Meaning is not independent of its idea. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm talking about the presence of a describing idea itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, your problem is that you don't argue in good faith. You still haven't directly answered the questions I asked. — Janus
I was talking about is what having an idea constitutes itself, — TheWillowOfDarkness
I'd say that is untrue: there is always a causal connection between the original work of Shakespeare and any copy of it. In any case I don't see the relevance to the present argument. — Janus
We know there is a material difference between an intentionally produced object and one that is not intentionally produced; and that difference consists in the neural and perhaps physiological activity that gave rise to the one and not the other. — Janus
No, the thought experiment is not significant because such a thing has never happened and never will happen. — Janus
In practice we can always tell the difference between human-made and naturally occurring objects. If you disagree perhaps you can provide a counterexample. — Janus
It seems to me that, like Isaac, you now identify the meaning the text objectively has with a meaning that the text was, at some point in the past, assigned by the writer. You treat the causal chain that lead to the text as a property of the text. — Echarmion
I don't know about Janus, but this is not an accurate paraphrasing of my position. What I'm saying is that the meaning of a word is not what the author intended it to mean, it is what the word is used for. — Isaac
When we say a tool "is used for" some task, we are not expecting it to actually be in such use at the time, it is an historical fact about that tool and yet we speak quite plainly of it as a property of the tool. I don't see any difference with the pattern of ink-marks we call a written word. If it was, at one time, used for a certain task, then such a history is a property of that word. Given that its use is its meaning, then its meaning is a property of that word. The same way its use for driving nails is a property of the hammer, its tendency to emit beta radiation is a property of Carbon-14... Past events and future potential are quite unproblematically spoken of as properties of the objects. — Isaac
You then use this interpretation to prove that the interpretation is correct. — Echarmion
you're further claiming that because people think this way, this is how things actually are. — Echarmion
The (historical) use of a tool is also not the same as the instability of certain configurations of protons, neutrons and electrons. That instability is a property of the atom whether or not that atom is currently decayed. — Echarmion
Assuming a material, causal universe it makes sense to treat the past as a material property, since all past states are embodied in the current state. However, that is a property of the universe in it's entirety. The current state of the universe includes it's past state, including the brain states of writers, but it does so only by virtue of including, by definition, every effect of every event. — Echarmion
But we don't talk about the instability of the configuration of protons and neutrons. We talk about the emission of beta radiation. We don't say that a property of Carbon-14 is that its neutrons are arranged in such-and-such a way, we say that it is radioactive, meaning, quite clearly, that it emits (in this case) beta radiation. — Isaac
A common definition of "radioactive" is "emitting or relating to the emission of ionizing radiation or particles," but in any event, that issue had nothing to do with meaning. — Terrapin Station
The point is that radioactive is talked about as a property of Carbon-14, yet, as your definition demonstrates, it does not directly refer to anything about the atom which is currently the case. It refers to a property of the atom which is the case only once every 5,700 years. That is, its emission of a particle of beta radiation. — Isaac
I never said "correct". What possible measure of "correct" could we be using here? Against which table of answers are we comparing ours to check if it's right? I said "unproblematic". — Isaac
As above, I never said "... actually are", and as above, if you're interested in getting at how things "actually are" what are you going to use to see how close you've got — Isaac
But we don't talk about the instability of the configuration of protons and neutrons. We talk about the emission of beta radiation. We don't say that a property of Carbon-14 is that its neutrons are arranged in such-and-such a way, we say that it is radioactive, meaning, quite clearly, that it emits (in this case) beta radiation. — Isaac
Presumably, you are making a case for meaning to be objective and using the "unproblematic" use of language as an argument. — Echarmion
Yes, but when we say a substance is "radioactive", we do not mean to say that every single atom is at this exact point in time decaying and emitting radiation. We treat "radioactive" as a property of the substance because it's atoms are unstable, not because the substance is used to produce radiation. — Echarmion
I think if your position is that meaning is a private subjective sensation, however, there is still (to my mind) the question of whether the ability to cause such sensations in language users is a property of the word, as per the ability of Carbon-14 to produce beta particles, or the ability of a blue cup to cause correctly calibrated spectrometers to register 'blue'. But that may be a different argument to the one set out in the OP here. — Isaac
I wouldn't say that external things cause that associative act . . . the associative act is in response to external things often, and we could say that they catalyze it, but I wouldn't say they cause it, because you could easily expose someone to a cup or whatever and they might not perform the associative act at all. — Terrapin Station
I guess that's what I was trying to get at with the incorrectly calibrated spectrometer. There's still some other chain of events which have to all be in place on order for the spectrometer to record 'blue' as a consequence of what the light waves reflected from the cup do to it. — Isaac
fall foul of your restriction the the response must be the same each time for it to count as a property of the object? — Isaac
It seems to me that, like Isaac, you now identify the meaning the text objectively has with a meaning that the text was, at some point in the past, assigned by the writer. — Echarmion
The text does not include all past States leading to it's creation. If it did, it would have to include all information on the universe going back indefinitely. — Echarmion
...meaning is a mental activity... — Terrapin Station
So where is the fact that the hammer was used to hit nails? — Isaac
If humans capable of recollecting the fact ceased to exist would it cease to be the case that the hammer was used to hit nails? — Isaac
The disagreement with S isn't at all about "The word 'dog' WAS used to refer to dogs." It's not about something historical.
The disagreement with S is that in S's view, the word dog has a meaning--not past tense, but present tense--at time T2, even if no persons exist at time T2. He's not saying something about how the word was used there. He's saying that the word has a meaning at T2, which is a correct meaning at T2 (not a correct meaning about or in the context of T1, where we're simply reporting usage at a past time). — Terrapin Station
he big difference between us, which you've made more explicit in your last few posts, is that I don't just trivially define meaning in a way which necessitates a subject, whereas you do. — S
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.