If the "primary condition" of your definition of "present" is to make reference "solely to conscious experience", then how can "present" refer to anything outside of conscious experience? — Luke

in the way that I explained, with the use of "might", and the example of "sound", through extrapolation.

If the present is not limited to conscious experience, and if the past is not limited to what is actually remembered and if the future is not limited to what is actually anticipated, then there must be something outside of conscious experience or these mental events that determines and helps to define what you mean by "past", "present" and "future". What is it? — Luke

I don't know. That is perhaps the greatest problem of philosophy, described by Kant as the thing-in-itself. Kant claimed we cannot know what it is.

If your definition of "sound" allows "that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type", then your definition of "sound" allows for "what might not be heard". Your definition of "sound" is basically "what might be heard or what might not be heard". — Luke

Sure, I see no problem here. That it might or might not actually be heard is irrelevant, as what is relevant is description of the type.

It indicates that "sound" refers to something external to conscious experience. If (a) sound is something that might not be heard, then it must exist independently of anyone's conscious experience. — Luke

Yes, that is the extrapolation which I used to take "the past" outside of personal experience, giving it a position of objectivity, allowing it to be effectively employed as demonstrated with "sound".

Therefore, I don't see how you can maintain that your definitions of "past", "present" and "future" make reference solely to conscious experience, while you also speak about "the reality of things of that type" which do not make reference solely to conscious experience (i.e. which are not remembered or not anticipated). — Luke

It was "the present" which I claimed ought to be defined solely with reference to conscious experience. This was "what is happening". Then we moved to "past" and "future" which I said ought to be defined in reference to the present. These were " what has happened", and "what is possible to happen". You asked me how were you supposed to understand these two definitions, and I said with reference to the conscious experience of the present, what is happening. And within our conscious experience of what is happening we have memories and anticipations, to help us understand the meaning of those definitions, "what has happened" and "what is possible to happen".

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition.

So your objection is not really relevant, just demonstrating that you are mixing up the definitions with the explanation of the meaning of the definitions. The definition of "present" refers to conscious experience. The definitions of "past" and "future" refer to the present. In the explanation, or interpretation of the meaning of the definitions I refers to something other.

My choice is beside the point. I have already stated my view that these terms are conventionally defined with reference to time, It is your view and your unconventional definitions of these terms that is presently under discussion. Your view - that these terms are defined solely in terms of conscious experience - clearly implies the radical skeptic position which must lead you to "deny the reality of anything independent". Otherwise, I fail to understand how these terms can be defined solely in terms of conscious experience. — Luke

You do not seem to understand. Defining terms while remaining entirely within a logical structure, does not make the terms inapplicable to things outside the logical system. Actually the opposite is true, and that's why mathematics, a purely logical system, is so highly applicable in the physical sciences. The most purely logical structure of definitions is the most applicable to the world of independent things. The logical structure of a system of definitions, does not deny the reality of independent things, that judgement is based on other assumptions

If the present is not limited to conscious experience, and if the past is not limited to what is actually remembered and if the future is not limited to what is actually anticipated, then there must be something outside of conscious experience or these mental events that determines and helps to define what you mean by "past", "present" and "future". What is it?
— Luke

I don't know. That is perhaps the greatest problem of philosophy, described by Kant as the thing-in-itself. Kant claimed we cannot know what it is. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you not know? Aren't we talking about your definitions? You don't know what defines your terms?

That it might or might not actually be heard is irrelevant, as what is relevant is description of the type. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your description of the type is that it might or might not actually be heard/remembered/anticipated. How is this irrelevant?

It indicates that "sound" refers to something external to conscious experience. If (a) sound is something that might not be heard, then it must exist independently of anyone's conscious experience. — Luke

Yes, that is the extrapolation which I used to take "the past" outside of personal experience, giving it a position of objectivity, allowing it to be effectively employed as demonstrated with "sound". — Metaphysician Undercover

What might not be heard/remembered/anticipated lies outside of conscious experience. Your definitions of the terms "past" and "future" which involve and entail what might not be remembered or anticipated are therefore not defined solely in terms of conscious experience.

It was "the present" which I claimed ought to be defined solely with reference to conscious experience. This was "what is happening". Then we moved to "past" and "future" which I said ought to be defined in reference to the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. You have defined "the present" solely with reference to conscious experience and you have defined the "past" and "future" relative to this. Therefore, by extension, you have defined each of these terms solely with reference to conscious experience.

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I strongly disagree that there is a distinction between a definition and its meaning. Do you believe a definition is just a string of letters/symbols/sounds that have no meaning? Is it impossible to refer to an example of a definition?

Defining terms while remaining entirely within a logical structure, does not make the terms inapplicable to things outside the logical system. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have asserted that the terms "past", "present" and "future" can be defined without reference to time and solely with reference to conscious experience. I'm not accusing you of going outside of any logical structure. I am accusing you of going outside of your own definitions; outside of conscious experience.

Perhaps you could provide some further definitions. How do you define the terms "remember" and "anticipate" within your logical structure? And (in case there is any difference), what are the meanings of these terms?

You asked for definitions. Then you asked what do the words within the definition mean. In other words you asked me to define the words which were used to define the primary words. Now you insist that there is no difference between the meaning of the primary word, and the meaning of the defining words.

Sorry Luke, but if the defining words meant exactly the same thing as the word defined then defining would be rendered as a completely useless procedure. Since you seem intent on insisting that there is no difference between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean) I can only say that your obtuseness has left further discussion of these terms as absolutely pointless. The explaining phrases mean exactly the same thing as the phrases explained, to you. .

Since you seem intent on insisting that there is no difference between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean) — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "what the defined word means" and "its meaning".

Straw man, as usual.

You said:

you seem intent on insisting that there is no difference between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean) — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I am insisting this.

On the other hand, you are “insisting” that there is a difference “between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean)”.

I asked you what is the difference between “what the defined word means” and “its meaning”.

This distinction is yours, as is clear from the quote. There is no straw man.

But I guess you now realise the silliness of your distinction.

Look Luke, I was talking about the difference between the stated meaning of the defined word, which is "the definition" (also represented by me as "what the defined word means"), and the meaning of the words which make up the definition (represented by me as "what the defining words mean). The difference referred to therefore is the difference between "what the defined word means" and "what the defining words mean"

Your misrepresentation, "the difference between “what the defined word means” and “its meaning”" is nothing but a straw man. I now understand more clearly the reason why we had that little problem earlier, and the reason for your childish behaviour of claiming that you knew better what I meant by a particular passage which I wrote, than I did. You do not accept that there can be a difference in meaning between the meaning of a statement, and the meaning of the explanation of that statement. Since my explanation of the original statement was not exactly as the meaning you apprehended in the original statement, you concluded that my explanation must be wrong.

Therefore you continue to reinforce my belief that trying to explain anything to you will be a fruitless effort.

Your initial distinction was between a definition and its meaning:

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what I strongly disagreed with.

You later accused me of disagreeing with a different distinction, which you have now expressed as the difference “between what the defined word means and what the defining words mean.”

This is not the same as your distinction between a definition and its meaning that I initially disagreed with.

Your misrepresentation, "the difference between “what the defined word means” and “its meaning”" is nothing but a straw man. — Metaphysician Undercover

I did not misrepresent you. You made this exact distinction and I quoted it. You must be saying that your own words misrepresented you.

Your initial distinction was between a definition and its meaning: — Luke

Yes, I made a distinction between the meaning of a word, (its definition), and the meaning of the definition. If there was not a difference between these two, the definition would mean the exact same thing as the word itself means. Consequently, there would be a vicious circle of meaning, if this were the case, and definitions would be completely useless. Definitions, if they were actually like this, would do nothing yo help us understand the meaning of the word.

I got an inkling of this way of thinking, a bit earlier, when you started misrepresenting my defining words as "synonymous" with the words being defined. Definitions are never intended to have the very same meaning as the word defined, that's why dictionaries use numerous definitions for the same word, and ambiguity is a real aspect of language use.

Therefore your representation of my definitions are misrepresentations. You misrepresent what is intended (the meaning of) the definitions. You represent the definitions as being intended to have the very same meaning as the words being defined, when my intent is not to create a vicious circle like that, with the definition, but to put the word into a wider context of meaning, and intentionally act to avoid such a vicious circle. This is the norm with definitions, and your insistence that the two ought to mean the very same thing, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of "definition", and meaning in general.

Furthermore, your continued behaviour of insisting that you know better than myself, what I meant by a statement, and therefore rejecting my explanation as being inconsistent with the meaning which you apprehended, is nothing but childishness. Explanations are meant to demonstrate how to understand the statement, how to put it into the wider context which the author has in mind.

When you receive a statement, apprehend and understand that statement according to the wider context of meaning provided by your own mind, and the author tells you that this wider context of meaning provided by your mind is inconsistent with the one intended by the author, then you must adapt and try to put that statement into the wider context of meaning provided by the author's explanations if you want to properly understand. This is in contrast to insisting that the statement must be understood according to your own wider context of meaning, and completely ignore the author's explanation. The latter is misunderstanding, plain and simple. And to insist that your misunderstanding is the proper understanding, with complete disregard for the author's explanations, is not only childish, but completely disrespectful.

Yes, I made a distinction between the meaning of a word, (its definition), and the meaning of the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

What’s the difference between a definition and its meaning? In other words, what is the difference between the definition of a word and the meaning of a word? You are speaking of a definition as though it has no meaning. How can a definition have no meaning?

If there was not a difference between these two, the definition would mean the exact same thing as the word itself means. — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition of the word does “mean the exact same thing” - or does have the same meaning - as the meaning of the word. What difference is there? To define a word is to give its meaning.

Definitions, if they were actually like this, would do nothing yo help us understand the meaning of the word. — Metaphysician Undercover

If definitions were as you imagine them to be, they would have no meaning at all.

Let's define a "bachelor" as "an unmarried man".
The definition of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".
The meaning of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".

The problem (your confusion) here is that you seem to think that nobody is allowed to now ask what "unmarried" means.

What’s the difference between a definition and its meaning? In other words, what is the difference between the definition of a word and the meaning of a word? You are speaking of a definition as though it has no meaning. How can a definition have no meaning? — Luke

Luke, the definition of a word is the meaning of the word defined. The definition itself , also has meaning. Therefore, there is a difference between "the definition", which is the meaning of the word defined, and the definition's meaning, which is the meaning of the definition, and something other than the meaning of the word defined. So, you have the answer to your question "what is the difference between a definition and it's meaning". And please, do not be childish and disrespectful, and insist that I must have meant something other than that.

The definition of a word is the meaning of the word. Then of course, the definition itself has meaning. And, the meaning of the definition is not the same as the meaning of the word defined. Why is this so difficult for you? It's very obvious and straight forward, and also the reason why many philosophers like Wittgenstein in "On Certainty" get concerned about an infinite regress of meaning. Words are used to define words, but then those words need to be defined, etc., without circling back.

If definitions were as you imagine them to be, they would have no meaning at all.

Let's define a "bachelor" as "an unmarried man".
The definition of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".
The meaning of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".

The problem (your confusion) here is that you seem to think that nobody is allowed to now ask what "unmarried" means. — Luke

Why are you now trying to turn the table? This is what you insisted, That the meaning of the word, its definition, and the meaning of the definition must be one and the same. I'm the one one trying to talk sense into you. and it appears like you are now coming to respect the difference between the definition "unmarried man", in your example, and the meaning of that definition.

Does this mean that you are starting to understand? The meaning of "bachelor" is not the same as the meaning of "unmarried man", or else there'd be a vicious circle of meaning. If so, we can go back to my definitions. Do you accept that the meaning of "what has happened", which was my definition of "past", is not the same as "what might be remembered"? The latter phrase, "what might be remembered" is meant to explain the meaning of "what has happened".

Luke, the definition of a word is the meaning of the word defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right. You accused me of "conflating the definitions with their meaning" and you claimed "These are separate" in this post. Here you are saying the opposite.

Luke, the definition of a word is the meaning of the word defined. The definition itself , also has meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the difference between "the definition of a word" and "the definition itself"?

The definition itself , also has meaning. Therefore, there is a difference between "the definition", which is the meaning of the word defined, and the definition's meaning, which is the meaning of the definition, and something other than the meaning of the word defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

You appear to be saying that the definition of a word has two different meanings:
(i) the meaning of the word defined, and
(ii) the definition's meaning.

How do these two differ? (You have merely asserted that they differ. I'm asking how they differ.)

The definition of a word is the meaning of the word. Then of course, the definition itself has meaning. And, the meaning of the definition is not the same as the meaning of the word defined. Why is this so difficult for you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you are simply repeating the assertion without explanation.

If definitions were as you imagine them to be, they would have no meaning at all.

Let's define a "bachelor" as "an unmarried man".
The definition of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".
The meaning of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man".

The problem (your confusion) here is that you seem to think that nobody is allowed to now ask what "unmarried" means.
— Luke

Why are you now trying to turn the table? This is what you insisted, That the meaning of the word, its definition, and the meaning of the definition must be one and the same. I'm the one one trying to talk sense into you. and it appears like you are now coming to respect the difference between the definition "unmarried man", in your example, and the meaning of that definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition and the meaning of the word "bachelor" are one and the same; they are both "an unmarried man". It says so right there in the quote.

This might help me to understand better:

If we take the statement "The definition of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man"" -- Which part (or what) do you consider to be the definition? And which part (or what) do you consider to be "the meaning of the definition"?

You appear to be saying that the definition of a word has two different meanings:
(i) the meaning of the word defined, and
(ii) the definition's meaning. — Luke

Luke, please inform yourself of what I've been saying, and quit with the straw men. All you are demonstrating is a lack of understanding which at times plunges into disrespect.

The definition of the word is the meaning of the word. The meaning of the definition is something different from the meaning of the word.

If the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the definition of the word, were both exactly the same, then the definition would tell us nothing meaningful, and it would be absolutely useless. The meaning of the word would be the definition, and the meaning of the definition would be the word, and this would be a vicious circle. Do you agree with me on this? If you agree then we can get back on topic.

The definition of the word is the meaning of the word. The meaning of the definition is something different from the meaning of the word.

If the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the definition of the word, were both exactly the same, then the definition would tell us nothing meaningful, and it would be absolutely useless. The meaning of the word would be the definition [of the word]... — Metaphysician Undercover

The meaning of the word is the definition of the word. You said so at the beginning of the quote. Were you wrong?

I've always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. And, I've also maintained that there is a difference between the meaning of the word defined, and the meaning of the phrase which is the definition.

Since you seem to be extraordinarily obsessed with this issue, I suggest you go back and reread the thread from the point where this came up, I was making a distinction between what the words "past" and "future" mean, as per their definitions, ("what has happened" and "what is possible to happen" ), and what those definitions mean. You had asked me what do the definitions mean, and I explained them by talking about the type of thing that the definition indicated. Then you would not respect the fact that there is a difference between what the word means, i.e. its definition, ("what has happened") , and what the definition means (the type of thing that might be remembered).

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same. — Luke

If you reread from that point to the present, keeping in mind, that what I meant all along, and the distinction I was discussing is the distinction between the meaning of a word (its definition), and the meaning of the definition of the word (the phrase that defines the word). it ought to become very clear to you how you kept misrepresenting me (straw man). You might also see how you childishly insisted that I answer questions which were a product of your misunderstanding and therefore not relevant to what I was saying. Hopefully you might also see how this childish behaviour, this self-righteousness supported only by a lack of understanding, borders on disrespect when you start insisting that you know better than I, what I meant, and refuse to accept your misrepresentation as such.

After you reread, and recognize that there is a difference between the meaning of "past", as "what has happened", and the meaning of that phrase, the definition, which I explained as the type of thing which might be remembered, then we might be prepared to proceed with the discussion.

I've always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have not always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. Our disagreement over this matter began when you accused me of "conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation". You asserted that meanings and definitions "are separate", with the distinction between them being that meanings are always understood by a reference to examples while definitions are not. You said:

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

To now claim that you have "always said" that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word is not true. However, you have at least since acknowledged that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word.

I've also maintained that there is a difference between the meaning of the word defined, and the meaning of the phrase which is the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have not "maintained" that there is a difference between the meaning of the word defined, and the meaning of the phrase which is the definition - or not for long, anyway. You have only begun to articulate this distinction in your last post or two, as a result of my counter-arguments.

And I still disagree with your assertion in its new articulation. To give the definition of a word is to give the meaning of the word is to give the meaning of the phrase which is the definition. If you acknowledge that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word, then how can the meaning of the phrase which is the definition (of the word) be any different to the meaning of the word?

To give the meaning/definition of the word "bachelor" is (often) to give a phrase which is the definition, and that phrase has a meaning which is the meaning of the word. If it weren't, then the meaning/definition of the word "bachelor" would not have been given.

Then you would not respect the fact that there is a difference between what the word means, i.e. its definition, ("what has happened") , and what the definition means (the type of thing that might be remembered). — Metaphysician Undercover

Since you've stated it a couple of times now, I thought you had acknowledged that the definition of a word is the meaning of a word. However, now you're reverting to there being a difference between them that I should respect? Unless you can clearly articulate this difference and respond to my arguments against it, then I'm afraid I don't see it.

After you reread, and recognize that there is a difference between the meaning of "past", as "what has happened", and the meaning of that phrase, the definition, which I explained as the type of thing which might be remembered, then we might be prepared to proceed with the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree that "past" means "the type of thing which might be remembered". It's not a different "type" of meaning (i.e. the meaning of a phrase that is the definition) or whatever you are arguing; it just simply doesn't mean that.

You strongly imply here that "the meaning of the phrase" is the definition, and you have already said that the meaning of the definition is the meaning of the word. So, what difference is there between the meaning of the phrase that is the definition and the meaning of the definition?

You have not always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. Our disagreement over this matter began when you accused me of "conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation". You asserted that meanings and definitions "are separate", with the distinction between them being that meanings are always understood by a reference to examples while definitions are not. — Luke

Your childish behaviour is very frustrating Luke. I definitely differentiated between the definition of the word, which is the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the definition, which is the interpretation of the definition. Based on this distinction, I accused you of "conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation". If you still do not recognize this distinction then there is probably no point to picking up where we left off.

You strongly imply here that "the meaning of the phrase" is the definition, and you have already said that the meaning of the definition is the meaning of the word. — Luke

When I state explicitly, "there is a difference between the meaning of 'past', as 'what has happened', and the meaning of that phrase, the definition", how can you state with any credibility, that I strongly imply that the meaning of the phrase is the definition. You are saying that I "strongly imply" the exact opposite of what I explicitly state, that the meaning of the definition is distinct and different from the meaning of the word (which is the definition).

This is the point I've been trying to get you to recognize. If the meaning of the phrase which is the definition ("what has happened" in this case) is the same as the meaning of the defined word (which is "past" in this case), then definitions would be circular, and defining would be absolutely pointless and meaningless. However, the real purpose of defining is to put the word into a wider context, so that it can be understood in its relations with other words. If the meaning of the word is the definition, and the meaning of the definition is the word, such that the two are one and the same, there would be no such "wider context", only a vicious circle. Therefore, we must respect the fact that the meaning of the word which is said to be the definition, and the meaning of the definition which is the wider context, are two, distinct, and not the same. Then the definition actually serves a purpose toward understanding the word.

Let's start from the top, and see if we can get some agreement. Do you agree that there is a difference between a word, and the meaning of a word? If so, do you also agree that there is a difference between a definition, which is a group of words, and the meaning of the definition? And, if we were to state the meaning of the definition, we ought not state the original word as that meaning, or else we'd have a vicious circle which would get us nowhere fast.

I disagree that "past" means "the type of thing which might be remembered". It's not a different "type" of meaning (i.e. the meaning of a phrase that is the definition) or whatever you are arguing; it just simply doesn't mean that. — Luke

Whether or not you agree with the definitions is not the point here. I already know that you disagree with my definitions, you have made it very clear that you do not believe that these words can be adequately defined without reference to "time". So your disagreement is evident and paramount. But please do not let that subjective bias interfere with your honest and objective judgement of the issue of whether it is possible to do what you currently believe is impossible.

Consider yourself to be a child, as your behaviour demonstrates, with very little knowledge obtained yet. Someone is claiming to be able to do, what you in your childish state of ignorance, believe is impossible. Why not relinquish your subjective opinion, which might just be an ignorance based prejudice, to let that person proceed, and have the opportunity to lead you out of that ignorant state, if that is indeed what it is. After the demonstration is made, you will have ample opportunity to judge the success or failure of the effort. But to deny and ignore the demonstration because what the person is trying to show you is inconsistent with what you currently believe, only serves to perpetuate your childish ignorance.

Your childish behaviour is very frustrating Luke. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only childish thing here is your ad hominem argument.

Let's start from the top, and see if we can get some agreement. Do you agree that there is a difference between a word, and the meaning of a word? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes.

If so, do you also agree that there is a difference between a definition, which is a group of words, and the meaning of the definition? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

If, as you claim, you have "always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word", then how can the definition be different to the meaning? If the meaning is the definition, then the meaning of the definition is what? - the meaning of the meaning?

I would agree that a definition is (typically) a phrase, but the meaning of that phrase is not distinct from the definition. There is not the definition on one hand and the meaning of the definition on the other. As I said in my first response to your accusation of conflation that started all this:

I strongly disagree that there is a distinction between a definition and its meaning. — Luke

A definition considered as a meaningless phrase, or a meaningless group of unconnected words, is not a definition at all.

And, if we were to state the meaning of the definition, we ought not state the original word as that meaning, or else we'd have a vicious circle which would get us nowhere fast. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never argued that a word can only be defined by simply repeating the word. I have been arguing against your assertion that there is a distinction between a definition and its meaning. Calling my questions and arguments against your assertion "childish behaviour" is no defence of your assertion.

If the meaning is the definition, then the meaning of the definition is what? - the meaning of the meaning? — Luke

Yes, that's quite obvious and I don't see why you can't agree. The word has meaning, the definition of the word (the phrase) has meaning, the words used to explain the definition (the interpretation of the definition) have meaning, etc., and none of these 'meanings' is the same as any other. That's why I mentioned earlier that some philosophers like Wittgenstein got very concerned about an infinite regress of meaning. So they like to claim that there is some sort of foundational beliefs, bedrock presuppositions, or something like that, which ground all the meaning by being supported by something other than meaning.

I would agree that a definition is (typically) a phrase, but the meaning of that phrase is not distinct from the definition. There is not the definition on one hand and the meaning of the definition on the other. As I said in my first response to your accusation of conflation that started all this: — Luke

How can you say that the meaning of a word is different from the word. And, that the definition is a "phrase", which is a group of words, yet you claim that the meaning of the phrase is not different from the phrase? Why do you think that the meaning of a word is different from the word, yet the meaning of a group of words is not different from the group of words?

See, you separate the word from its meaning, as two distinct things, yet you combine the phrase, which is the definition, with its meaning, as one and the same thing. You are not consistent. Do you honestly believe that the phrase, which is a group of words, and the meaning of that group of words is one and the same thing, yet also believe that the meaning of a single word is distinct from that word? What is it about a group of words which makes it the same as its meaning?

Here's a suggestion, a way which we might be able to get past this problem. Maybe we should consider that the definition is not really the meaning, even though we've both already agreed that it is. The definition is just a group of words, the phrase, and the meaning of the word is something completely different from this group of words, which is the definition.

If the meaning is the definition, then the meaning of the definition is what? - the meaning of the meaning?
— Luke

Yes, that's quite obvious and I don't see why you can't agree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't agree because I don't know what "the meaning of the meaning" means. You did not explain it.

How can you say that the meaning of a word is different from the word. And, that the definition is a "phrase", which is a group of words, yet you claim that the meaning of the phrase is not different from the phrase? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not every phrase is a definition. To give the definition of a word is to give the meaning of a word. Just as you have "always said": the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. Both the definition of the word and the meaning of the word are (often) expressed as a phrase. The definition is the meaning. The definition is both the meaning of the word defined and the meaning of the defining phrase. The definition is not a meaningless phrase or string of words requiring definition. The word and the phrase should both have the same meaning, otherwise it would not be a definition (or, at least, it would be a very bad definition).

Why do you think that the meaning of a word is different from the word, yet the meaning of a group of words is not different from the group of words? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because words and phrases are things that have meanings and can be defined, whereas a definition is the thing which defines them; which has the same meaning as them.

See, you separate the word from its meaning, as two distinct things, yet you combine the phrase, which is the definition, with its meaning, as one and the same thing. You are not consistent. Do you honestly believe that the phrase, which is a group of words, and the meaning of that group of words is one and the same thing, yet also believe that the meaning of a single word is distinct from that word? What is it about a group of words which makes it the same as its meaning? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not every phrase, or group of words, is a definition. The definition of the word is the meaning of the word, as you have "always said".

Here's a suggestion, a way which we might be able to get past this problem. Maybe we should consider that the definition is not really the meaning, even though we've both already agreed that it is. The definition is just a group of words, the phrase, and the meaning of the word is something completely different from this group of words, which is the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can see how you changing your position on this matter would help you to get past your problem, but I believe that the definition really is the meaning. To define a word is to give its meaning; it is not to give a meaningless phrase that requires definition.

I can't agree because I don't know what "the meaning of the meaning" means. You did not explain it. — Luke

And the last week or so of discussion was not absorbed by you at all? The childishness never ceases to amaze me.

I can't agree because I don't know what "the meaning of the meaning" means. You did not explain it.
— Luke

And the last week or so of discussion was not absorbed by you at all? — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you explain what "the meaning of the meaning" means during the last week or so of discussion? If so, I must have missed it. Please provide a quote.

I think it might be the case that experience is special. — chiknsld

Do you mean "special" in the sense of special relativity?

I think it might be the case that experience is special.
— chiknsld

Do you mean "special" in the sense of special relativity? — Benj96

Or maybe, the life experience through which information gets into our brains is special?

Did you explain what "the meaning of the meaning" means during the last week or so of discussion? If so, I must have missed it. Please provide a quote. — Luke

I am now fully convinced that trying to explain anything to you will always be a hopeless effort.

I am now fully convinced that trying to explain anything to you will always be a hopeless effort. — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously you are unable to provide a quote because you never did explain what "the meaning of the meaning" means. I suppose you are not going to address the rest of my post, either.

You should stop blaming others for your failure to defend your arguments.

What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time. — Benj96

I think it might be the case that experience is special.
— chiknsld

Do you mean "special" in the sense of special relativity? — Benj96

What do you think buddy? :smile:

I write in the present moment. The past is thoughts and memories. The future is memories. The present is real. It’s tangible. It’s here and now. It’s reality. The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future. Only the present is here and now. Only the present is real. — Art48

You seem to think time is somehow severable into the present, past and future cleanly, like you could sever a lump of butter into 3 separate pieces. Under that presumption, one could feel that the past has gone, the future is not here yet, what is available for him is just the present, and that is the only reality.

But if you view time as a continuous mental entity, then you can see you have the past, present and future at the same time or one by one using your memory (the past), consciousness (the present) and imagination (the future).  Aren't your memories and imagination as real as your consciousness?

If God is real, I can only experience God in the present. Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God. — Art48

Is God real?  Before that presumption or proclamation, should you not first  define God, and what it means to be "real"?