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. — S
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. — 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'. — Janus
the patterns would still be there, but patterns are literally everywhere. — Echarmion
And note: this is not to say that natural patterns cannot have any meaning, either; the point is that whatever meaning natural patterns might have is not intentionally produced. Natural patterns are signs, not symbols; so for example fossils are signs of animals or plants that once existed, lava flows are signs of past volcanic activity, and so on. — Janus
Charming insightful reply... — creativesoul
That's true by definition, but it's also true of the pattern of waves on the ocean. — Echarmion
And if someone did give meaning to the scratches? Would the scratches then be any different, objectively, than they were before? — Echarmion
How many times do I have to repeat the point? Intentionally produced patterns are not the same as naturally occurring patterns; the former are semantically meaningful, and the latter are not. By your lights an ancient text was meaningful when produced, became meaningless when it was lost, and became meaningful again when it was found. This is nonsense thinking. — Janus
How many times do I have to repeat the point? Intentionally produced patterns are not the same as naturally occurring patterns; the former are semantically meaningful, and the latter are not. — Janus
By your lights an ancient text was meaningful when produced, became meaningless when it was lost, and became meaningful again when it was found. This is nonsense thinking. — Janus
Actually the unintentional meaningfulness of natural patterns only supports the point that meaning is not merely in human or animal minds. — Janus
Excuse me? The pattern of waves on the ocean do not have linguistic meaning, which I've said countless times is the only kind of meaning I'm talking about. — S
In what sense? You're not being very clear. Physically? No. In terms of meaning? Yes, obviously. Having meaning is obviously different from having no meaning. — S
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations — creativesoul
I have not been doubting your ability to put together a valid argument!
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
— creativesoul
This is the problem. — S
The meaningfulness and the meaning of intentionally produced marks (heiroglyphics) is embodied in the marks themselves. — Janus
No. It's not.
There are no examples of a correlation being drawn between language use and something else that do not include a creature drawing the mental correlation between them. — creativesoul
The meaningfulness and the meaning of intentionally produced marks (heiroglyphics) is embodied in the marks themselves. It is the semiotically meaningful character of intentionally produced marks that distinguishes them from naturally occurring marks. If you can't understand that I dont know what else to say. — Janus
I understand what you are saying. But you're begging the question. How is it embodied? How does it travel from the marks to the reader? Absent humans or any similar intelligence, what constitutes the difference between meaningful marks and any other configuration of reality? — Echarmion
Yes, like the cup that keeps blipping in and out of existence when we observe it, then look away, then observe it again!
It's the same dodgy idealist logic. — S
I have my own theory about meaning. I say that it is rule-based and objective. With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication. "Let's use the symbol 'dog' to mean those furry things with four legs that bark". Once the meaning in the language has been set, then that's that. That's what it means.
like asking where is Tuesday, — S
Do you think that 'subject' is a necessary property (Deixis) of language? — emancipate
It would be true that the word "dog" means what it does in the language. My logic can deal with that without a problem. — S
What problems do you think crop up if "dog" doesn't mean something objectively? — 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.