So first, we're going to assume that it doesn't "magically change" when there are no people around.
If it doesn't magically change, and meaning exists independently of people once it's created, then once people are absent, there should still be meaning. So, the question becomes this: in a world with no people, how exactly does a dictionary, for example, amount to meaning, when all we're talking about is a set of ink marks on some paper? — Terrapin Station
No one here should be talking about language being necessary for a rule to be expressed. — S
the expression *is* the rule — Mww
The ink marks would say things like, "planet - a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star". Why wouldn't that be what the word meant in English, as per the definition? — S
I'm not saying it can't be what the word means in English. I'm querying how that works. It works in some nonphysical way in your view? — Terrapin Station
We write down "planet . . . " and then that causes some nonphysical thing to happen? — Terrapin Station
I'm more confused than ever. What would it have to do with logic? — Terrapin Station
But once they're established, I simply ask: wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?
I go by the realist logic, which seems very reasonable to me, that if x means y, then x means y.
I don't go by any logic which I think Russell would call psychologism. That is, something like: x means y if x means y & if and only if x is understood by S & y is understood by S &... — S
What are rules themselves existentially dependent upon?
What do the rules themselves consist in/of?
Are these two answers the same?
— creativesoul
These are interesting questions quite apart from any specific definition of the term "rule". — Echarmion
The rules would have to depend on some kind of communication. Otherwise they cannot be shared.
The rules then consist of a bunch of connections of symbols (in any form) to observations, and connections of symbols to other connections and other symbols.
I'm asking what kind of thing a set of rules is, fundamentally. What kind of thing is a set, fundamentally? — S
What kind of a thing is a rule, fundamentally?
What kind of thing is language?
What kind of thing is meaning?
What do they consist of, on a fundamental level? Physical? Mental? Abstract? Concrete? Objective? Subjective? Location? No location? Is location a category error? How does interaction work?...
I think meaning is being overthought — forswanked
How does a convention or something merely understood but not explicit govern conduct? You don't have to follow any convention. There's no punitive action for not doing so. What sort of government is it if there's no punitive action for not following any of its rules? Under that government, I can do absolutely anything I like. Other folks may not like it, and they might bitch and moan, but so what? I can do whatever I want, including murder, rape, etc. I'd not be controlled in any way. I'm only controlled if there is specific punitive action for breaking rules. Otherwise I'm not really governed, am I? — Terrapin Station
A set of rules, ontologically, requires meaning assignments, and that only happens via people thinking about the utterances, the text, etc. in specific ways--which is their brain functioning in particular ways. — Terrapin Station
This presupposes that all rules governing language use are existentially dependent upon being shared. I don't think that's right. Some. Not all. — creativesoul
Rough and incomplete... but sure. Some. Not all. — creativesoul
"Set" is a name used to pick out a group of different particular things. — creativesoul
A set of rules is a group of rules. — creativesoul
That's debatable... obviously. — creativesoul
Perhaps a better question is this... — creativesoul
Shared meaning being used to influence the world and/or ourselves. — creativesoul
Meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul
I find that none of those notions can take proper account of meaning. — creativesoul
But since S has specifically criticized that part, I think there is no way around language referencing observations. I just cannot think of any other way I know what things are other than to reference things I have seen, heard, felt etc. — Echarmion
No, but I have seen, felt and heard rocks. And I've seen pictures of Mars (and also of rocks on Mars, but we can ignore that). So I have things to reference when you talk about rocks on Mars. — Echarmion
That might seem okay. That might seem like it works. But then we all die, and those rocks on Mars immediately cease to exist. And you find this plausible? — S
You already know what my position is, I am not going to discuss this with you again.
I still don't know how I am supposed to know what words mean without referencing things I have experienced. — Echarmion
Fine, no one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to. But the problems remain. And this is not meant as an insult, but I genuinely don't believe you when you say that you don't know this meaning. I think that you think that you have to say that in order to maintain your position. I think that it's like the photocopier guy from the video when he asks what a photocopier is. Did you watch the video I'm referring to? — S
I did watch parts of it. I am not sure how exactly it's relevant. I know what you mean, or what you want to establish. I just don't think it works that way.
If we go by ordinary language, the term "meaning" can be used as "I mean X" as well as "X means Y". So what is the proper, ordinary language use of meaning? I can make sense of "X means Y" as a short form of saying "When I (people) say X, I (they) mean (usually mean) Y". That seems like ordinary language use to me. — Echarmion
It means: in this language, x means y. That's also ordinary language use, and it doesn't have the problems of idealism. — S
Remember this?
But once they're established, I simply ask: wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?
I go by the realist logic, which seems very reasonable to me, that if x means y, then x means y.
I don't go by any logic which I think Russell would call psychologism. That is, something like: x means y if x means y & if and only if x is understood by S & y is understood by S &... — S
So, beforehand, x means y. And, absent any contradiction, afterwards, x still means y. You create your own contradiction because of your additional premises. But I don't have that problem. Neither do you, internally, but then you have logical consequences I find weird and implausible. For you, x just wouldn't mean y anymore. But that is not at all convincing to me. — S
Jumping in here, considering whether ontology is the way to go, I think meaning is being overthought, or given to much credit. Considering words as behavior, meaning becomes: the use of words that are acceptable to others (including oneself in an internal conversation). and knowing how to respond to words acceptably. Words are learned through emotional commitment to the situation in which the are learned, and continue to be used base on that emotional commitment. For example, a child learns to behave the word ball acceptably because the parent gives bright smiles when he does. So, for those smiles, the child behaves the word ball in an acceptable manner. He has not learned a word, he has learned a behavior driven by the emotional result. I think all words carry that emotional commitment, and are behavior that does not refer, or point, but interacts. Thus the definition of meaning given above. — forswanked
And down the rabbit hole you go again. Sorry, as long as I have the impression that you're not honestly engaging with my posts, I won't continue putting effort into a discussion with you. — Echarmion
In your mind I am guessing the phrases "general rule" or "rule of thumb" (I apologize for sexist undertones in that second one) mean "not a rule"? Because both of those expressions refer to basic guidelines, not "do it or else." — ZhouBoTong
Does gravity require assigning meaning? Does spacetime not govern the behaviour of all mass?
Are there no rules involved? — creativesoul
So, "If 'flirt' means 'give someone a sharp blow' or 'sneer at,' then 'flirt' means 'give someone a sharp blow' or 'sneer at'"? — Terrapin Station
Wouldn't that also go for "If Herbert Hoover is president, then Herbert Hoover is president," "If the Azure Window is in Malta, then the Azure Window is in Malta," "If Hershey's makes Reese's Elvis Peanut Butter and Banana Creme Cups, then Hershey's makes Reese's Elvis Peanut Butter and Banana Creme Cups," and so on? — Terrapin Station
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.