If you had been paying attention you would know that I do have such a criterion. Meaning consists in intentionally produced patterns.

Fair enough. I've not been reading everything you write to everyone.

So, the pattern itself is all it takes after it is made?

Fuck, man, are you intentionally trying to be annoying? How many times do I have to say that the meaning of a text is not dependent on whether or not it is deciphered. It needs to be be meaningful in order to be decipherable; and that says nothing at all about whether it is or is not deciphered.

Meaning consists in intentionally produced patterns. — Janus

I agree that intention is essential to meaning. As far as the million (or quadrillion) monkeys accidentally typing something meaningful, I would say that the work is given meaning by the intentional act of the reader interpreting it. We see rock formations that look like people or human objects or animals or the like. Just as they are “accidents” of nature, they are given “meaning” by the mind of the beholder.

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

The pattern embodies the meaning. If there were no pattern there would be no meaning and nothing to decipher. This is even true of natural marks that embody patterns; the patterns may give a clue as to the origin of the marks.

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

We see rock formations that look like people or human objects or animals or the like. Just as they are “accidents” of nature, they are given “meaning” by the mind of the beholder. — Noah Te Stroete

That's true and that has already been covered by the notion of "accidental" (as opposed to intentional) meaning. Of course we can impute meaning where it is not there; but from that it does not follow that whether or not there is meaning there is dependent upon our imputations.

Holy fuck! Are you an idiot, or over-tired, or are you just being deliberately annoying?

but from that it does not follow that whether or not there is meaning there is dependent upon our imputations. — Janus

What do you mean by this?

Don't like answering questions about the position you hold?

:worry:

I'm just trying to understand it, and making a well-fitted noose at the same time...

Is anyone here arguing that the universe would hold meaningful information without conscious minds existing to make it “meaningful information”?

It means that whether or not a text has meaning, that is whether it consists in intentionally produced patterns or not, does not depend on whether we think it has or does not have meaning, or intentionally produced patterns. Of course, I think it's obvious that most of the time we can tell the difference.

It is a fact that if you cannot determine whether or not it has been correctly deciphered, then you cannot know whether or not it even has meaning, for you do not know what that meaning consists of.

Intentional patterns presuppose a pattern maker with volition.

Doesn't that deny non-linguistic meaning?

If the universe exists without conscious minds inhabiting it, then of course it must embody meaningful information. Which would just mean that there is information there which would be meaningful to a conscious mind if there was a conscious mind. Why is this so difficult to understand? Think about fossils, they lay for millions of years in bedrock until they are discovered and interpreted. They are meaningful in the sense that they are traces or signs that show the kinds of creatures or plants that once lived.

What if a quadrillion monkeys scribbled on a chalk board where the “intentionality” of the man-made keyboard is taken out of the equation? What if in all of that scribble, a beautiful sonnet appeared? What then?

Think about fossils, they lay for millions of years in bedrock until they are discovered and interpreted. They are meaningful in the sense that they are traces or signs that show the kinds of creatures or plants that once lived. — Janus

What if all universes were incapable of supporting life? Would they still hold meaningful information?

It would have no meaning unless someone who spoke the language the sonnet was written in viewed it. Then intentional meaning would probably be (incorrectly) imputed. It would still possess accidental meaning, though

What if all universes were incapable of supporting life? Would they still hold meaningful information? — Noah Te Stroete

Obviously there could then be no intentionally meaningful information unless they were created by an intentional entity (God). Would there be any energetic relations, processes and differences or inorganic entities in your scenario? If so, I say they would still embody accidental meaningful information.

It would have no meaning unless someone who spoke the language the sonnet was written in viewed it. Then intentional meaning would probably be (incorrectly) imputed. It would still possess accidental meaning, though — Janus

I agree with this.

If the universe exists without conscious minds inhabiting it, then of course it must embody meaningful information. Which would just mean that there is information there which would be meaningful to a conscious mind if there was a conscious mind. — Janus

This sounds like my persuasion of the blending of materialism and idealism.

Yes, I also tend to think that the materialism/idealism dichotomy is wrong-headed.

Well, at least we agree on something. Weren’t you the one who said I was going to be sodomized by a robot? LOL

It would have no meaning unless someone who spoke the language the sonnet was written in viewed it. Then intentional meaning would probably be (incorrectly) imputed. It would still possess accidental meaning, though — Janus

Are you saying that an intentionally written sonnet always has meaning, but an accidentally written sonnet has meaning created for it upon viewing?

Wouldn't that require there to be some material difference between the two texts? And does the meaning of the intentional text then travel with every copy or representation of the text? How could a viewer tell whether the text they are looking at is a copy of the original, intentional sonnet by Shakespeare or the random work of monkeys?

Weren’t you the one who said I was going to be sodomized by a robot? LOL — Noah Te Stroete

Yes but that is off-topic, or it is an off topic. :joke:

Yes but that is off-topic, or it is an off topic. :joke: — Janus

One thing I’ve learned in my 39 years of life is we’re all a little “off”.

Please list all aspects of this hypothetical that are wrong because it creates a bit of a problem for your side: So that dictionary (or whatever surviving texts) had meaning when humans were alive, then had no meaning for a long time, then suddenly had meaning again when the next "language capable" being shows up? — ZhouBoTong

The text was always the same, I am not supposing it materially changes as soon as a language capable intelligence shows up. The text is a specific configuration of matter. It was originally intended to convey information to other humans. A human that read the text could understand what it means. In that sense, the text "has meaning".

But without an intelligence to read the text, it's simply a configuration of matter. It still embodies information in a way, as does every configuration of matter. But it's indistinguishable from that other matter. To an intelligence that is quite unlike our own, the dictionary might be a sign of a complex lifeform, but it wouldn't contain words any more than the remains of our buildings do.

How are you interpreting the definition of meaning? google says meaning is (had to combine with definition for "mean" because google uses "meant" in definition of "meaning"): intending to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); signify. — ZhouBoTong

I am trying, as much as possible, to stick with @S notion that meaning is "X means Y" in the sense of a dictionary definition. So meaning is the "particular thing or notion", the symbol conveys.

Where does your side's, "relative to an observer" come from? Don't get me wrong, obviously without an observer there is no one to understand the meaning. But so what? Totally separate point. Maybe someone will come along...right? And when that new person arrives, they do not invent the meaning...right? So it already existed...or not? — ZhouBoTong

It comes from starting what I know about meaning, that it's something that is in my head, and working backwards to see if it's also something outside my head. I know I have thoughts. I don't necessarily know that they correspond to something "out there". For meaning to be "out there", it has to be shown what and where it is, and how it gets from "out there" to "in here".

I haven't seen an answer to the first question, let alone the second. @S has said something nonphysical is going on, which is something I agree with, I just think the nonphysical something is happening in my mind. Certain configurations of matter cause certain thoughts in my head, but that doesn't mean the matter is the thoughts.

The real question is: is there meaning when no life at all exists?
— emancipate

Yes. Linguistic meaning. — S

Linguistic meaning is a redundant term. "il n'y a pas de hors-texte".

I am trying, as much as possible, to stick with S notion that meaning is "X means Y" in the sense of a dictionary definition. So meaning is the "particular thing or notion", the symbol conveys. — Echarmion

Its this narrow view of meaning that causes the problems

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

What? That needs an explanation, because at first blush it simply seems false. Why couldn't I just coin a name at the time? I don't have to say anything. I can just look at something and coin a name for it, then that's what it means in my language. — S

You assume that meaning can be explained in your opening example. But what you're not seeing is that 'explaining' is the very thing that you need to be able to do in order to show how 'meaning' operates. 'Explaining' relies on analysis of meaning - something which humans employ without having to think much about it. So your account relies on the very thing that it is trying to explain - which means it begs the question (i.e. assumes what it sets out to prove.)

When you point at a dog and name it 'dog', you're doing something that the dog itself can't do. Perhaps the dog responds to verbal commands such as 'fetch the stick', but that can be understood in terms of stimulus and response - that a sound 'stick' is associated with an object the dog knows. What dogs can't do, is utilise abstraction to signify meaning ('find your stick, behind one of the square objects'). Humans alone do that.

what things are an abstraction, and what even is an abstraction? — S

A dictionary definition is ‘An abstraction is a general idea rather than one relating to a particular object, person, or situation’. Abstraction relies on the ability to make judgements - about like, unlike, greater than, less than, and so on. So abstraction is fundamental to language. But it’s also fundamental to counting, and to logic. In other words, it’s fundamental to rational thought.

I think the reason that abstraction is sometimes thought to be self-explanatory is because we naturally deploy it whenever we reason. But understanding what it really is, is not at all easy.

Furthermore even though simple examples of word-association can be given, when you consider the intentional and/or relational nature of language, then it’s also not so simple. Humans alone are capable of hierarchical syntax in which words derive their meaning from their relationship with other words. Qualifications, tenses, and cases situate ideas in relation to other ideas and in relation to time (future, present, or past).

Some say that all of these are ‘brain states’, as if this explains how thought, abstraction and reason work. However to even say what a ‘brain state’ is one has to infer, abstract and theorise about what such and such data means. You will never find meaning in neural data, unless you’re an expert in interpreting it. And that expertise is internal to the nature of thought. It pertains to the level of abstract thought, syntax, and logic, which are in some basic sense prior to any declaration about what the empirical data means. You don’t find meaning ‘in the world’ (as scientific empiricists never tire of telling us.) But it must exist, otherwise empirical science itself would have no content.

So I think these are much deeper problems than you’re allowing. They can’t be eliminated with trite examples.