Here's an idea. Anyone who defines their terms in a way that necessarily implies a subject, raise your hand. Next, anyone who has their hand raised, please stop doing this or leave the discussion.

Or at least start preparing a damn good explanation for why you're doing this.

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

During feeding times, a mother duck can be very aggressive towards young males when her ducklings are little. I once watched one of them bite an adolescent male by the wing and get dragged about thirty yards. It was a tug-of-war. Quite funny to witness. The male was not at all alarmed, he had been through this many times before. Par for the course, so to speak. He showed no signs of being in pain. Rather, he simply walked at a slightly faster than normal pace dragging her along with him, while she was literally planting her feet into the ground in a failed attempt to pull him the other direction. She pulled and pulled against the grain, her feet never quite gaining traction...

The funny part was that towards the end of the struggle between the two, he stopped where some food was and took a couple of bites before continuing to drag her a bit farther..

He never missed a beat...

She finally let go.

During feeding times, a mother duck can be very aggressive towards young males when her ducklings are little. I once watched one of them bite an adolescent male by the wing and get dragged about thirty yards. It was a tug-of-war. Quite funny to witness. The male was not at all alarmed, he had been through this many times before. Par for the course, so to speak. He showed no signs of being in pain. Rather, he simply walked at a slightly faster than normal pace dragging her along with him, while she was literally planting her feet into the ground in a failed attempt to pull him the other direction. She pulled and pulled against the grain, her feet never quite gaining traction...

The funny part was that towards the end of the struggle between the two, he stopped where some food was and took a couple of bites before continuing to drag her a bit farther..

He never missed a beat...

She finally let go. — creativesoul

Are you sure that she attacked him because she was acting in defence of her ducklings? Maybe he was just bad at philosophy, and she lost her patience with him. :smirk:

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. — S

You're reading way too much into my comments about this part. Again, I was simply saying why a mere correlation isn't sufficient.

You're reading way too much into my comments about this part. Again, I was simply saying why a mere correlation isn't sufficient. — Terrapin Station

For...? (You still haven't learnt your lesson!). For there to be meaning, I take it. Which is the same problem, which still lacks a resolution.

For...? (You still haven't learnt your lesson!). For there to be meaning, I take it. Which is the same problem, — S

Which is the same problem as what? (Seriously, I have no idea what the comparison would be to there)

Which is the same problem as what? (Seriously, I have no idea what the comparison would be to there). — Terrapin Station

Is it possible for you to provide me with a logical basis for your posited requirements for there to be meaning? Or have we reached a dead end? It just feels like I'm waiting and waiting here.

So your point is that a correlation isn't sufficient for there to be meaning, because your unjustified posited additional requirement of an intentional association is true? And I should accept it as true, even though you haven't justified it? Why should I accept any additional posited requirements along those lines? Why shouldn't I just dismiss them? Why shouldn't they be cut out with Ockham's razor?

I don't know why you're not understanding what I'm typing. I think it's because you're reading too much into it. Empty your mind for a moment, and just read what I'm typing below. I'm not saying or trying to imply anything other than exactly what I'm typing. I'm explaining this verbosely and as simply as I can. If you don't read anything into it, hopefully this will aid in us agreeing on all of the following:

Let's consider dictionaries for a moment.

Dictionaries are big collections of terms to be defined, arranged in alphabetical order, and definitions of those terms.

Because of this, words to be defined like "dodge" follow words to be defined like "dodecaphony." Why? Because "dodge" comes in alphabetical order after "dodecaphony."

Let's imagine for the sake of this example that there's no English word between "dodecaphony" and "dodge." I don't know for sure if that's correct--if it isn't I can't offhand think of the word(s) in between the two, but whether it's exactly correct doesn't matter for this example.

After the word to be defined is a definition of that word. So the definition of "dodecaphony" follows the word "dodecaphony," And then the definition of "dodge" follows the word "dodge."

This means that there's a correlation between the definition of the word "dodecaphony" and the term "dodge," Why? Because for one (this isn't the only correlation, but it's definitely one correlation we can note), the word "dodge" always follows a set of words such as "the composition of music employing the twelvetone scale" (which is a definition of "dodecaphony.")

So far, that is ALL that I'm claiming in this part. So, we're not reading anything else into what I'm saying. Are you with me so far, or what part of the above do you disagree with?

If you were to ask, "What does it mean?", then that removes the subject from the equation. I can give an answer to that in objective terms. — S

But no matter how you phrase the question, you are still talking about what people want to communicate. They can be long dead people, but we are talking about words (symbols) that are supposed to be understood by someone. Even if you differentiate between meaning and understanding, for something to have meaning it must be possible to understand that meaning.

If it's impossible to understand the meaning, because e.g. nothing that speaks any language exists, how are words in a dictionary different from random scratches in a rock, or the pattern of waves on the ocean?

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

Well meaning created by humans can be unknown but decipherable by humans. For any language to work at all, we need to be able to mirror other humans to some extend. We cannot read minds, yet we can approximate what other people think by listening/reading etc. This ability allows us to decipher meaning even in dead languages, but we do that by simulating what other humans think. The meaning doesn't travel from our eyes to our brains.

Well meaning created by humans can be unknown but decipherable by humans. — Echarmion

I agree, but I don't see any relevance to the point at issue in the rest of what you say there.

If it's impossible to understand the meaning, because e.g. nothing that speaks any language exists, how are words in a dictionary different from random scratches in a rock, or the pattern of waves on the ocean? — Echarmion

Exactly, but S apparently believes that a "christening of meaning" (at least per communal usage) makes some sort of objective, persistent abstract existent obtain, an abstract existent for which it's a category error to contemplate location, concrete properties, etc.

I am following you. The problem remains that I do not see the supposed logical relevance, so please skip ahead.

The problem remains that I do not see the supposed logical relevance, so please skip ahead. — S

If you agree with all of that, the point is simply that correlation isn't sufficient for meaning, because otherwise you'd have to say that the meaning of "dodge" has something to do with 12-tone music composition.

But no matter how you phrase the question, you are still talking about what people want to communicate. They can be long dead people, but we are talking about words (symbols) that are supposed to be understood by someone. Even if you differentiate between meaning and understanding, for something to have meaning it must be possible to understand that meaning.

If it's impossible to understand the meaning, because e.g. nothing that speaks any language exists, how are words in a dictionary different from random scratches in a rock, or the pattern of waves on the ocean? — Echarmion

It's only impossible to understand in practice, not in principle. In principle, if there was a being able to decipher the meaning there, then it could be understood.

The difference is obviously that random scratches on a rock have not been given a meaning, so there isn't one. There is not, and was never at any point, a this means that.

I agree, but I don't see any relevance to the point at issue in the rest of what you say there. — Janus

Neither do I, and that has got to be problem numero uno here. People keep losing sight of logical relevance. So much of what people have typed up and submitted has been a complete waste of time and effort.

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. — S

Exactly! When scholars attempt to decipher ancient texts, they examine patterns of repeating symbols or heiroglyphics to discover clues to their meaning, and painstakingly construct the meaning of the text. Interpretations can be wrong, of course, at least in part.

But that they could be wrong about the meaning of an ancient text indicates that there must be a right interpretation; so it follows that the text has meaning, even if we cannot discover what it is. In something which consisted in merely random marks it would not be possible to construct any interpretation.

The fact that there are meaningful patterns in such texts is on account of their intentional nature. This is the salient difference between texts and naturally occurring patterns. texts are intentionally produced and forever embody that act of intentional production; and that just is what we call 'meaning'.

If you agree with all of that, the point is simply that correlation isn't sufficient for meaning, because otherwise you'd have to say that the meaning of "dodge" has something to do with 12-tone music composition. — Terrapin Station

No you wouldn't. That simply doesn't follow as far as I can tell.

No you wouldn't. That simply doesn't follow as far as I can tell. — S

So, as I asked, what part of the second-to-last post of mine did you disagree with? Are you saying there's not a correlation in dictionaries between the definition of "dodecaphony" and the word "dodge"?

So, as I asked, what part of the second-to-last post of mine did you disagree with? — Terrapin Station

It seems ridiculous to me to say that just because dictionaries are in alphabetical order, and there are definitions in close proximity, that somehow the meanings would be mixed up. There's no logically relevant correlation as far as I can make out. The meaning of the word "dodge" wouldn't somehow have a meaning corresponding with a definition for a different word which just happens to be before or after it.

The word would continue to mean what it did before. You haven't reasonably demonstrated otherwise.

There's no logically relevant correlation as far as I can make out. — S

If we're adding "logically relevant" to "correlation," then it's something other than a mere correlation, no?

If we're adding "logically relevant" to correlation, then it's something other than a mere correlation, no? — Terrapin Station

Well that now seems to be confirmed as a silly tangent. I've only ever spoke of correlation in a sense that is logically relevant to my argument, not correlation in any other sense that you could randomly pluck out of thin air.

Well that now seems to be confirmed as a silly tangent. I've only ever spoke of correlation in a sense that is logically relevant to my argument, not correlation in any other sense that you could randomly pluck out of thin ai — S

This is why I stressed that you were reading something into my comment that I wasn't saying.

All I said was that I'd say that meaning requires something other than mere correlation. That wasn't code for anything else. I wasn't trying to be sly. There were a number of posts that posited meaning simply as a correlation. I was simply stressing that it has to be more than a mere correlation. Maybe sometimes we can just agree and not have to argue about everything.

This is why I stressed that you were reading something into my comment that I wasn't saying. — Terrapin Station

If I was reading anything into it, it was so as to interpret you as saying something logically relevant, and not an utterly trivial tangent that has been a bloody waste of my time and energy. I was trying to apply the principle of charity.

All I said was that I'd say that meaning requires something other than mere correlation. That wasn't code for anything else. I wasn't trying to be sly. There were a number of posts that posited meaning simply as a correlation. I was simply stressing that it has to be more than a mere correlation. Maybe sometimes we can just agree and not have to argue about everything. — Terrapin Station

Jesus Christ. I can't believe I got sucked in to that one! Isn't it charitable to assume that when people speak of a correlation, they're not speaking of any old random correlation, but one that is actually relevant and makes sense? Was it really worth trying to score such a superficial point? Go on then. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Exactly! When scholars attempt to decipher ancient texts, they examine patterns of repeating symbols or heiroglyphics to discover clues to their meaning, and painstakingly construct the meaning of the text. Interpretations can be wrong, at least in part.

But that they could be wrong about the meaning of an ancient text indicates that there must be a right interpretation; so it follows that the text has meaning, even if we cannot discover what it is. In something which consisted in merely random marks it would not be possible to construct any interpretation.

The fact that there are meaningful patterns in such texts is on account of their intentional nature. This is the salient difference between texts and naturally occurring patterns. Texts are intentionally produced and forever embody that act of intentional production; and that just is what we call 'meaning'. — Janus

We are on the same page. :up:

Jesus Christ. I can't believe I got sucked in to that one. Isn't it charitable to assume that when people speak of a correlation, they're not speaking of any old random correlation, but one that is actually relevant and makes sense? Was it really worth trying to score such a superficial point? Go on then. Give yourself a pat on the back. — S

I wasn't trying to "score a point." And if folks have in mind that it has to be something more than a mere correlation, why wouldn't they just say, "Yes, of course (I simply didn't spell that out because I thought it should have been obvious)," when I write that I'd say it has to be more than mere correlation?

Apples and oranges often come in baskets together. Now sometimes they don't, but let's presume for the sake of argument, they do. So, now there's a correlation between apples and oranges, right? Agree, so far? Because I'm just building up to accusing you of saying apples are oranges...

Apples and oranges often come in baskets together. Now sometimes they don't, but let's presume for the sake of argument, they do. So, now there's a correlation between apples and oranges, right? Agree, so far? Because I'm just building up to accusing you of saying apples are oranges... — Baden

:lol:

Alright, that's it. Enough of this madness. Pack it in or I'll turn this car around and you won't get to see Mickey Mouse and all of his friends. The next person to crack a joke or lead me down the garden path will be washing dishes for the next three weeks! Am I making myself clear? :brow:

...that they could be wrong about the meaning of an ancient text indicates that there must be a right interpretation; so it follows that the text has meaning, even if we cannot discover what it is. — Janus

Talk of interpreting an ancient text presupposes that it is meaningful. That presupposition is mistaken, as it is based upon an ill conceived notion of meaning. All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. All such correlations were made by the language users. The language users are all dead. Without the users there are no correlations. Where there are no correlations, there is no meaning.

Yeah, blahdy-fuckin'-blah...