All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. — creativesoul

I don't care what you think about that, because I've confined the discussion to linguistic meaning only, so whether that's true or false is irrelevant.

"Drawn" is past tense, so the pedantry is unnecessary. — creativesoul

I bloody well know that "drawn" is past-tense. Your statement contained an ambiguity because of what was missing, and what was missing can be filled in a number of ways. I know this because I'm just better at spotting these grammatical things than you are. You would do well to bear this in mind the next time you think of replying like that. I will show you what I mean, since you obviously missed it:

All [linguistic] meaning consists of correlations [that are] drawn between different things.

All [linguistic] meaning consists of correlations [that have been] drawn between different things.

It's only the second one that I'll accept.

All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.

Now...

Whatever drawing correlations between different things is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning.

All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. — creativesoul

I don't care what you think about that, because I've confined the discussion to linguistic meaning only, so whether that's true or false is irrelevant.

Woah, déjà vu.

Now...

Whatever drawing correlations between different things is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning. — creativesoul

You have such an awkward way of wording things. What are you even talking about? Just say it. What is it that you think both things are dependent on?

All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. — creativesoul

Correlations that have been drawn between different things are themselves existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them. No such creature, no such correlations.

Whatever drawing correlations is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning.

Correlations that have been drawn between different things are themselves existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them. No such creature, no such correlations. — creativesoul

I knew this would lead to disappointment. That is precisely what the debate hinges on. Assuming what you're supposed to be concluding is a logical fallacy.

Look, if you're just not up to it, if you're not on my level, then this won't be worth it for me.

You evidently do not understand the difference between assuming and concluding.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between different things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations?

That's the origen of linguistic meaning.

This past act required subjects, but that's all that they're required for, as far as I can reasonably assess. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed. — S

I'd add that it has to be more than a mere correlation, it has to be a "direct connection" between two things (I would say an intentional connection, but it's to your benefit for me to not use that term, because we don't have nonmental intentionality).

The problem is that when no people exist, the world that's independent of us has no means of making such direct connections.

It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation, because, for example, "the composition of music employing the twelve-tone scale" is correlated with "dodge" in the dictionary, because the former is the definition of "dodecaphony," and "dodge" follows dodecaphony. (At least hypothetically--I didn't actually check a standard dictionary to check the example, but all we need is an example of the types of correlations we find--definitions of a term followed by another term.)

The contentious matter is about whether or not the linguistic meaning continues to exist when the language users do not, but the writings do.

That is far more nuanced, but if you cannot accept the basics, that nuance will not be rightly understood.

The contentious matter is about whether or not the linguistic meaning continues to exist when the language users do not, but the writings do. — creativesoul

Exactly.

You evidently do not understand the difference between assuming and concluding. — creativesoul

No, you're just bad at logic beyond a more basic level. You can't just assume what the debate is over as part of your argument.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations? — creativesoul

Jesus H. Christ. No.

I think the problem here is that you're not good enough at grammar or logic or both to avoid problems relating to tense.

Let's say that there is a correlation that has been drawn between apples and pears. It was drawn by a creature who died last night. The correlation depended on the creature for its existence, but it does no longer. The creature died, yet the correlation made by the creature remains.

The correlation was dependent on the creature's past actions for it to be there now. But it isn't dependent on the creature now. The creature is dead after all.

That's an example of how to use the grammar of tenses properly, and how to do logic properly. Perhaps you can learn from my example.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations?
— creativesoul

Jesus H. Christ. No. — S

Good.

So all correlations drawn between different things are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them.

Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations.

The correlation depended on the creature for its existence, but it does no longer....

That's an example of how to use the grammar of tenses properly, and how to do logic properly. Perhaps you can learn from my example. — S

That's an example of self contradiction.

When you learn proper grammar, and when you're capable of logic on my level, get back to me, and we can sensibly continue this.

Existential dependency doesn't change with time.

Your 'logic' will inevitably change variables when attempting to set it all out. Save me the trouble of making you look bad here. It will. Trust me.

When you learn proper grammar, and when you're capable of logic on my level, get back to me, and we can sensibly continue this — S

If you had any clue...

Shakes head and walks away...

That's an example of self contradiction. — creativesoul

No, I suspect that it's an example of you failing to realise that you're talking about a difference sense of existential dependence which completely misses the point of what I'm getting at.

Your sense seems to be the sense that I'm existentially dependent on my parents. If they had not conceived me, then I wouldn't be here right now.

My sense is, and has always been, that I'm not existentially dependent on my parents in the sense that they could both be dead right now, and yet I am still here.

I depended on my parents in order to exist, but I no longer do.

Fortunately, I'm very good at analysing what goes on in exchanges such as this. I can do it on a level far greater than you. You just think that I'm making a self-contradiction.

I'd add that it has to be more than a mere correlation, it has to be a "direct connection" between two things (I would say an intentional connection, but it's too your benefit for me to not use that term, because we don't have nonmental intentionality).

The problem is that when no people exist, the world that's independent of us has no means of making such direct connections.

It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation, because, for example, "the composition of music employing the twelve-tone scale" is correlated with "dodge" in the dictionary, because that's the definition of "dodecaphony," and dodge follows dodecaphony. (At least hypothetically--I didn't actually check a standard dictionary to check the example, but all we need is an example of the types of correlations we find--definitions of a term followed by another term.) — Terrapin Station

It's really unclear what you're talking about here though, and unfortunately not for the first time. It's not so much what you're saying that is unclear, but rather that you've once again left out what this is supposed to be required for. This is a reoccurring problem which you need to iron out.

You need to understand that when you say things like, "It has to be...", and, "It needs to be...", but you don't explicitly state what for, then that will cause a problem of ambiguity.

You need to understand that when you say things like, "It has to be...", and, "It needs to be...", but you don't explicitly state what for, — S

I thought that would be clear from what I wrote. It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation to do the work that we want done, because if it can just be a correlation, then we get the definition for "dodecaphony" attached to the word "dodge," for example.

I thought that would be clear from what I wrote. It needs to be a direct connection and not just a correlation to do the work that we want done, because if it can just be a correlation, then we get the definition of dodecaphony attached to the word "dodge," for example. — Terrapin Station

What the...? To get the work done? What does that mean?

All you seem to be doing with your example is showing that there's some kind of logical relationship which can be deduced from one set of terms to another. But you still haven't given me any reason to conclude that there is a need for anyone to exist at the time to make logical deductions about anything at all, or to make any kind of intentional anything, or draw connections of any kind, let alone with regard to your example with its weirdly obscure language. (Couldn't you find a more readily understandable example of this? All of this "dodge" and "dodecaphony" business makes it a lot harder to understand what the hell you're going on about).

This just looks like more psychologism nonsense.

What the...? To get the work done? What does that mean? — S

For meaning to occur.

All you seem to be doing with your example is showing that there's some kind of logical relationship which can be deduced from one set of terms to another. — S

? No. I'm saying that there's a correlation in dictionaries, for example, between the definition of a term and the term that follows that definition.

In other words, we have word A and definition x. Then we have word B and definition y. B follows A in alphabetical order. Well, in dictionaries, there's a correlation between x and B. B immediately follows x after all, and that's the case in multiple dictionaries.

I'm saying that there's a correlation in dictionaries, for example, between the definition of a term and the term that follows that definition.

In other words, we have word A and definition x. Then we have word B and definition y. B follows A in alphabetical order. Well, in dictionaries, there's a correlation between x and B. B immediately follows x after all, and that's the case in multiple dictionaries. — Terrapin Station

How on earth do you get from that to, "For meaning to occur at a given time, people must exist at that time"?

How on earth do you get from that to, "For meaning to occur at a given time, people must exist at that time"? — S

That wasn't what I was focusing on yet for this tangent. The point was simply to suggest that a mere correlation isn't sufficient. There needs to be a correlation, but we need more than that, too.

Why don't you create a discussion of your own and ask that question? Can you please stop trying to be the chairperson in other people's discussions all the time? — S

I think the question is relevant. It's not a matter of whether we can know (in the sense of have absolute certainty) that we have deciphered an ancient text correctly, but of whether it is possible to be wrong or right about whether we have deciphered its meaning. If we accept that there can be unknown, but decipherable meaning, in other words that there can be meaning there to be deciphered, then that would seem to commit us to accepting that meaning is not merely in the human mind.

That wasn't what I was focusing on yet for this tangent. The point was simply to suggest that a mere correlation isn't sufficient. There needs to be a correlation, but we need more than that, too. — Terrapin Station

I still don't accept that for there to be linguistic meaning at the time, there would need to be an intentional act of associating one thing, like bell ringing, to another thing, like a melody; or with dictionary definitions and alphabetical order, at the time.

But I do accept that some sort of human act would have been required at a time in the past for there to be meaning at the time that we're talking about.

That first paragraph above is my understanding of where you were going with that, or where you would need to go for it to be logically relevant. It doesn't seem to take us anywhere new or helpful. It seems to be just a rehash of your psychologism, where you merely assert or assume that psychological requirements for other purposes, like understanding and whatnot, are somehow required for there to be linguistic meaning at the time. That last step, where you misapply these psychological requirements, is unreasonable and without foundation. Or you could be just talking past me by assuming your own interpretations of things like linguistic meaning, when I'm obviously not arguing for your interpretation, I'm arguing for mine.

It's like you begin by thinking along the lines of what it would take for someone to understand something, or some sort psychological or epistemological angle, but then you unreasonably switch to metaphysics and misapply this angle. There seems to be no logical basis for doing that. I'm after this presumed logical basis from you, but you never provide it.

That's partly why I think that it's so important for you to be explicit about what these requirements are requirements for each time you go down this route. Because if at any point, you're just talking about what it generally takes for there to be understanding, or for someone at the time to know something about the meaning, or something like that, then we might well agree, but the problem there would be logical irrelevancy. It's the next step which is problematic, and which remains problematic and without a resolution.

I think the question is relevant. It's not a matter of whether we can know (in the sense of have absolute certainty) that we have deciphered an ancient text correctly, but of whether it is possible to be wrong or right about whether we have deciphered its meaning. If we accept that there can be unknown, but decipherable meaning, in other words that there can be meaning there to be deciphered, then that would seem to commit us to accepting that meaning is not merely in the human mind. — Janus

I didn't think that his question was relevant because it was asking a question about a different issue. It was asking whether or not we can know, in practice, that the text had been translated correctly.

I think that for it to be relevant, it would become a loaded question, which is just to swap one logical problem (about irrelevance) for another (about a presumption of warranty). The controversial assumption would be that in order for the text to have meaning, it would have to be known at the time, in practice, whether or not the text could be correctly translated. And that assumption hasn't been warranted.

I think that he misunderstands or is misapplying Wittgenstein's beetle.

I was harsh, because it annoyed me that he wasn't explicit about all of this. I've had to try to work out all of the logical connections which he has left implicit. And his general manner of how he goes about discussions annoys me also, where he just comes out with something directed at no one in particular, and seemingly going down a disconnected line of thought, and multiple posts like that in a row. So I was partially venting about this stuff with my snappy replies to him.

Anyone who breaks one of my cardinal rules risks triggering my wrath:

1. A reply which doesn't make proper use of the quote function.

I'm typing up these comments for a reason, and I want you to put the effort into at least making it look like you're trying to address the points I'm making. So quote me, and break what I say down into more manageable chunks so that you decrease the risk of digressing or missing something important.

This should be quid pro quo. If I do it in my reply to your comment, then I expect the same in return. — S

The contentious matter is about whether or not the linguistic meaning continues to exist when the language users do not, but the writings do.
— creativesoul

Exactly. — Terrapin Station

Yes. And no one has provided any substantial basis for rejecting my position on that. We've just had illogic and trivial semantics.

We've also had inappropriate approaches, like the approach of a scientist who thinks that we need to perform some sort of experiment, or the approach of a psychologist who thinks that we need to analyse how a person understands meaning.

No. We need the approach of a logician.

I think the question is relevant. It's not a matter of whether we can know (in the sense of have absolute certainty) that we have deciphered an ancient text correctly, but of whether it is possible to be wrong or right about whether we have deciphered its meaning. — Janus

Indeed.

If all we have is a previously unknown, never-before-seen, ancient text, then all we can be certain of is that that text was meaningful to the language community from whence it came. We cannot be certain about whether or not we - as interpreters - are drawing the same correlations between the text and other things.

Since all meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and all shared meaning consists of a plurality(within a community) of creatures drawing the same correlations between language elements and something else, then it only follows that we - as interpreters - cannot be certain that our correlations have the same content as the people from whence the writings came, because we have only the text.

As a result, we have no way to falsify/verify that we've drawn the same correlations between that text and the corresponding content within the original correlations drawn by the users.

That's an epistemological aspect.

If we accept that there can be unknown, but decipherable meaning, in other words that there can be meaning there to be deciphered, then that would seem to commit us to accepting that meaning is not merely in the human mind.

I am of the position that meaning is not merely of the mind(thought/belief), but there is no meaning without the mind(thought/belief). This could be further explained, if need be. For the purposes here, it seems unnecessary.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and the drawing of correlations is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such. It only follows that all meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations. No creature, no correlations. No correlations, no meaning.

The connection between language elements(signs/symbols/tokens/phrases/movements/what have you) and the corresponding content is made by the creature. When all the language users die, the connection between the text and it's corresponding content ceases to exist. Without the correlations, there is no meaning.

All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. There is no interpretation possible of an ancient unknown text from a group of long dead language users. Such a text is meaningless.

That's an 'ontological' aspect.

If all we have is a previously unknown, never-before-seen, ancient text, then all we can be certain of is that that text was meaningful to the language community from whence it came. — creativesoul

And why was it meaningful to them? Because they gave it meaning.

We cannot be certain about whether or not we - as interpreters - are drawing the same correlations between the text and other things. — creativesoul

We don't need to be. Undeciphered meaning is still meaning, obviously.

Since all meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and all shared meaning consists of a plurality (within a community) of creatures drawing the same correlations between language elements and something else, then it only follows that we - as interpreters - cannot be certain that our correlations have the same content as the people from whence the writings came, because we have only the text.

As a result, we have no way to falsify/verify that we've drawn the same correlations between that text and the corresponding content within the original correlations drawn by the users.

That's an epistemological aspect. — creativesoul

And none of that is relevant to any of the questions I've asked. I haven't denied that there can be situations where there's an unknown meaning. I don't think that Janus has either. In fact, that was his whole point in bringing up the ancient text.

I am of the position that there is no meaning without the mind. — creativesoul

A position you still haven't reasonably justified. The rest is just your question begging copypasta.

I don't know why people think they're doing something of significance when they include their conclusion - what the debate is over - in their premise or definition. This can be done with anything, so it's trivial. I can do it with a Creator, as I showed earlier.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and the drawing of correlations is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such. It only follows that all meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations. — creativesoul

Of course it follows, because you're begging the question. But that's still a fallacy.

All life consists of purpose, and the giving of purpose is existentially dependent upon a Being capable of giving such. It only follows that all life is existentially dependent upon a Being capable of giving purpose.

And you don't ever seem to show any learning. You're still, for example, wording things in a way that I showed to have a problem of ambiguity with regard to tense. You're just copy and pasting the exact same text with the exact same problem.

a) "All meaning consists of correlations [which are] drawn between different things".

b) "All meaning consists of correlations [which have been] drawn between different things".

Which one do you mean?

You know, you wouldn't make a very good journalist. They're expected, wherever possible, to abide by a strict standard whereby they bracket in what would otherwise leave ambiguity whenever they quote someone. I can't see you managing well if you were tasked with that. I'm not even sure you understand the problem. It's either that you don't understand it or that you're deliberately ignoring it.