All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. — creativesoul
"Drawn" is past tense, so the pedantry is unnecessary. — creativesoul
All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. — creativesoul
Whatever drawing correlations between different things is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning. — creativesoul
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. — creativesoul
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
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
You evidently do not understand the difference between assuming and concluding. — creativesoul
Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations? — creativesoul
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
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
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
That's an example of self contradiction. — creativesoul
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
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 of dodecaphony attached to the word "dodge," for example. — Terrapin Station
What the...? To get the work done? What does that mean? — S
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
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"? — S
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
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 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
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
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
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.
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
We cannot be certain about whether or not we - as interpreters - are drawing the same correlations between the text and other things. — creativesoul
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
I am of the position that there is no meaning without the mind. — creativesoul
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
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.