What is "transparent" use of words? — Terrapin Station
It's not a matter of translating words into other words per se. We could set up a machine to do that (a la the Chinese Room, say), but the machine wouldn't be doing meaning. — Terrapin Station
A 'form of life' is the way of living of an entire community. It's the way we talk, for one thing, — macrosoft
Now we need to establish a direct relation between what is said and what is wanted, without reference to the medium of thought. — Metaphysician Undercover
I refer to the way that words just pour out of us on the one hand and are immediately understood on the other. In most cases no effort is required. — macrosoft
Language is not experienced as something 'in our way' that meaning has to be shoved through or sifted from. — macrosoft
I agree with you here. The question is about the nature of subjective of meaning. It's not the juxtaposition of meaning cubes in one's mind.
Very simple sentences with nouns that bring images to one's mind are, admittedly, closer to this juxtaposition of meaning cubes. But high-level talking about talking manifests the complexity of the living relationship between the words in a sentence. Something like a cloud of meaning is generated by putting words together. It is not like a train of meaning crystals. — macrosoft
But my theory accounts for that, despite the fact that I'm stressing that meaning is strictly a brain phenomenon. — Terrapin Station
That's like one of those Heideggerian straw men. No one is suggesting as much. — Terrapin Station
As I see it, the attempt to really ground the entire system in this or that part is more or less doomed. — macrosoft
Again, it would be a straw man to assume that I ever said anything like "it only works in cubes" — Terrapin Station
I'm not saying your theory is wrong. I'm just pointing out transparency — macrosoft
If you agree that the meaning in sentences is very un-cube-like, — macrosoft
One thing I like to do is talk about the location of phenomena. In my view, the idea that there are any phenomena without a location is incoherent. The location might be pretty complex, and we might need to talk about a lot of different, sometimes separated locations functioning together, but there's still going to be a location. Nothing exists that has "no location." — Terrapin Station
I don't agree with that either as a universal generalization. What I'd say is that it depends on how a particular individual is thinking about it, and different individuals can think about it in very different ways.
If we say, as a universal generalization, that meaning in sentences is very un-cube-like then Joe might object with, "Hold on a minute! At least for sentences x, y and z, I think of meaning as extremely cube-like!" — Terrapin Station
As associations that individuals make, and different individuals can do this in very different ways. — Terrapin Station
I'd agree that in simple sentences it is fairly cube like. 'The sandwich is on the table.' — macrosoft
What or how is an association? — macrosoft
A type of inherently mental linking, implication, and the like. — Terrapin Station
We do not apprehend the “red,” “apple,” or “five” as separate concepts when they’re uttered in the manner given. — I like sushi
gain, it depends on the individual in question. Different people can think about the same thing (the same sentence) in very different ways. We can't make a generalization about how meaning works for anything (that is, in terms of specifics, exact content, etc.) that would be spot-on, because it's always possible (even if it doesn't contingently obtain at some point in time) for some individual to think about it differently than what we proposed. — Terrapin Station
As associations that individuals make, and different individuals can do this in very different ways. — Terrapin Station
Okay, but you're taking it to be evidence of public/shared/etc. meaning. It's not, because the phenomena in question are consistent with a theory of private/not-shared etc. meaning, too. — Terrapin Station
It's clear that no particular word is going to finally say it and contain the elemental meaning. — macrosoft
I think you are worrying too much about epistemology and not introspecting enough. — macrosoft
In which cubic millimeter of the brain does meaning live? Or does it exist as a mathematical point? At which exact instant does meaning live? — macrosoft
And how would we know that others do so in different ways? How would we determine that? — macrosoft
I don't think you understand what I mean by 'shared meaning.' — macrosoft
Because that's what both wanting something and meaning are--mental phenomena — Terrapin Station
Because that's what both wanting something and meaning are--mental phenomena — Terrapin Station
I don't think you'll get much out of this reading group by simply hewing to this position and then measuring everything in the PI against it. The point here is to understand what and why Witty says what he does, not contrast every section with Terrapin's pet theory of meaning. Nobody is here to engage with the latter. — StreetlightX
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.