms; working out what we mean is pivotal to philosophy. If we begin by simply stipulating meaning, then arguably we are not actually doing any philosophy. — Banno
It's the kind of meaning I was referring to. I'd say that we can't sensibly start going into a philosophical discussion without those being clear. Whether the defining is part of the philosophical discussion or preceeds it, I don't really care, as long as it happens. — Tomseltje
Tree rings DO have intrinsic meaning. Humans could never have "assigned" the meaning of the tree rings as the age of the tree if the tree didn't grow that particular way throughout the year.OK, I'll phrase more carefully: Tree-rings have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is assigned arbitrarily to them by humans. Even using tree rings to determine the age of a tree is a human thing: we kill the tree to see how old it was. The rings simply reflect the way the tree grew. They have no intrinsic meaning, and they were not put there for the use of humans.
Better, surely, not to assign meaning or use, but simply to observe and enjoy? :chin: :up: — Pattern-chaser
but you assign meaning to them — Pattern-chaser
once meaning has been assigned, it has meaning I'd argue. — Tomseltje
"and they were not put there for the use of humans"
I'm just not sure about this last part, I don't know why they were put there, do you? I can't logically exclude the possibility that they were put there for the use of humans just yet. — Tomseltje
No offence intended, but seeing your statement
I prefer philosophy that is useful and meaningful to humans, and I prefer to consider matters relevant to humans, from a human perspective. — Pattern-chaser
I would have expected you would opt for assigned meaning rather than intrinsic meaning, yet you chose differently. I wonder why, got any thoughts on that?
(note, I realize this is a rather personal question, so I'm not expecting you to express the thoughts you may have on this, just whether you gave it some thought yet or not) — Tomseltje
Wrong. If meaning only existed in our heads and not outside of our heads, then how does the meaning in words get from the writer or speaker's head to the listeners' heads?Yes, but the meaning is in your head (mind) and mine. It has no existence in the scientific space-time universe (outside of our heads), and it has no association with the trees (outside of our heads). — Pattern-chaser
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.