to integrate it into an existing set of correlations,
— Possibility

I don't see that this helps. It just replaces meaning with correlation. — Banno

No, it doesn’t - it’s more complicated than that. There is a tendency to equate meaning with correlation and in doing so reduce the process by which we make meaning to the individual neural connections in the brain. But that’s only a small part of it.

Meaning refers to the whole process: from receiving the information to making the many intricate relationship connections with existing knowledge, to then using what results in how we interact with the world. It is a multi-dimensional relationship between information, correlation, knowledge, thought/belief and actions/words.

We transmit information, we share knowledge, but with meaning it’s more a matter of finding common ground or conceptual ‘space’. A word points to a particular meaning, and even though another person (the listener) can appear to ‘see’ a similar meaning to which that word points, the process that makes that meaning for the listener may be a very different structure to the one that led to the word being spoken. In order to ensure we’re talking about the same meaning, we look around the words - at the context, intonation, attitude, body language - at whatever correlations we can find that will help us construct the conceptual space in which that meaning is situated.

The "Slab!" game and the counting apples game could be played by the very same person. But in what sense could we translate one into the other? — Banno

I don't see that this helps. It just replaces meaning with correlation. — Banno

"SLAB!"(language use), slabs, and other things are the content of correlation, which - if a plurality of capable creatures draw correlations between these things - results in shared meaning.

"Correlation" is not just a replacement term for "meaning", they are not the same thing. Rather, that's what all meaningful thought/belief have in common, amongst a few other things.

That's what is peculiar to me. Witt said look at how language is being used with all sorts of other things - besides the language use - in mind. His remarks guide our attention to all of the different content of correlation that makes one use("Slab") different than another("SLAB!!!"). All else being equal, the intonation, attitude, and past experience concerning similar situations plays the determinative role in the difference.

That difference in meaning is the difference in the correlational content.

I read it. I'm disputing it. Care to address the rest?

I wasn't talking about meaning, nor do I conflate meaning with information, whereas you do.

I take that as a "No".

Gratuitous assertions won't do. Show the purported conflation.

You mean this?

what since does it make to say that information(meaning) can be moved? — creativesoul

I mean that and the argument that preceded it.

I think you overlooked your obvious conflation that you just asked me to point out to you.

Guess you've no argument or valid objection...

Last try...

Gratuitous assertions won't do.

I've already stated my objection: that you are conflating meaning and information. I've also quoted you obviously conflating the two when you say "what since does it make to say that information(meaning) can be moved?"

Were you referring to some other "gratuitous assertion"? Because I have no desire to follow you in this conflation, and therefore no desire to address your "argument".

It's probably worth pointing out that a language game is not just words. It also involves slabs and apples, and other stuff. — Banno

Then it sounds to me that saying "It's a language game" just means "using words to refer to other stuff that are not words". Of course, we could use words to refer to other words, but that is what words do - refer to other stuff. It just depends on what the user wants to draw others' attention to.

When having discussions like this and we are all using words and playing a "language game" - what is it that you want others to do? What is it that you are trying to get others to do - behave in some way, think in some way, both or something else entirely? What is the point of the "language game" in this thread?

When translating languages, what is it about the language that we are translating? What makes one word translatable to another language or not?

Some of your writing is interesting. Then there is stuff such as this.

Not all words are nouns. Not all words refer to other things.

It appears that you do not have the background in analytic philosophy to follow the conversation going on here.

If the OP was instead that language is not only moving information from one head to another, then I would be more inclined to agree. — Luke

I considered and rejected that wording. It wasn't strong enough for what I wanted to express. Moving information may indeed occur, but is incidental to language.

I see your point with respect to @creativesoul. I do not agree with him that moving information is moving meaning, nor that information implicitly has meaning. The difference parallels that between syntax and semantics, or between Austin's phatic act and illocutionary act.

I could go either of two ways: the first, call what is done with information the meaning of that information; the second, drop the notion of meaning altogether and just talk about information and its uses.

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. — creativesoul

I see, a conclusion without an argument. "Gratuitous assertions won't do."

In the relevant sense, the world is our games. — Banno

As I've said to @Wayfarer and @Joshs in other contexts, the dinosaurs called, they want their world back. The world back then is not a nothing, nor something about which nothing can be said, it does not fit the schema of a limit on language; demonstrably, we can understand it fine. More to the point, its structure still influences us in intelligible (and unintelligible) ways; oil!

Some of your writing is interesting. Then there is stuff such as this.

Not all words are nouns. Not all words refer to other things.

It appears that you do not have the background in analytic philosophy to follow the conversation going on here. — Banno

My intent wasnt to write something interesting. Is that what you are saying the point of this conversation is - to write something interesting - to get others to reply back, "Thats interesting"?

I'm trying to clarify what you said:

It's probably worth pointing out that a language game is not just words. It also involves slabs and apples, and other stuff. — Banno

Youre the one that implied that the language game doesn't involve just words but other stuff. What was the other stuff you were talking about besides the nouns you used as an example?

One only needs logic to follow any conversation. And if you're not being logical then are you really having a conversation?

For someone who has a habit of speaking in riddles, not answering questions, or only answers questions indirectly, it would be obvious why they think language is a game.

That's not a conflation Luke, and you know it. Information is meaningful. The parenthetic content you quoted was simply a reminder of that. In order to move information, one has to move meaning...

That was the point. Not a conflation.

Do what you like. I've already adequately argued my point. You've merely asserted your own, and it's wrong.

Look harder. The argument was made early on prior to your entry.

Language is not the same as communication. It's is a medium of communication. — T Clark

SO what has been shown here is that language is far more than a medium for communication. It is philosophical myopia that leads one to think of language use as a conduit.

You didn't respond to my reply. Or I missed it.

Not that you are obligated, of course.

But sometimes doing things with words results in moving information from one head to another. — Marchesk

When it does, it is incidental to what is going on.

Did anyone notice that I did not use the word "meaning" in the title or OP?

Language without meaning...

Language without meaning... — Banno

That's a sign of a stroke.

The claim I objected to was this:

I cannot overlook the backdoor smuggling of agency when there is none warranted. All talk about information being within cells, rna, dna, etc. dubiously presupposes meaning where there is no creature/agent capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

Show me your argument to support the claim that agency is not warranted in DNA replication. Something is establishing a correlation between two distinct things, distinct sets of DNA. And as I explained to Terrapin Station, this is very clearly a meaningful relation (without it we wouldn't exist). The meaning involved in the correlation between a proposition and a state of affairs, depends on the meaning involved in DNA replication, for its existence, because without DNA there would be no propositions.

So, where's the argument to support what you call a "conclusion", (rather than what it really is, an assumption), that agency is not warranted. It appears to me, like you start with the assumption that agency is not warranted in DNA replication, and this false assumption has a negative affect on your understanding of "meaning".

All meaning is attributed. All attribution of meaning requires something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between that which becomes sign/symbol and that which becomes significant/symbolized. The drawing of the correlations is thought/belief formation. Complex thought/belief is required for agency. DNA has no such capability. It quite simply doesn't have what it takes. Therefore, there is neither agency nor meaning inherent to(or required for) DNA replication. Rather, it's a causal process. It's only meaningful to us as a result of our talking about it.

And as I explained to Terrapin Station, this is very clearly a meaningful relation (without it we wouldn't exist). — Metaphysician Undercover

This conflates existential dependency and meaning. Existential dependency is causal. Meaning is attributed. So, the conflation between causality and meaning rears it's ugly head, yet again.

Did anyone notice that I did not use the word "meaning" in the title or OP? — Banno

We all did, I'm sure.

Are you proposing that information is not always already meaningful? You mentioned Austin earlier. Could you explain that connection a bit more?

I take him to be setting out illocutionary acts(assertions, promises, questions, etc.) and three locutionary acts; (i)the uttering of words/statements with specific meaning and/or reference, (ii)the uttering of words(without), and (iii)the uttering of sounds. I know this is over-simplistic... I should dig out my copy of How To Do Things With Words. I will if you choose to engage here...

I do not agree with him(creative) that moving information is moving meaning, nor that information implicitly has meaning. The difference parallels that between syntax and semantics, or between Austin's phatic act and illocutionary act. — Banno

What does the difference between uttering meaningful words/sentences and just uttering words(without knowing how to use them and/or what they mean/refer to) have to do with information and meaning? Particularly, how does that difference justify a claim that information is not always already meaningful?

The illocutionary act already has specific meaning/reference. The phatic act is not (yet?)meaningful to the speaker even though the words are already part of meaningful thought/belief(correlations). Parroting never counts, but is necessary in order for the speaker to eventually draw the correlations between the words use and something else, as opposed to mere mimicry(phonetic act). When the speaker begins to draw correlations between the same things(including the utterance) as the pre-existing language users, they're learning how to use language. Shared meaning.

More to the problem as I see it...

When talking about the locutionary phatic act and the illocutionary acts, we're dealing with instances concerning language that's already meaningful. The parallel between those and information and meaning would make information already meaningful as well, wouldn't it?

There's already been discussion about translating and/or decoding. If information is something that can be decoded and/or translated, then it is already meaningful... otherwise there is no such thing as an incorrect translation. As an aside, that issue also undermines all the talk about "what it's like to be...".

Syntax and semantics???

Both are already meaningful. Semantics is the study of meaning. Syntax is the accepted arrangement of words to make well formed meaningful sentences. The arrangement can affect/effect the meaning.

Do not see how the parallel allows us to say that one(information) is not already meaningful.

...we make meaning to the individual neural connections in the brain... — Possibility

Make meaning to that which cannot attribute it for itself?

That sounds off.

The talk of correlations is more than fitting if pursued diligently.

Moving information may indeed occur, but is incidental to language. — Banno

If moving information (or using language to inform people of things) is something that we use language for, then I don't see how it is incidental "to language". Again, I'm unsure if we mean the same thing by "moving information".

I could go either of two ways: the first, call what is done with information the meaning of that information; the second, drop the notion of meaning altogether and just talk about information and its uses. — Banno

I'm confused by this. It's unclear to me why you might want to "call what is done with information the meaning of that information".