We should really deny this assumption of "the world", until it is justified, and produced as a logical conclusion, rather than taken as an assumed premise. This means that we should go through all the evidence from all the various fields of science, and other forms of knowledge such as theological knowledge, then we can start to make conclusions about mind-independence. If this evidence produces a conclusion that there is a "world", then the assumption is justified. if not, then we move on to a new conception.
Here's the difficulty right here. Let's say that the author intended to write all the symbols exactly as they appear on the paper. That is exactly what the author meant, to produce exactly those symbols in that exact pattern or order. We still assume that there is something which was meant, beyond this expression of symbols. We assume that there is something which was meant by the author, which is represented by the symbols, that the symbols represent something. Therefore we attribute "what was meant by the author" not directly to the pattern of symbols, but to that which lies beyond, what is represented by the symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have no issue with this problem of tense. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can replace "meaning" with "what was meant", as in the paragraph above, if that makes it easier to understand. — Metaphysician Undercover
We still have to deal with the distinction between "the author meant to write down these symbols", and what the author meant to represent with these symbols. These two are distinct, but related intentions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Following from what you argue here, what this phrase refers to, "what the author meant to represent" never had any existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's fine, and not at all absurd as you would claim here. — Metaphysician Undercover
As per my last post, that there is such a thing as "what the author meant to represent", is just an assumption held by the reader. — Metaphysician Undercover
Without this assumption, all the symbols on the paper are meaningless, as you say, but contrary to your claim, there is nothing absurd about that. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, I'll adhere to proper tense use, replacing "meaning" with "what was meant". — Metaphysician Undercover
The point I'm trying to make though, is that there is nothing real, which exists as "what was meant", other than a pattern of symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
But this pattern of symbols does not constitute meaning for a reader. — Metaphysician Undercover
The reader must assume that there is a "what was meant" beyond the pattern of symbols, what the symbols represent. — Metaphysician Undercover
So the symbols have no meaning without a reader to assume that there is a "what was meant". — Metaphysician Undercover
It is you who is making the tense errors. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is only "what was meant", at the time which the author wrote the symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
You, for some reason, assume that this continues in time as "meaning", such that the symbols have meaning at the present time. — Metaphysician Undercover
"What was meant" is in the past, "meaning" is in the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
The difference between these two, past and present, justifies my claim that the symbols have no meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
What you need to do is to show how "what was meant" continues to exist at the present, as meaning. First, you need to justify that there is such a thing as "what was meant". — Metaphysician Undercover
Following your stated principles, as I explained, the symbols have absolutely no meaning unless there is a mind which assumes that there is a "what was meant". — Metaphysician Undercover
If we remove your conditions, and allow that there is a real "what was meant by the author", and this "what was meant" is not restricted to the past, but continues to exist as "meaning", within the statement, then we can dispose of the need for a mind to assume that there is a "what was meant". — Metaphysician Undercover
To deny the fact that there is a world that is the cause of what appears, which exist separate from us is not logical. You cannot treat the lion charging you as an assumed premise, it's real and it is about to kick your butt. — Cavacava
The truths we derive from what appears are our best effort to say what could possibly be the case to allow for such appearances, but there is no guarantee that what we derive on this basis is what actually is. — Cavacava
So, what's the problem then? That in itself needn't be a problem. None of that necessitates a mind being there. It necessities that there was a mind there. It means that there had to have been a mind there doing that - which I haven't denied, and need not deny. The dependence relation isn't about the past, as I've already said. — Sapientia
The latter entails that so long as there was a meaning intended by the author, then there is a meaning. The meaning would have been intended, so there would be a meaning. — Sapientia
It is an assumption for argument's sake, for the sake of the hypothetical scenario that we've discussed. But in the hypothetical scenario, no, it isn't an assumption. The author meant something with those symbols. That is a given if you're going to properly engage in this thought experiment. It also need not be an assumption outside of the context of our discussion, since, obviously, there really are - and have been - authors who meant something with a bunch of symbols. I am one of them, as are you, and as is everyone else in this discussion, so, that obviously isn't an assumption. It's a fact. And there's a big difference between the two. — Sapientia
Why do you keep using scare quotes like that?! It isn't necessary. — Sapientia
To make it interesting, let's make it a given in the thought experiment that the author meant something, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and quite possible. — Sapientia
You should indeed allow that something was meant be the author. Otherwise you'd miss the point. The controversy only arises once we've assumed for argument's sake that something was meant. The thought experiment is about what would happen next in a particular scenario. — Sapientia
Then you can just define the relation with an argument for context, and have truth of a sentence relative to a context. This isn't important to the point. — The Great Whatever
Propositions aren't sentence-dependent, no. It can be true that p even if there's no sentence acting as a vehicle to express p. — The Great Whatever
I still don't know why you're using the word "relation." — Mongrel
The way I see it is that the sentence "it is true that p" is equivalent to the sentence "'p' is true" — Michael
How do we justify that what was meant, at a particular point of time in the past, when the author writes the symbols, exists as meaning today, without a mind to assume that there is a what was meant? — Metaphysician Undercover
Even if we assume that it is a fact that the author intended a meaning, that act is in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
The meaning can be what was intended by the author. It is demonstrably the case that the author doesn't need to constantly intend that meaning. What would happen when the author dies, and can no longer intend anything, let alone the meaning of what he wrote? What he wrote would instantly become meaningless, and remain meaningless ever after? That is absurd. — Sapientia
How does the act of having intended a meaning, in the past, ensure that a meaning exists now at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
I use quotes on "what was meant", because these words refer to something conceptual only, something within the mind, as intention. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is the intent itself, "what was meant" and this was only in the mind of the author, at that time of writing, in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is also an interpretation of "what was meant", and this is in the mind of the reader. — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to assume that there is such a thing as "what was meant", in order to claim objective meaning, but that's just an assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
Actually, your claim is what is nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course there needs to be an interpretation, otherwise your supposed rule, "not to speak" is just symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
Who interprets what it means "to speak" and "not to speak", in order to determine whether the kid has actually broken the rule? — Metaphysician Undercover
If the kid hums or starts making all kinds of unintelligible gibberish noises, has the rule been broken? — Metaphysician Undercover
What justification do you have to claim that the DNA encoding does not refer to anything? — tom
Classically, a proposition is a mapping from world-states to truth values. You can model this as a function from a set of objects to {0, 1}. — The Great Whatever
Truth is unanalyzable.So 'true' could be defined as a relation between sentences and contexts. — The Great Whatever
You're still wrong about this, though, they're not equivalent, for reasons I've explained to you at length in the past.
You should stop talking about language bewitchment until you figure out the use-mention distinction. — The Great Whatever
A mapping from world states to truth values? Isn't that just saying that a world-state is either true or false? — Michael
1. It is true that p.
2. p. The previous sentence is true.
3. "p" is true. — Michael
Second, defining truth in this way is, as I've already said, not relevant to the point of what I was saying to begin with. — The Great Whatever
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.