How does it become so?

...

It elicits a response; is that not what you mean by "meaningful"?

It elicits a response; is that not what you mean by "meaningful"? — Janus

Unpack this...

What is "it" referring to...

What is "it" referring to... — creativesoul

The sound of the bell, what do you think?

Some thing eliciting a response from a creature does not equate to that thing being meaningful to the creature.

Venus Flytrap and an insect on it's interior...

Outstretched leaves of the rainforest undergrowth and sunlight.

And I'm accused of anthropomorphism?

Do you have an example of meaning that does not consist of a plurality of different things and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between them? All meaning requires something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That's a strong claim. All it takes is one example to the contrary. It agrees with current convention in terms of theories of meaning, and there are no examples to the contrary. That's more than adequate reason to warrant belief that that statement is true.

Some thing eliciting a response from a creature does not equate to that thing being meaningful to the creature. — creativesoul

We do commonly imagine that the responses of (so-called higher, at least) animals are not mere reflexes, such as seems to be the case with insectivorous plants. If you want to say that meaningfulness for animals is more than a feeling response, then what evidence do you have that the bell is meaningful to the animal in some such sense?

That question has been answered more than once.

Not that I have noticed: perhaps I missed it, so indicate where it has been answered then.

Knowledge of the changes in behaviour after introducing the bell. Knowledge of the physiological make-up of the animal. Knowledge of what the attribution of meaning requires. Judicious application of these...

As I said, the example is irrelevant because a set is artificial and an atom is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it is relevant, because you said that a number doesn't exist until it is counted. So the carbon atom didn't have 6 electrons until someone counted them.

The question would be whether the circle had 360 wedges without having been counted as 360. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it had, that's what I said. And it also had 370 wedges and any other number of wedges. Just because someone didn't name, count or draw them doesn't mean they were not there.

I cannot see any sense in which we can say that a collection of objects is not dependent on human perception and understanding. — Janus

A collection is constituted automatically by the objects it is a collection of. Don't you think there was a collection of Sun, Earth and Moon before humans existed? If there wasn't then at least one of those objects didn't exist. And btw, each of those objects is itself a collection of smaller objects.

This presupposes that a creature can draw correlations, connections, and/or associations between things that have yet to have been perceived, sensed, and/or detected.

Impossible. — creativesoul

Correlations, connections, and associations, are drawn completely within the creature itself. The being does this completely internally. Therefore sensation of things exterior to the creature is not necessary for such activity, nor is it necessary for meaning, consequently.

You argue by asserting falsity.

No, it is relevant, because you said that a number doesn't exist until it is counted. — litewave

No, we were talking about the existence of sets, not the existence of numbers. I see very little point in discussing this with you if you're not going to at least try to follow what I say. I made one reply to you which had a section that was directly on topic for the thread, and you didn't even respond to that section.

Of course it had, that's what I said. And it also had 370 wedges and any other number of wedges. — litewave

No, the circle didn't have this. The fact that it could potentially have been divided into 370, 400, 500, or an infinite number of wedges, doesn't mean that it had these wedges.

Just because someone didn't name, count or draw them doesn't mean they were not there. — litewave

Yes, that's exactly what it means. I could potentially build myself a very nice house. Because I didn't actually do this, means that this very nice house is not there. Likewise with your conception of a circle with 370 degrees, if no one actually conceived of this, the conception is not there. Otherwise, you could insist that all sorts of contradictory "conceptions", the square circle for example, are "there". However, for a concept to "be there" it really requires that someone determine the meaning of terms, defining words, producing logical coherence and consistency. Logical coherency is something which is produced through reasoning, (as creativesoul says,correlations, connections and associations) it isn't just "there".

No, we were talking about the existence of sets, not the existence of numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said natural numbers are not ordered from small to big unless someone counts them, which is nonsense. The magnitudes of numbers, which order them, are already there by definition of the numbers, no matter whether anyone counts anything.

I could potentially build myself a very nice house. Because I didn't actually do this, means that this very nice house is not there. — Metaphysician Undercover

But the circle is already there and thus the points on its circumference and the point in the center of the circle define all possible wedges. Someone just arbitrarily selected wedges that are 1/360 of the circle and called them degrees.

You said natural numbers are not ordered from small to big unless someone counts them, which is nonsense. The magnitudes of numbers, which order them, are already there by definition of the numbers, no matter whether anyone counts anything. — litewave

Yes that's approximately what I said, but your rebuttal is false. Without the act of counting, starting from 1, and proceeding to 2, 3, etc.., there is no reason why one number is "prior" to another. 2 is not prior to 3 for example, nor is 5 prior to 10, without that order which starts at 1. You might say that 10 is larger than 5, or of greater magnitude, but our subject is not magnitude, it is priority.

But the circle is already there and thus the points on its circumference and the point in the center of the circle define all possible wedges. — litewave

Again, you are relying on falsity. A set of points does not create wedges, nor angles. This requires further definitions, lines. The point at the centre with the points on the circumference, without the lines, provides no wedges. So the definitions of "the circle", and "the line" must be created with coherency and consistency in order that they actual exist as compatible concepts. And there is a problem here with the relationship between the line and the circle, which makes pi "irrational". Despite tireless effort by the Pythagoreans, this irrationality could not be overcome. This is how we know that circles don't actually exist. A circle is an "ideal" which cannot be obtained in actuality because it contains an irrational ratio, i.e., it is contradictory.

You might say that 10 is larger than 5, or of greater magnitude, but our subject is not magnitude, it is priority. — Metaphysician Undercover

But the magnitude determines the order of natural numbers from smallest to biggest. So if there is a magnitude of numbers, there is also their ordering from smallest to biggest.

A set of points does not create wedges, nor angles. This requires further definitions, lines. — Metaphysician Undercover

A line is defined as the set of points whose coordinates satisfy a linear equation. All the points are already there, in the space in which the circle is contained, and their geometrical relations are already there. All lines and all other possible curves in that space are defined. A human just selects those he finds useful for a particular purpose and may give them names.

And there is a problem here with the relationship between the line and the circle, which makes pi "irrational". Despite tireless effort by the Pythagoreans, this irrationality could not be overcome. This is how we know that circles don't actually exist. A circle is an "ideal" which cannot be obtained in actuality because it contains an irrational ratio, i.e., it is contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Irrational numbers are not contradictory. A perfect circle exists in an infinitesimally grained space, which may or may not be the physical space we live in. Anyway, you don't need a circle to define angles; an angle is a relation between two lines.

There was the Sun, Earth and Moon, but no collection...

A collection is simply a group. No human is needed to put the Sun, Earth and Moon into a group. They constitute the group automatically.

There is no group over and above the Sun, Moon and Earth themselves, apart from the idea of them as a group, and there is no idea of them as a group absent the human.

Well, then there is no Earth either, apart from the idea of it. Because Earth is a group of things too. So, is there anything else than ideas?

There are things such as organisms, planets, stars, land forms, rocks and so on which can be made up of other things. These are not arbitrary groupings of objects. On the other hand, you could say there is a group of things consisting of your nose, my left buttock, a particular camel and Donald Trump's right ventricle; but that is a completely arbitrary grouping which has no reality apart from the objects it consists of and its being thought about.

So, the "collection" of Sun, Moon and Earth could be thought to be real as part of the larger group: the Solar System, which is not an arbitrary collection, but not as a separate "collection" of just those three things.

But it seems that whatever criteria you come up with to differentiate "objective" groups from non-groups would be arbitrary to some extent. A non-arbitrary approach would be to say that any objects constitute a group but some groups may be more tightly held together by physical forces than other groups.

Yes arbitrariness is on a spectrum, it is not "black and white': there is nothing absolutely arbitrary or non-arbitrary. But it seems reasonable to say that groups of things which are physically connected really belong together independently of human thought on account of their physical connectedness.

Everything in the universe is physically connected - the universe is one quantum-mechanical field, one spacetime.

Perhaps in terms of quantum entanglement this is so; but in terms of energetic (gravitational, electromagnetic) physical connection there would be a tremendous spectrum of variance from intimate connection to almost zero connection.

Sure, but with these arbitrary, subjective criteria you want to decide what objectively exists?

What alternative criteria for deciding objective existence would you suggest?