Intentionally produced patterns are not the same as naturally occurring patterns; the former are semantically meaningful, and the latter are not — Janus
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!' — Wayfarer
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. — Terrapin Station
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. — Terrapin Station
For me, it's difficult to separate epistemology from ontology. — Terrapin Station
If I'm going to ask myself, "How do we know that 'dog' still means something if no people exist," I don't know how I could answer that without exploring just what meaning is ontologically in the first place. At it seems to me like once we know that, it's easy to answer the epistemological question. — Terrapin Station
Sure, in that sense it seems alright. I do the same thing. But the sort of thing I meant by that - and if you're a metaphysical realist then you should agree with me here - is the kind of thinking that goes, "But how do we know that the cup is still there?", which is fine in a sense, but not in the sense where it is being asked because in their head they're imagining a link between knowledge and existence, such that the cup can't exist at the time without us knowing that it does at the time. That's a gross overestimation of the role that our knowledge plays, in my assessment. — S
I'm a metaphysical realist in general, but I believe that some things, like emotions, desires, thoughts, etc. are only mental phenomena. That's not giving them any different status aside from placing that phenomena in a particular location--brain activity. — Terrapin Station
Okay...
So, do you agree with my point there being cases where the role of knowledge in relation to metaphysics is being overestimated? — S
In the cases like you're describing, I'd just say that the person is confused. Knowing something and how we know it is often not the same thing as what we know about. (They're only the same when the topic is knowledge itself.) — Terrapin Station
People too quickly jump into thinking, "But how can that be so without me knowing about it?", as if our knowing about it determines the metaphysics. As if the world won't just carry on as before, only without us. — S
I don't remember what your hypothetical scenario is (I'm guessing that it's just something about meaning when no people exist). — Terrapin Station
Anyone who is willing to assert that a correlation between different things does not always require, include, and depend upon a creature capable of drawing it...
Raise your hand...
Like we're in grade school. Love it. — creativesoul
That there is meaning when no people exist is my conclusion, utilising the thought experiment. That conclusion leads to the conclusion that meaning, once set, is objective.
You could put it in your neutral way of talking about ink marks on a piece of paper if you want to. It's a scenario where everyone is dead. An hour previously, when everyone was still alive, these ink marks had meaning. On that we presumably agree. But, of course, I would say that, afterwards, as before, they're not just ink marks: they have a meaning. — S
What about the Rosetta stone? Big fucking thing with scribblings on it dug out of the earth. — fdrake
Did the words have meaning before they were discovered again? Have they had meaning since they were written in the same way? What about when it was unknown and forgotten in the earth? — fdrake
I've been trying to follow the discussion but I lost the thread. Will someone help me get back on track? — fdrake
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
Ancient texts were introduced to show the faults of idealism with regards to linguistic meaning. The idealists have predictably failed to come up with a reasonable response to this. — S
Yeah of course that scrap of paper, with those blotchy squiggles, have meaning after all humans are dead. Say a bird grabs the paper and utilises the paper for nest padding. Voilà, now its meaning is warmth and insulation or some shit like that. — emancipate
The real question is: is there meaning when no life at all exists? — emancipate
And you have some kind of information transfer/encoding approach to the meaning of the words on the Rosetta stone. We could work out what they meant because there was a meaning to be worked out; rooted in the information content of causal chains of language use connecting their ancient word use with our modern translation? — fdrake
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.