The cat doesn’t need to distinguish purpose or meaning in order for her interactions to be purposeful or meaningful. — Possibility

I concur.

The relation between the cat and the aquarium may not have a particular meaning for the cat - she recognises its significance, and manifests that significance through her actions. But the relation is NOT meaningless, regardless of what the cat does or doesn’t notice or consider.

The life sustaining role is not recognized by her for she does not have the language in order to be able to draw such complex correlations. The relation is meaningful to us, and significant to her by virtue of being life sustaining. She has no clue.

Not all things significant to her are also meaningful to her. Unless something becomes part of a correlation drawn by a candidate under consideration, it is not meaningful to them. That same something may be significant to her without her ever becoming aware of the significance that it has.

Significance is not equivalent to meaning.

The life sustaining role is not recognized by her for she does not have the language in order to be able to draw such complex correlations. The relation is meaningful to us, and significant to her by virtue of being life sustaining. She has no clue. — creativesoul

Fair enough - not consciously recognised as significant, but nevertheless manifest in her attention and effort towards the aquarium. That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation - because her attention and effort (her integration and manifestation of significance) is not just meaningful but significant TO you. It is not, however significant TO me, although I recognise its potential significance, and that is meaningful to me.

But your cat has a clue - she has the vague awareness of a relation to the aquarium water source that varies in significance (attention and effort) according to the state she is in. When she’s thirsty, her limited capacity for thought gravitates towards this potentiality. If you empty the tank, she would still consider it, but it may eventually drop in this significance in favour of other water sources with more recently perceived potential to satisfy an allocation of attention and effort toward the relation.

Not all things significant to her are also meaningful to her. Unless something becomes part of a correlation drawn by a candidate under consideration, it is not meaningful to them. That same something may be significant to her without her ever becoming aware of the significance that it has. — creativesoul

I agree with most of this. Your last sentence I would say that it may be significant to her without her ever recognising the significance that it has. But I think a cat may be vaguely aware of significance in the same way we can be vaguely aware of relations existing prior to becoming meaningful to us.

There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone. We draw this distinction through our awareness of what is meaningful to us, but NOT meaningful to another. But can you give an example of something that you would say IS meaningful TO your cat?

Significance is not equivalent to meaning. — creativesoul

I concur. My point is that possible meaning is attributed where we recognise variable significance, and potential significance is attributed where we recognise variable attention and effort.

Fair enough - not consciously recognised as significant, but nevertheless manifest in her attention and effort towards the aquarium. That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation - because her attention and effort (her integration and manifestation of significance) is not just meaningful but significant TO you. It is not, however significant TO me, although I recognise its potential significance, and that is meaningful to me. — Possibility

The cat is neither you nor I.

The cat is neither you nor I. — creativesoul

Agreed. You might have to spell out your point here...

That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation... — Possibility

'The' relation? As if we've only been discussing one. Clarity... please.

:brow:

There are a plethora of different relations between the aquarium and the cat. Some are meaningful to the cat. Some are not. Some are significant to her. Some are not. Some are both, significant and meaningful to her. Some are significant but not meaningful to her. All things meaningful to her become so by virtue of becoming a part of some correlation or other that she draws between different things. Some meaningful things exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming a part of a correlation she draws between them and other things(prior to ever becoming meaningful to her). Some do not.



WE recognize the life-sustaining relation between water and her(this harks back to the aforementioned "role" that the aquarium plays) as well as a place for her to get a drink. One of these two relations she is aware also of, but the other... not so much. The aquarium is meaningful to her as a place to get a drink. The aquarium is significant to her as a place to get a drink and as an elemental constituent in/of that process. She recognizes the aquarium as a place to get a drink, not as a life sustaining source of drinking water. Not all things that have a significant impact upon her life are meaningful to her as such.

The cat's aquarium is becoming more and more the perfect example for us to use.

My point is that possible meaning is attributed where we recognise variable significance, and potential significance is attributed where we recognise variable attention and effort. — Possibility

This looks like of those times where the narrative gets meta and the authors lose sight of the ground.

The very notion of possible meaning is existentially dependent upon language use. Where there has never been language use, there could have never been anyone hedging their bets upon another's meaning. Possible meaning is only attributed within a language game. Cookie does not play such games.

This looks like of those times where the narrative gets meta and the authors lose sight of the ground.

The very notion of possible meaning is existentially dependent upon language use. Where there has never been language use, there could have never been anyone hedging their bets upon another's meaning. Possible meaning is only attributed within a language game. Cookie does not play such games. — creativesoul

I do regularly encounter an assumption that I’ve lost sight of the ground when I start shifting rapidly between perspectives like this. I have an overall relational structure in mind that is six-dimensional, with possibility or meaning as six-dimensional structure, value, potential or significance as five-dimensional and physical interaction, events or life as four-dimensional structures of relation. Each dimensional level allows a corresponding level of integrated awareness. So it’s quite obvious to me that I can attribute the possibility of meaning to Cookie’s vague awareness of significance, but Cookie cannot. I forget that most people need to consolidate discussions at a particular level of awareness in order to keep track.

I’m not saying that Cookie attributes possible meaning, but that possible meaning is attributable (by us) to both variable structures of significance and variable structures or patterns of attention/effort. Such attribution requires that we recognise the variability in relation as a single entity.

When she’s thirsty, her limited capacity for thought gravitates towards this potentiality. If you empty the tank, she would still consider it, but it may eventually drop in this significance in favour of other water sources with more recently perceived potential to satisfy an allocation of attention and effort toward the relation. — Possibility

When she's thirsty she goes to the place where she drinks. She knows how to get there. If she found it empty, she'd go elsewhere.

I have an overall relational structure in mind that is six-dimensional, with possibility or meaning as six-dimensional structure, value, potential or significance as five-dimensional and physical interaction, events or life as four-dimensional structures of relation. Each dimensional level allows a corresponding level of integrated awareness. — Possibility

I'm suddenly reminded of being charged with using an unnecessarily complicated framework.

When she's thirsty she goes to the place where she drinks. She knows how to get there. If she found it empty, she'd go elsewhere. — creativesoul

I won’t deny that. You did, however, say this:

The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. — creativesoul

So I’m curious: would you say that the aquarium water source has variable significance to your cat (ie, she attributes attention and effort relative to her state of thirst and the comparative proximity/potentiality of ‘the place where she drinks’), but is meaningful to her only in relation to that significance?

I'm suddenly reminded of being charged with using an unnecessarily complicated framework. — creativesoul

Ha ha. I find it surprisingly simple to navigate, actually. It keeps me from ‘losing sight of the ground’. I can structure in my mind where a perspective might be in relation to you, Cookie or the aquarium, at various levels of awareness.

I’m not saying that Cookie attributes possible meaning, but that possible meaning is attributable (by us)... — Possibility

If we attribute possible meaning to my cat...

Can we be wrong? How could we possibly know that we are? What standard of comparison could we use as a means to know what sort of stuff is meaningful to her, could become meaningful to her, and what sort of stuff cannot possibly be, or cannot ever become meaningful to her?

There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone. — Possibility

I missed this. I completely disagree.

If we replace "someone" with "a creature capable of attributing meaning" there is no distinction between being meaningful and being meaningful to a creature capable of attributing meaning.

Your notion of significance blurs the distinction between causality and meaning. Causality is always significant, but not always meaningful. That's part of my rejection of significance being equated to meaning. They are not equivalent.

If we attribute possible meaning to my cat...

Can we be wrong? How could we possibly know that we are? What standard of comparison could we use as a means to know what sort of stuff is meaningful to her, could become meaningful to her, and what sort of stuff cannot possibly be, or cannot ever become meaningful to her? — creativesoul

I’m not suggesting we attribute possible meaning to your cat. I’m saying that our awareness of the aquarium’s significance to your cat has meaning for us. With this information, we attribute possible meaning or purpose to the aquarium beyond its significance to us.

There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone.
— Possibility

I missed this. I completely disagree.

If we replace "someone" with "a creature capable of attributing meaning" there is no distinction between being meaningful and being meaningful to a creature capable of attributing meaning. — creativesoul

Okay, now I think we might be getting somewhere. You’re talking about meaningful as a way of being or becoming in relation to a creature. This seems to be a temporal relation for you, as if at some point the relation, once meaningful, can cease to be so. Would that be accurate?

Your notion of significance blurs the distinction between causality and meaning. Causality is always significant, but not always meaningful. That's part of my rejection of significance being equated to meaning. They are not equivalent. — creativesoul

Causality refers to a temporal relation, significance and meaning (in my view) do not. But I agree, they are NOT equivalent.

The way I see it, if WE recognise causality as always significant, then all causality is at least potentially meaningful to US. But your cat is unaware of causality as such, she is only aware of those aspects of causality that are potentially significant to her. When we recognise this significance, we might consider them meaningful to her, but really we’re just projecting our own awareness of possible meaningfulness (to us) onto the cat.

I’m not suggesting we attribute possible meaning to your cat. — Possibility

:brow:

That's exactly what we're doing when we're talking about what's meaningful to her.

I’m saying that our awareness of the aquarium’s significance to your cat has meaning for us. — Possibility

Our awareness has meaning... for us, nonetheless?

:yikes:

Weird way to talk, if you ask me.

How does our awareness become meaningful... for us?

Causality refers to a temporal relation... — Possibility

Causality is not the sort of thing even capable of referring.

You’re talking about meaningful as a way of being or becoming in relation to a creature. — Possibility

You're not getting it.

I'm talking about how all things become meaningful.

There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone.
— Possibility

I missed this. I completely disagree.

If we replace "someone" with "a creature capable of attributing meaning" there is no distinction between being meaningful and being meaningful to a creature capable of attributing meaning.
— creativesoul

Okay, now I think we might be getting somewhere. You’re talking about meaningful as a way of being or becoming in relation to a creature. This seems to be a temporal relation for you, as if at some point the relation, once meaningful, can cease to be so. Would that be accurate? — Possibility

I know that this was years ago, but recent discussions on the forum have me revisiting this thread.

I must've been in too argumentative a mood or something else perhaps when first reading the above, because upon rereading it today, I found myself wondering why I had not concurred, hesitantly anyway, with the interpretation above.

Yes! Without doubt, meaningfulness has temporal duration/relation. Things that were once meaningful can cease to be so.

After rereading this thread, I want to once again commend you on continuing to maintain a respectful 'tone' despite what clearly looks to me - now at least - like my own unwarranted bristling/taking unwarranted offense at different times throughout.

After rereading this thread, I want to once again commend you on continuing to maintain a respectful 'tone' despite what clearly looks to me - now at least - like my own unwarranted bristling/taking unwarranted offense at different times throughout. — creativesoul

Ha ha, evidence that meaning has a temporal duration. The thread has different meaning now than it did back then.

Yes! Without doubt, meaningfulness has temporal duration/relation. Things that were once meaningful can cease to be so. — creativesoul

Ha ha, evidence that meaning has a temporal duration. The thread has different meaning now than it did back then. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol:

Very true. I have never realised something too 'elemental'. MU asks for evidence, but I guess this three-year-old thread speaks for itself. What I don't get regarding temporal duration, if it only applies to both increase and cease of meaningfulness.

I mean, either gains meaningfulness or loses it. (?)

Aren't there things with a constant meaningful duration?

I think I will think deeply about some examples of the above all morning...

Aren't there things with a constant meaningful duration? — javi2541997

That would be eternal truth, if there is such a thing. Some would attribute this to God, others to mathematics, and some perhaps to physics. It seems like people generally have a desire to assume some kind of eternal meaning, as a sort of principle of balance, because life, while it seems to strive in that direction, fails in its capacity to give us this.

That would be eternal truth, if there is such a thing. Some would attribute this to God, others to mathematics, and some perhaps to physics — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting.

'Eternal truth' sounds very good. I agree with the examples which some can be related to. I guess inside physics or mathematics, there are different grades of truth, yet all of them have to share a common core, that eternal truth we are talking about.

On the other hand, I want to try to find an eternal truth with the basic knowledge I have about philosophy. I think I have to discard God because I am not a believer. It is true that Christian ethics and existentialism have struck me, but I would look like a fool if I considered God as an eternal truth, honestly.

What if we could consider 'cogito ergo sum' as an eternal truth?

Alas, being aware that we exist or being aware of our consciousness could be an eternal truth.
I can't imagine a decrease in the level of meaningfulness in Cartesianism.

What if we could consider 'cogito ergo sum' as an eternal truth?

Alas, being aware that we exist or being aware of our consciousness could be an eternal truth.
I can't imagine a decrease in the level of meaningfulness in Cartesianism. — javi2541997

Wouldn't this mean that your existence is eternal?

Wouldn't this mean that your existence is eternal? — Metaphysician Undercover

And, is it 'my existence is eternal' an eternal truth or not?

Oh I see, "I exist now", is an eternal truth. So the "eternal truth" is a truth which obtains the highest degree of certainty. The other less certain truths are not eternal because we allow that they may fall out of the status of being true at some time, just like what happened to "Pluto is a planet". The truths with a really low level of certainty, which we employ commonly in our mundane thinking, like "it will not rain today", are only true for as long as they are useful.