Charming insightful reply...

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

That's true by definition, but it's also true of the pattern of waves on the ocean.

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

And if someone did give meaning to the scratches? Would the scratches then be any different, objectively, than they were before?

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

But that intentionality is only visible to an intelligence with something akin to human "rationality". Without an intelligence, the patterns would still be there, but patterns are literally everywhere.

the patterns would still be there, but patterns are literally everywhere. — 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.

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.

Actually the unintentional meaningfulness of natural patterns only supports the point that meaning is not merely in human or animal minds.

It was just as "charming and insightful" as the misguided and tendentious text it was responding to warranted. Try to say something DIFFERENT, RELEVANT and INTERESTING , that actually contains SOME REASONED ARGUMENT instead of MERE ASSERTION if you want replies that actually are "charming and insightful".

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

Conflating meaning with causality. Equivocating the term "meaning" as well.

p1.All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
C1.All meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things(from p1, p2)
p4.Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning
C2.All linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things(from C1, p4)

Charming insightful reply... — creativesoul

Well, what do you expect? There's a reason we're losing patience with you, you know? Perhaps reflect back on your reply and consider what might have triggered such a reaction from Janus.

The irony...

I just pointed out a case of affirming the consequent.

That's true by definition, but it's also true of the pattern of waves on the ocean. — Echarmion

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.

And no, it's not true by definition, it's true as a matter of logic. I didn't mean it as a tautology. It's like saying that if there was a being capable of swimming, then the being could go out swimming one day. There's a distinction between capability and possibility which you seem to be overlooking.

And if someone did give meaning to the scratches? Would the scratches then be any different, objectively, than they were before? — Echarmion

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.

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

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.

p1.All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
C1.All meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature drawing correlations between different things(from p1, p2)
p3.Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning
C2.All linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature drawing correlations between different things(from C1, p3)
p4.When more than one creature in a community draws the same correlations, meaning is shared, and linguistic meaning emerges via language creation
C3.Ancient texts were once meaningful solely as a result of being one part of the language users' correlations(from C2, p4)
p5.The language users from whence the ancient text came, to whom it was meaningful, no longer exist
p6.The language users' correlations between the text and other things no longer exist
C4.The ancient text is meaningless(from C3, p5, p6)

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

Not the same to a human mind. You haven't established how they are not the same in any other way, e.g. physically.

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

No, by my lights an ancient text is meaningful to a human mind, but not meaningful outside of it. If meaning were to be found in the text itself, how would that meaning reach the mind of the reader? Does it travel on photons? Because that sounds like nonsense to me.

Actually the unintentional meaningfulness of natural patterns only supports the point that meaning is not merely in human or animal minds. — Janus

How so? You just said that intentionally produced patterns are not like other patterns.

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

Unless there was a being capable of deciphering the meaning.

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

Begging the question. That the scratches have themselves meaning is what you seek to establish.

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.

You can repeat it a million times, but it will still be a problem, unless you actually resolve the problem.

First, the unresolved problem of ambiguity:

a) I'm existentially dependent on my parents. If they had not conceived me, then I wouldn't be here right now.

b) I'm not existentially dependent on my parents. They are both dead right now, yet I am still here.

Which sense of existential dependence do you mean?

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.

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

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.

The meaningfulness and the meaning of intentionally produced marks (heiroglyphics) is embodied in the marks themselves. — Janus

Open them... look for yourself.

The meaningfulness of the word "tree" does not embody the tree nor the utterer of the word. It would need to if what you say were true.

The meaningfulness of the word "tree" is the result of language users uttering "tree" as a means for picking out the referent.

The meaning of "tree" consists of the term, the referent, and the language user uttering the word while talking about the tree(the referent).<-----that is the attribution of meaning.

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

You can repeat it a million times, but it will still be a problem, unless you actually resolve the problem.

First, the unresolved problem of ambiguity:

a) I'm existentially dependent on my parents. If they had not conceived me, then I wouldn't be here right now.

b) I'm not existentially dependent on my parents. They are both dead right now, yet I am still here.

Which sense of existential dependence do you mean?

If it's b), then we disagree, and since our disagreement is a result of your definition of meaning - which you refuse to let go of, even for a second - and nothing else, then it's a dead end with you.

You merely define a subjective dependence into being, which is utterly trivial, and which can be done with just about anything, including a Creator, as previously demonstrated.

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?

Let's try again. Anyone who is going by their own definition of linguistic meaning and disregards mine, please raise your hand.

Now, to anyone who has their hand raised: does your definition necessarily imply a subject?

Also, if your definition doesn't necessarily imply a subject, are you just asserting without proper argument that meaning requires a subject, or that it requires subjective activity, which in turn requires a subject? Bearing in mind that simply including this as a premise in a valid argument doesn't resolve the problem at all.

If this applies to you, then please don't just ignore me. Respond. It will be much more productive to bring this problem out in the open than to carry on the discussion as though we can take it anywhere meaningful.

I suspect that what we may have here is a chronic case of talking past each other, with some participants making little-to-no attempt at addressing my argument on its own terms, and instead simply pushing their own problematic arguments with their problematic premises and definitions, without actually addressing the underlying problems.

Do you think that 'subject' is a necessary property (Deixis) of language?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis

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

In my view, it seems to be a nonphysical realm. Or rather, a realm for which it is not appropriate to think of in terms of the physical. It's a subset of what's the case. It's the case that the text is meaningful. But there are lines of enquiry here which seem inappropriate, and which seem to be based on pre-held assumptions - minimally, that it even makes sense or is appropriate to ask such questions in this context to begin with. You know, category errors, like asking where is Tuesday, or what are its physical attributes, or something like that.

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 like the way you're actually battling with an idea that being on this forum has made you consider, which you don't actually want to consider.

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.

In order to 'set the meaning', you already have to be able to say what something means. And that is something Rover cannot do, beyond 'sick 'em, Rover', or 'over there!'

In my view, it seems to be a nonphysical realm. — S

You'd be in very good company there.

As I explained above, 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.

like asking where is Tuesday, — S

I can tell you where Tuesday is. (Although by this point, you should be able to successfully guess my answer without me having to provide it.)

I'm trying to imagine anything that could persuade me to believe that notions of objective, persistent, abstract existents aren't simply examples of a type of projection.

Do you think that 'subject' is a necessary property (Deixis) of language? — emancipate

As in a subject, like a person, a who? Or as in subject-predicate? (Which would include a what).

I read the articulate you linked to. What I referred to as a subjective context earlier is what the article calls personal deixis. These statements wouldn't make sense without a subject, without a me, I, them, you, etc., in a hypothetical scenario where there is none.

But, in my view, and so far as I'm aware, these statements with a subjective context are the only kind of statements which play out differently in the hypothetical scenario.

The other statements I take to be objective. It would be true that the word "dog" means what it does in the language. My logic can deal with that without a problem. It is only the logic of others, where they read a subject or subjectivity into it, where problems are encountered. They've incessantly tried to make their problems my problems, without success.

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?

What problems do you think crop up if "dog" doesn't mean something objectively? — Terrapin Station

If it logically implies a subject where there are none, as in the hypothetical scenario, then that's a contradiction, which is a problem. Of course, that's only if my interlocutor accepts the hypothetical post-human scenario. If they don't, then we go no further in a sense, but I find them disingenuous if they do that, since we're all capable of imagining the hypothetical scenario. It seems more like a post hoc rationalisation to deny that it's possible.