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? — Harry Hindu
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? — Pattern-chaser
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
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
The causal relationship is objective in the sense that there is only one correct interpretation of tree rings. — Harry Hindu
The meaning is what the writer intended to convey. — Harry Hindu
Meaning/Information is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu
(2) the real definition of things, also called essence or nature of things in themselves. — Samuel Lacrampe
Wrong again. Vibrating air molecules exist outside of our heads. Our brains interpret those vibrations as sounds, which only exist in our heads.This is misdirective trivia. Sound exists outside of our heads. Written words exist outside of our heads. You are surely aware that sound and words can carry language, which can transport meaning from one human to another. But meaning only has meaning to a human. Spoken or written words are not in themselves meaningful. The meaning emerges when a human understands those words, within their minds.
N.B. I do not intend to refer to trivial meaning, as in "the meaning of a word is described in a dictionary", but something more abstract and human, like "the meaning of life". — Pattern-chaser
Yes. Do you have point to make?Seriously? — Banno
No. Meaning is the relationship between the effect of seeing words on a screen and what caused those words to be on the screen. What caused the words in your posts, Banno? How is it that I can read your posts? Am I suppose impose my own meaning on your words, or am I suppose to get at what you intended to convey when you typed those words?The meaning is what the writer intended to convey. — Harry Hindu
Meaning/Information is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu
Doesn't this imply that what the writer intended to convey is the relationship between cause and effect? — Banno
But that essences exist is easy to prove. Virtually everyone can correctly identify a 'duck' among a pile of 'rocks', or understand that whatever the concept of 'knowledge' is, it is closer to the concept of 'understanding' than it is to the concept of a 'cow'. This would not be the case if beings did not have distinct essences, natures, or identities. — Samuel Lacrampe
Now it is not necessary to find the perfect definition of concrete things like 'duck' or 'rock' in order to have a coherent discussion about these, but it is better to find it for abstract concepts like 'knowledge' and 'understanding' to avoid ambiguity, — Samuel Lacrampe
In effect, the sounds you hear are the effect, while the vibrations are part of the cause. The vibrations were caused by a person speaking, which was in turn caused by some idea in their head and their intent to convey that idea. I don't see how this is so difficult to see as a causal process - where the effect (sounds in your head) mean what caused them - the idea in someone else's head. — Harry Hindu
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? — Pattern-chaser
The sentiment is right.
Meaning is always assigned by people.
But it's not arbitrary. — Banno
↪Pattern-chaser
What? — Banno
Meaning is always assigned by people. — Banno
Assignment of meaning (to tree rings) by humans is pretty arbitrary from a tree's point of view. — Pattern-chaser
I can usually tell a duck from a rock, but I have no idea what a duck-essence might be, nor a rock-essence. — Banno
The distinction between essential versus accidental properties has been characterized in various ways, but it is currently most commonly understood in modal terms: an essential property of an object is a property that it must have, while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
...until I came along and showed that the meaning of a word doesn't necessarily have to refer to another set of words, but refers to other visuals, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings, and those are the actual things that those words refer to. Words are just other visuals and scribbles, whose creation and use were specifically designed to refer to our other sensory impressions in order to communicate the non-verbal contents of our minds. Until humans learn to use telepathy we have to use words to communicate.This thread started with a picture of how words work that involved the meaning of a word or term as being given by another set of words. It's a misleading picture. — Banno
Used: as in used to refer to the non-verbal contents of our minds.In its place one might look to how words are actually used. — Banno
Yes. Cause and effect. I think you might be getting it.Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport. — Pattern-chaser
You don't find the essences from this, but you find that if we know that a rock is evidently not a duck, then a rock is missing some essential properties that makes a duck a duck, and vice versa. And this implies that these beings have essential properties.Are you proposing that when one learns the difference between a duck and a rock that one is learning duck-essence as opposed to rock-essence? I can usually tell a duck from a rock, but I have no idea what a duck-essence might be, nor a rock-essence. — Banno
Not synonyms, but essential properties; that is, properties such that, if they were lost, then the being would lose its identity. E.g., the essential properties of a triangle are "flat surface" + "3 sides". Lose one of these, and the being is no longer a triangle.Relating this to the OP, are you suggesting that providing a definition, a set of synonyms, is what is involved in setting out an essence? — Banno
Who said we can't define a duck or a rock? I said it is not necessary, because the terms are rather unambiguous. Although we would have to if we wanted to find necessary truths about these beings.So you can't provide a definition of duck or rock, and yet you want to use definitions for freedom and understanding? — Banno
Why not? Socratic Method: come up with a hypothesis definition of 'freedom'; test it against examples in the common language that use the term; repeat until it cannot be falsified; Bob's your uncle.If you cannot set out an essence of duck why should we think you can set out an essence of freedom? — Banno
Socratic Method: come up with a hypothesis definition of 'freedom'; test it against examples in the common language that use the term; repeat until it cannot be falsified; Bob's your uncle. — Samuel Lacrampe
Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport. — Pattern-chaser
Yes. Cause and effect. I think you might be getting it. — Harry Hindu
as in used to refer to the non-verbal contents of our minds. — Harry Hindu
So how do you differentiate brain effects to decide which one is the 'meaning'? If you say the word 'tree' to me all sorts of things happen in my brain, audial signalling, random noise filtering, associations, conciousness flickering. I might be reminded of my coat which I left hanging on that tree over there, or my first garden with the big oak tree in it. If you said 'tree' very loudly to me when I was sleeping, I would actually be woken up by the word and all the chain of conciousness would be started by it. Which one of these 'effects' is the meaning? — Pseudonym
Exactly. What you do with words is use them to refer to (communicate) the non-verbal contents of your mind.no; used as in what we do with it. — Banno
What you do with words is use them to refer to (communicate) the non-verbal contents of your mind. — Harry Hindu
Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport. — Pattern-chaser
Yes. Cause and effect. I think you might be getting it. — Harry Hindu
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.