I don't see how Hawking could have meant all of philosophy and all its disciplines when he used the term. Logic is one of the disciplines a philosophy and is one of the fundamental aspects of science.

There are philosophers who think that science is dead. Hawking's quote could represent the other side of the extreme. What both extremes don't seem to realize is that philosophy is a science and that you have to integrate all information from all domains of knowledge in order to have a more objective and consistent worldview.

Do I think it's something to get outraged over? I won't tell an African American how he ought react. I do remember though when the good Jesse Jackson called NYC Hymie Town and when Andrew Young called Mondale's aides smart ass white boys. I was insulted neither time. It just lets me know their real opinions, as if I didn't already know. — Hanover

Is it okay for a person to behave violently, or to trample on the speaker's right of free speech, in reaction to words? I don't think so.

You make a point with the comparison of reactions to spoken words (yours and an African American; you may be different races, but you're both human). Why are there different reactions to the same words and phrases among the same group of minorities? Not all blacks would react the same to some racial slur. Is it racist for you to group all African Americans together if they all have the same reaction to words?

The fact that there are different reactions needs to be looked at and the rejection of any implication that there are things that certain groups of people can't say (which is racist), or that anyone's free speech rights should be hindered. Fight ignorant speech with logical speech. Use your own free speech to bring reason back to the discussion. The goal of the user of the word is usually trying to bait the person into getting side-tracked off the main discussion. The insult is just a means to an end and the listener fell for the trap.

The latest posts by you and Banno are great examples of how your word use refers to your mental representations because your posts are just inaccurate and misconstrued representations of what I have said throughout this thread.

As I have already said numerous times, words are things as much as bumps in the night and tree rings are things, and they are all effects of prior causes and therefore carry information/meaning about their prior causes.

I do not see how the dialectic of form and content will save you here. The very existence of the shortcut should tell you something. — Heiko

Exactly. It tells me that you mean something other than what you literally said.

You know the Kantian thing is in and of itself. When trying to communicate with others we strive to talk about the same piece of reality. We have to do so, because we want to talk about the same thing.
You will not get out of the affair when we talk about "Harry". Nor will the person shown on the picture. — Heiko

Whatever, bro. You think that you can talk about things without having any mental representations of those things - as if your mental representations of those things don't (causally) influence your word use about those things. That is absurd.

Under spacetime, time is just another dimension and does not flow. It is exactly as real as space, so it is real if you consider space to be real.
As for the arrow of time, it is just like the arrow of space: There is indeed a local test that can be made to determine which direction is 'future' from a given point, so an arrow is defined. On any planet, there is an arrow of space for all three dimensions, with a clear direction for 'down' which can be determined with a plumb line, 'north' which can be determined by looking at the way the stuff in the sky rotates, and 'east' which is the remaining dimension. Out in deep space, these methods don't work, so there is no objective direction that is 'up' for instance. Perhaps away from the most influential gravitational force, which might be something like the great attractor if you're not particularly near any specific galaxy. Time would still have an arrow so long as there is work being done where your point of measurement takes place. — noAxioms

Exactly. There is a "local" test that can be made to determine which direction the arrow of space-time takes. In other words, it's all relative. I could actually be off-planet and still have the directions of space that you speak of. The directions would be relative to me, instead of the planet, with things above my head being up and below my feet being down. In other words, when talking about perspectives, there seems to be directions flowing away from the present perspective in both space and time. But what is spacetime absent any perspectives? Is spacetime a mental construction of a perspective? Does it really exist outside of our perspectives?

You can only measure space and time by comparing it to other shapes that occupy their own space (a ruler) and change (the rotation of the Earth) respectively. It's all relative and non-existent absent some perspective.

If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person. — Heiko

Here you are merely using a language shortcut to refer to the person. You are actually saying, "This is a picture of <insert some name here>." Obviously, you don't mean that the person is actually a picture and not a person. This extra information is garnered from the context.

The other problem is that that picture is just a representation of that person at one moment in time. That person has aged, is in a different mood, etc. and is not the same person as in the picture. The picture only shows one side of the person as it is two-dimensional. So the picture, just as your mental representations, do not exhaust everything there is of that person. So the picture gives me an idea of what the person looks like, but doesn't give me any other information about the person other than that.

If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko

And here you have your words referring to your intent to be funny - not to any actual state-of-affairs that exists outside of your mind, just as a lie refers to my intent to mislead - to plant false ideas in your head so that you will act accordingly.

Here we have the reason for the debunked theory of meaning Harry exposes: Stove's worst argument. Harry never eats eggs, only images-of-eggs. — Banno

So Banno is always right. All of his claims are objective in the sense that they always refer to actual states of affairs outside his own head. Banno is omniscient and we never knew.

To both of course as the Kantian thing encompasses both: The real thing and it's mental image.
This is already clear if I was to ask whereof the mental image is. This is an intrinsic reference.
If I make a statement about Harry I make a claim about you, not any mental image. I would need to explicitely distinguish that I only meant my imagination if I did not make such a claim. — Heiko

Right, so your claims are always accurate, and you know that they are always accurate.

All the claims on these forums are referring to actual states-of-affairs that truly exist outside of everyone's heads - even though most of the claims on these forums contradict other claims, they are all referring to actual states-of-affairs that exist outside of everyone's mental representations of those states-of-affairs. When people make claims about the existence of their god, they are all correct, and every god that has ever been claimed to exist actually does exist because people always refer to things outside of their heads, and are always aware of the difference.

That is just patently ridiculous. We make claims. Not everyone can be right, but we can all be wrong.

What shall "actual Harry Hindu" mean? The actual mental image?
If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person.
If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko

Did I not already explain that your mental image is an effect (a representation) of the the real thing? Mental images are real, just as a mirror image is real and part of the world. This is why we can use words to refer to either, and it is typically understood which one is being referred to within the context of the conversation. It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? It allows for us to be wrong or inaccurate, which happens often, when describing things outside of our minds. How do you explain the possibility of being inaccurate with your descriptions if you are always referring to something in the world?

The problem with these arguments against my position is that they don't take into account all the attributes of communication and how we use words. No one elses' explanations have been able to account for how non-established uses of words arise within a language system or how we can be wrong in our descriptions of the world. Any description of language and meaning has to take these things into account to be of any value.

Harry can't see it. Odd. Let's be clear: Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu. Yet if Harry's theory of meaning were right, he would be.

your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, — Harry Hindu


Indeed. Which of them is Harry Hindu? — Banno

The one that is absent of your biased and skewed mental representations of me.

Apart from solipsism I'm not aware of any philosophy where a statement about the world would not refer to something outside the mind. — Heiko

Nonsense.
1) The mind is part of the world.

2) We can talk about the contents of other people's minds. i.e "Banno is delusional and believes that he is a chicken."

One more time.

Your theory of meaning is that the name "Harry Hindu" refers to my mental image of you.

But you agree, from what you said above, that my mental image of you is not you.

That is, you distinguish between my mental image of Harry Hindu and Harry Hindu.

And it follows, quite directly, that my mental image of Harry Hindu, and Harry Hindu, are not the very same thing.

And hence, The referent of Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu.

And again: In order to formulate the expression "Your mental image of Harry Hindu can be wrong, BECAUSE it is a predicted representation of Harry Hindu", you must differentiate between my mental image of Harry and Harry himself.

And in so doing, you show that "Harry" refers to Harry, and not to a mental image. — Banno

All you have to do is go back an re-read my post to see that your reply is pointless. As I stated before, your words do refer to your mental image because your words are an inaccurate description of the actual "Harry Hindu" (I put Harry Hindu in quotes because Harry Hindu is a fictitious entity - an avatar on an internet forum and not the actual me - so it adds an extra layer of causation/meaning that you have to get through to get to the real me). If your words were more accurate, then I could still say that you words refer to your mental image of me. It's just that your mental image of me is more accurate and your words would reflect that.

While your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, they are related through causation - similar to how the image in the mirror is not you, but a reflection of you in a causal relationship.

and

Right, so the word already had a meaning before the author writes it. It has to, otherwise the author would have no reason to select it. If the word had a meaning before the author writes it, then it's meaning cannot just be whatever the author intends. There is some property of the word 'tree' which already exists prior the the author's selecting it, which make it good choice for him to convey the idea of the tall plant in the woods.

The question of meaning is not about how a word comes to mean what it does within the language community, its about what it means already within that community, and we've just established, it must mean something already before the author uses it, in order for him to make a non-arbitrary selection. So your contention that the meaning of a word is whatever the speaker has in mind when they employ it, is simply wrong. — Pseudonym

If words had meaning prior to any author using them, then where did words come from if they existed prior to humans? Who, or what assigned each word it's meaning in every language that ever existed or will exist? The fact that there are different languages itself is proof that language use is arbitrary. The symbols (sounds and scribbles) we use are arbitrary but the things that they refer to aren't. Your native language is just the system you've adopted as your means of communicating your non-verbal ideas. Using that system with a user of a different system causes problems. Both users have non-verbal ideas but can't share them externally without using a shared system - a protocol as the term is used in computer science.

And if words have meaning prior to their use, then how do you account for artistic and metaphorical uses of words and how they come to be commonly used within any language system? "You can't see the forest from the trees." is a metaphor that doesn't refer to any real forest or trees, but to a mental state - a lack of objectivity. How did that metaphor arise and become popular to use when referring to someone's lack of objectivity?

Words have no meaning in themselves until they are used to refer to something. There are just various systems of symbol use that vary in flexibility - where certain trends in re-using existing symbols (or inventing new symbols) to refer to other (or new) ideas within different contexts, exists. Sometimes another language's words are adopted into another language as a trend, and this is how a mixed language can develop - like Spanglish. Pig-Latin is a humorous play on the English language. Is there a Pig-Latin for Mandarin or Russian? Why not? Why would one use Pig-Latin instead of proper English? Doesn't that refer to their intent? Your native language is the effect of your development within a certain culture.

No, we don't. If an author uses the word 'tree', I assume he means either the tall plant, or maybe some multi-branching diagram. I make absolutely no investigation of what the author intended beyond selecting from the established uses of the word in context. I don't ask them to elaborate unless I'm confused, I don't look to some published glossary of their personal meanings. I expect it to mean one of the things it already means within the language game I'm playing. So again, the meaning of the word already exists and the author must necessarily adhere to the rules of the language game or else he will not be understood. — Pseudonym

This is forgetting that "established uses" of words are very different across the human species and change frequently within a language system (new words arise and existing words are re-vamped).

I've never suggested that we get to project our meanings any more than the author gets to project theirs. The meaning of a word is its use in the language game. It's determined by the interaction of both players and the millions of language speakers who have gone before them, and the nature of the language game being played. — Pseudonym

What I've been saying is your explanation leaves no room for artistic and metaphorical variety and inventiveness that exists and needs to be addressed in any good explanation of language and meaning.

Let me give another example:

Say that you are at home and are sitting downstairs reading a book in your favorite chair when you hear a loud "Boom!" from upstairs. Instinctively, you mentally try to get at the cause of the noise. You instinctively try to get at the meaning of the sound. You will attempt to predict the cause, or the meaning of noise. Is it a burglar? Did something fall? Is it a ghost? Eventually, you make your way upstairs and find that your brother fell out of bed while he was sleeping. That was the meaning/cause of the noise.

After breakfast, your brother goes back upstairs while you continue to read downstairs. After about 20 minutes, you hear your brother shout, "Boom!" Again, you attempt to get at the meaning of his word use. Why did he say, "Boom!" What did he mean? What what his intent? Is he teasing you and trying to be funny? You go upstairs again to investigate. You find your brother sitting at his computer desk playing a video game and he yelled, "Boom!" as the result of his excitement in blowing up an online opponent.

In each case, it was the cause of the sound that entailed the meaning of the sound (the effect), not some anthropomorphic rule for interpreting a certain system of symbols.

Let's look at one of his claims directly: Harry says that when I talk of "Harry Hindu", what I am refering to is the Harry Hindu in my mind.

But that's not right. The notion of Harry Hindu in my mind does not write posts in the philosophy forum. It's some sort of mental object, and so does not have hands with which to write.

Now, Harry Hindu, being a person, can write posts on PF. It follows that what I refer to when I use the name "Harry Hindu" is Harry Hindu, and not My-mental-image-of-Harry-Hindu.

Harry will claim that this is some how an unfair account; he is in the thrall of a false picture of how language works, as something that exists in his head instead of something that is constructed by all of us together as we use it. — Banno

Banno, and what is your mental image of me if not a representation of the real me? Would you be talking about me if you never met me? The only way you know me is through your mental representations of me, which I have to say, are very limited especially via an internet forum.

If your mental representation of me doesn't include hands and arms, then how do you explain the existence of my posts? While I don't have a mental picture of you as I don't know what you look like, I do believe you have hands and are capable of typing. My only mental image of you is an internet avatar, and the same for you in representing me.

Being that we live in a shared world, using shared symbols to refer to those things in the world, and equipped with an understanding that our minds are just representations themselves (effects of prior causes (which is the outside world)), then it is understood within the context of language use that we are referring to the world, not our representations of it, unless we make it clear that we are taking about the contents of our minds instead of the world. We do this when a doctor asks you to describe your visual experiences, or the pain you are having because that helps the doctor get at what is happening in the world with your eyes or body.

We can go a step further. I keep seeing "Hairy" instead of "Harry", and as a result my image of Harry Hindu is sometimes like this:
portrait-of-an-indian-saddhu-at-a-temple-in-udaipur-rajasthan-c2ae0c.jpg

Somehow I think it not quite accurate.

But if the meaning of "Harry Hindu" is my mental image, and not the actual Harry, then I can't be wrong. — Banno

Exactly, which is what you are implying, not me. Your mental image can be wrong, BECAUSE it is a predicted representation. You are wrong, and your language use represents that (your inaccurate mental representation of me). In other words, you are using words to refer to your representation of me, which can be wrong or right. So, your word use isn't wrong, just your representation of me is, which is an effect itself - an effect of your limited interactions with me and your own biases, and therefore has an effect on the words you use to describe me.

So we use words to "refer to (communicate)" the non-words in our minds? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I don't see what is so difficult about that. Did you learn what "tree" refers to when you were very young when your parents pointed to a tree and said, "tree"? Do you not associate the non-verbal imagery of trees, their smell, the feel of their bark and leaves, the sound of the wind blowing through the leaves, etc? - all of which are composed of sensory impressions that are not words?

Perhaps. But I think you're not. I commented because you claimed the words were the effect. Now you agree that they aren't (?), so I'm not sure what your argument or point is. Let's see if we can drill to the core of this sub-topic.

You appear to assert that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

Have I understood your position correctly?
Is this offered as a definition of meaning, or an illustrative example of what meaning is? — Pattern-chaser

It is the definition of meaning.

I never rejected that words are an effect. How can you deny that they are. How did your words get on this screen, if not by cause and effect? How is it that I can read your words if you didn't have an idea that you wanted to convey to me? Are you saying that your words are not a reflection of your ideas? If so, then what are you talking about?

You seem to be missing out an entire, crucially important stage and that's what I'm trying to ask you about (and I think that's what Banno's trying to get at too).

Your process seems to go like this;

1. You have a sensation/thought in your mind which you convert to a sign (word) which somehow represents that sensation/thought.
2. You say that word or write it and I hear it or read it.
3. I then try to convert that word into a sensation or thought hopefully close to the one you had.

This seems to me to encapsulate entirely what you're saying about communication, and I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. But none of that is what the philosophical discussion of meaning is about. Philosophical discussions of meaning are about how you know what words are good ones to use to represent your sensation/thought. You don't just pick some random word, so how do you know which one to pick? That is the meaning of the word, its the reason you chose it to represent the sensation/thought you wanted to communicate. Why choose 'tree'? Because it somehow is already the sound that is most likely to get the same image into my mind that you have in yours (that of a tree). So if meaning is whatever you intend, then what is that thing which is clearly a property of the word 'tree' which led you to choose it to do that job? — Pseudonym

Why make a distinction between meaning an philosophical meaning? What I'm doing is defining meaning in a way that makes sense in all manners that we use the word, "meaning". There shouldn't be any inconsistencies - just integration.

Your important stage was covered in step 1. We choose certain words because those are the strings of symbols that we learned to refer to anything. Were you taught the word, "tree" without any reference to actual trees, or even pictures of trees?

But we could have learned ANY string of symbols to refer to a tree. If you were born and raised in China, you'd use a different symbol and different sound to refer to trees. So the symbols we assign are arbitrary. This is why language is flexible. This is why new uses arise and are either accepted or rejected by the society you find yourself in. You could use any symbol you want, but in order to communicate with people of the same language, you need to learn the symbols of that language.

The meaning of any spoken or written word is what the author intended. I have asked both you and Banno how it is that we don't impose our own meanings on the words that others post. Instead, we always try to get at the intent of the user of those words. You both ignore this point yet I think it shows that meaning isn't projected. It is predicted. This also accounts for how we can misinterpret meanings.If we could project our meanings, then how do we get anything wrong? You, Banno, and Pattern-Chaser are ignoring these key points that are a detriment to your positions.

no; used as in what we do with it. — Banno

Exactly. What you do with words is use them to refer to (communicate) the non-verbal contents of your mind.

So how do you differentiate brain effects to decide which one is the 'meaning'? If you say the word 'tree' to me all sorts of things happen in my brain, audial signalling, random noise filtering, associations, conciousness flickering. I might be reminded of my coat which I left hanging on that tree over there, or my first garden with the big oak tree in it. If you said 'tree' very loudly to me when I was sleeping, I would actually be woken up by the word and all the chain of conciousness would be started by it. Which one of these 'effects' is the meaning? — Pseudonym

I think you're confusing hearing or seeing the word, "tree" spoken or written and thinking about categories of trees.

As I have said, meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. Effects carry meaning about their causes. This means that spoken or written words that you hear or see mean what the speaker or writer intended to convey - which is some idea in their head. Yelling "tree" when you are asleep means whatever I intended when I yelled it. You will wake up and wonder why I said "tree" very loudly. In other words, you will try to get at the meaning of my use of the word - my idea that I intended to convey. It could be that I was just being rude, and that would be the meaning of the word you heard. Thinking about all those other non-verbal things that "tree" can refer to would simply be you trying to get at what it was that I meant, not what you mean when you say the word, "tree". In order to get at what someone means when they speak or write we often roll over in our minds all the possible meanings that the word could refer to. Our goal is to always get at speaker/writer's intent, not to impose our own meaning on someone else's words, or else we never actually communicate.

Thinking of the word "tree" without anyone having spoken or written it is exactly what speakers and writers do BEFORE using the word. Before using words, you have to think of what it is you want to say, and it doesn't always come in the form of other words, rather it comes in non-verbal sensory impressions that we translate to words in order to communicate those ideas to another person. Think about the tree in your garden. Is your tree made of words, or bark and leaves? Isn't the bark and leaves and the size and shape of the tree, all non-verbal sensory impressions that you convert in to verbal symbols in order to communicate the properties of the tree in your garden? So when, you say "tree" and you intend for it to refer to the one in your garden, would it be okay for me to project my own meaning on your words, and could we still call the interaction between us "communicating"?

Put into your terms, the cause is (as you say) an idea in someone else's head, and the effect is an idea in yours. The spoken words are merely transport. — Pattern-chaser

Yes. Cause and effect. I think you might be getting it.

Okay, so it appears that you're paying attention. Excellent. If you're still having trouble connecting those dots, you might want to try answering those questions I've posed to you in the past several posts.

This thread started with a picture of how words work that involved the meaning of a word or term as being given by another set of words. It's a misleading picture. — Banno

...until I came along and showed that the meaning of a word doesn't necessarily have to refer to another set of words, but refers to other visuals, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings, and those are the actual things that those words refer to. Words are just other visuals and scribbles, whose creation and use were specifically designed to refer to our other sensory impressions in order to communicate the non-verbal contents of our minds. Until humans learn to use telepathy we have to use words to communicate.

In its place one might look to how words are actually used. — Banno

Used: as in used to refer to the non-verbal contents of our minds.

Seriously? — Banno

Yes. Do you have point to make?

The meaning is what the writer intended to convey. — Harry Hindu


Meaning/Information is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu


Doesn't this imply that what the writer intended to convey is the relationship between cause and effect? — Banno

No. Meaning is the relationship between the effect of seeing words on a screen and what caused those words to be on the screen. What caused the words in your posts, Banno? How is it that I can read your posts? Am I suppose impose my own meaning on your words, or am I suppose to get at what you intended to convey when you typed those words?

This is misdirective trivia. Sound exists outside of our heads. Written words exist outside of our heads. You are surely aware that sound and words can carry language, which can transport meaning from one human to another. But meaning only has meaning to a human. Spoken or written words are not in themselves meaningful. The meaning emerges when a human understands those words, within their minds.

N.B. I do not intend to refer to trivial meaning, as in "the meaning of a word is described in a dictionary", but something more abstract and human, like "the meaning of life". — Pattern-chaser

Wrong again. Vibrating air molecules exist outside of our heads. Our brains interpret those vibrations as sounds, which only exist in our heads.

In effect, the sounds you hear are the effect, while the vibrations are part of the cause. The vibrations were caused by a person speaking, which was in turn caused by some idea in their head and their intent to convey that idea. I don't see how this is so difficult to see as a causal process - where the effect (sounds in your head) mean what caused them - the idea in someone else's head.

This is a philosophy forum where we convey our ideas and our own positions and expect others to read our words and understand what we meant. It's strange to see you behave as if you don't understand what I'm saying, yet go about doing exactly what I'm saying - using cause and effect to relay a message to readers.

The meaning does not emerge from understanding. Understanding is the state of actually interpreting the meaning correctly. There is the possibility of you misinterpreting the meaning of words. This can only be explained by putting meaning outside of your head that you attempt to get at by representing the meaning (the causal relationship between hearing sounds and what caused them) in your head. Have you ever misinterpreted the meaning of sounds? How can you do that if meaning is only in your head?

Yes, but the meaning is in your head (mind) and mine. It has no existence in the scientific space-time universe (outside of our heads), and it has no association with the trees (outside of our heads). — Pattern-chaser

Wrong. If meaning only existed in our heads and not outside of our heads, then how does the meaning in words get from the writer or speaker's head to the listeners' heads?

When someone writes something, those scribbles mean something independent of anyone looking at them. The meaning is what the writer intended to convey. The reader simply tries to get at what the writer intended to convey. If the reader wanted to impose his/her own meaning on the scribbles, then they wouldn't be getting at the meaning of the words. Instead they would be interpreting them incorrectly.

We often find that we have identified the wrong meaning in some thing that we perceive. How can we ever be wrong in our meanings if they only existed in our heads? The "meaning" in your head is just an idea (a representation) of the meaning out there, just like everything else in your head. You're confusing the picture with the real thing.

You could say that your experience itself carries meaning about all the causes leading up to it. This is why doctors can diagnose the conditions of your eyes based on the description of your visual experiences. Your body's state is as much a cause, if not more so, of your experiences as the things you are perceiving.

Every effect points back to a string of causes, with each effect carrying information/meaning about every cause leading up to it. Meaning/Information is the relationship between cause and effect.

OK, I'll phrase more carefully: Tree-rings have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is assigned arbitrarily to them by humans. Even using tree rings to determine the age of a tree is a human thing: we kill the tree to see how old it was. The rings simply reflect the way the tree grew. They have no intrinsic meaning, and they were not put there for the use of humans.

Better, surely, not to assign meaning or use, but simply to observe and enjoy? :chin: :up: — Pattern-chaser

Tree rings DO have intrinsic meaning. Humans could never have "assigned" the meaning of the tree rings as the age of the tree if the tree didn't grow that particular way throughout the year.

The tree rings are the result of how the tree grows throughout the year, so not only do the tree rings mean the age of the tree, but also how the tree grows throughout its lifetime.

Words mean that someone wrote them, just as finding a watch means that someone made it. But the words also mean something else, which is some idea that the writer intended to convey. The pattern on the face of a watch means the time of day, which is what the watchmaker designed it to do. So any effect, whether it be tree rings, words or watches, carries information, or meaning, from all of its subsequent causes.

Perhaps you would be better named "Harry Homunculus"? — Banno

Perhaps you would be better named, "Banal"?

DOn't look to meaning, look to use: tree rings can be used to dermin the age of a tree. — Banno

Thanks to how the tree grows throughout the year.

I disagree. Data is the same as information. Meaning is essentially derived from the context of the available data/information. — Arne

The context is the causal relationship. What something means is what caused it. What tree rings mean are what caused them, which is how the tree grows throughout the year. Even alien visitors would understand what tree rings mean. The causal relationship is objective in the sense that there is only one correct interpretation of tree rings. Any other interpretation would be subjective and therefore useless to others - that is unless you find arbitrary and anthropomorphic interpretations useful.

All right Harry. If you are not going to read what I write. there's not much point in my writing it. Have a good day. — Banno

Its you that isn't reading my post. As I have already said words come in the form of visual scribbles and sounds. Hearing a word spoken is no different than hearing the wind blow or a wave crash. It provides information about what is happening in the outside world. In fact hearing the wind blow and hearing me say, "the wind is blowing" is redundant - obvious.

No, Harry. When we use the word "dog", we use the word "Dog".

DO you have a serious argument to present? — Banno

Do you? Because all you are doing is making these half-ass attempts at doing philosophy. I have produced far more meat to chew on than you and you want to ask if I'm serious? It was obvious from the get-go that your only intent was to be facetious.

What does it mean to use a word? What do you mean by the word "use"?

What is it that we are translating when we translate one word in another language to another? What enables us to translate words at all if both words from different languages don't refer to the same thing?

You don't think that it is interesting that we use the word "see" in such a context considering that we are visual creatures that receive most of the information about the world via light and therefore tend to think that the world is the way that it appears to our eyes? — Harry Hindu

I think you're right - humans are visual. That's probably why we say "see." "See" is often used as a synonym for "understand." I don't see why you can't see that. — T Clark

See what? All you did is agree with me and expand on what I already said - that we use the term "see" as a replacement for "truth" and "understanding" because we are visual creatures. We think that the way things appear visually to us is how they really are.

Hearing, touch, smell, taste. Any way that humans get signals from the outside world. But that input, just like the world itself, would be undifferentiated. — T Clark

What about how non-humans get signals? What is differentiated is the form our sensory information takes. Feeling isn't the same as seeing yet different senses can provide the same information - just in a different form. You can feel the injury on your back but cannot see it. I can see it but can't feel it. We both have access to the same information - that you have an injury on your back. Who has access to more information about your injury?

When I see "see" in this type of context, I usually think of experiencing something in all ways, not just visually. I think that's what is being discussed. — T Clark

You don't think that it is interesting that we use the word "see" in such a context considering that we are visual creatures that receive most of the information about the world via light and therefore tend to think that the world is the way that it appears to our eyes?

What are ALL the ways that something can be experienced?

A transcendental argument. We get on with our lives; the only way we could get on with our lives is if we understand cause and effect; therefore we understand cause and effect.

I do not find it at all convincing. — Banno

I don't see this as a detriment to my argument for it seems to me that you could say that for any philosophical argument. So I guess you don't find any philosophical argument convincing? Isn't the fact that we get on with our lives the result of our understanding? Could we get on with our lives without a proper understanding of anything? It seems like you wouldn't be alive long enough to get on with your life without an understanding of cause and effect.

It doesn't. There's just the use of the word "dog". — Banno

So all you do when you see or hear the word, "dog" is see or hear the word, "dog"? You MUST be an internet bot without an internal mind and without any non-verbal experiences.

I don't think so. Rather, the way I use the word "dog" is the way that it is used in my community. As I explained, there is nothing that all these uses have in common apart from that use - no mental image of a dog that includes dachshunds, wolves, prairie dogs, fire dogs and hot dogs. It seems clear to me that your account cannot explain the vastness of our use of language. — Banno

Exactly, you use the word to refer to a particular species of animal that includes all it's breeds. Which breed does "dog" refer to? Which species? To say that a word is "used in your community is to say that it is used to communicate some non-verbal idea.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

Yah, that works - cause and effect is so much easier to understand than meaning... :roll: — Banno

If we don't understand cause and effect then how is it that you make so many predictions that come true, all of which are based on previous experiences? Think of all the trivial predictions you make throughout the day and engage in activities to bring those goals to their fruition (getting up in the morning, getting dressed, going to work, getting your work done, going home, eating a hot meal, going to bed, etc.). How could you do any of that without some understanding of cause and effect? :roll:

You mix the dog-image with the dog-class. What is that image? A dachshund? A wolf? some weird combination of all? Does it include prairie dogs? Fire dogs? Hot dogs? — Banno

Tell me what form the dog-class takes in your mind? Is it not an image of some dog that might even vary each time your bring "dog" to mind?

What is the causal connection that links all these dogs together? Or do you vacillate between "dog" meaning your mind image and "dog" as relating cause and effect? — Banno

Well, your mental image of a dog was caused by previous experiences with dogs. The image on the paper is the effect of your mental image of a dog. This is a chain of causation. The image on the paper that I see contains information about your previous experiences with dogs. There is meaning in the image on the paper that refers to your mental image and your experience with dogs. Meaning is the same thing as information.

SO what does "and" refer to? What of "jump"? What about "hello"? Not all words are nouns. Why pretend that they are? — Banno

"and" is typically used to refer to an connection between two or more things.

"jump" is typically used to refer to some organism's ability to move vertically into the air by it's own power.

"hello" is typically used as a sound while greeting someone. It's a cultural behavior.

I never said that everything was a noun. I said that every word refers to something in the world. "Something" could be nouns and their behaviors (verbs) or descriptors (adjectives). "Something" also refers to your mental images and experiences as I have explained. "God" refers to a propagated idea in our heads that has been skewed for our own purposes.

So you have a non-verbal experience that you put into words. And you don;t see that as problematic? — Banno

Uh.. no. What is your problem with it? Think about it. Words are just sounds and visual scribbles - the same as your non-verbal experiences. Words are only different in that their meaning is the causal connection with other minds, not some other mindless cause.

Why pretend that all talk is of experiences? We do far more with words than just give descriptions, so why take mere describing as the epitome? That's why PI starts with a bunch of examples that are not descriptions, but activities. — Banno

Then you must be an internet bot because how does any word come to your mind without some experience to go along with it? How did you learn what words mean?

How does one "see" anything? Seeing requires the reflection of light into your eyeball and your brain to process the information in it. How would a God "see" anything? What does "see" mean in this context?

I actually read it, and I want my revenge on the world! I think it serves as an awful warning of the excesses of analysis. All that work, and then Wittgenstein blows the whole thing apart. — unenlightened

And then I go and blow Wittgenstein apart.

Defining meaning is simple.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

Meaning is the relationship between some effect and it's subsequent causes. — Harry Hindu

Isn't that a very particular definition of "meaning"? One which violates the Principle of Least Surprise, I would say? :chin: Merriam-Webster says this (but I'm not sure it's very helpful):

Definition of meaning
1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport
Do not mistake my meaning.

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import
Many words have more than one meaning.

2 : something meant or intended : aim
a mischievous meaning was apparent

3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance
a glance full of meaning

4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase
b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase — Pattern-chaser

Isn't what someone intends, the cause of their actions?

Isn't the thing that is conveyed by language the idea, and intent to convey it, that causes it?

What tree rings mean are the age of the tree. They mean the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year.

What words refer to are the ideas in your head. You must have the intent to communicate an idea and then go through the process of converting those non-verbal ideas into verbal representations in order to communicate. This is a causal process.

And now that I think about it: what is the relationship between an effect and its cause(s)? It seems little more than that the effect is related to the cause that caused it, which hardly seems worth saying. Saying that the cause is related to the effects it has is similarly uninformative. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Change (or time) within the same space is the relationship between cause and effect?

"to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu


Where "world" refers to the physical spacetime universe plus the ill-defined and sprawling mass of human culture, in all its wonder, and all its guises? For the latter is where 99% of humans live out 99% of their lives. And some words, those that are often applied and used to describe human culture, or some smaller part of it, are equally ill-defined. I think "meaning" --- in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not 'Many words have more than one meaning' --- is one of these. Human concepts like wisdom, value, and quality are similar in this regard. We all know what they mean, but writing it down in words is next-to-impossible. :brow: — Pattern-chaser

Here you are engaging in anthropomorphism. The world contains many different environments. Science can explain the reason why humans choose to live in any particular environment as the result of their adaptations. That would be like saying that elephants are specially adapted to their "world", not to their environment, and then make a distinction that their representations only refer to their "world" and not to the rest of it. It's nonsensical.

Ok. Would you say that truth is a value? — unenlightened

No. Truth is the relationship between some state-of-affairs and some statement, explanation, or other representation of that state-of-affairs. Values are derived from having goals.

Is it true that you like orange juice - yes or no? Is that not a fact of reality? Is that not something that is true regardless of who else likes or hates orange juice? Knowing what your likes and dislikes are valuable in any goal I might have to buy you a particular juice to drink.

but what I've been saying is what if the mind creates the brain and its neurons as a model of others mind? When you look at another person's mind, you see a brain.

There is that no true Scotsman fallacy again. He seems to like this thread a lot. — Posty McPostface

I don't see the fallacy in my post.

Agreed, although I am wary of using that term ad infinitum. — Posty McPostface

:sad: I never said we need to use it ad infinitum - only where it applies.

Of course it depends who you ask. Some people will say "I don't like orange juice." — unenlightened

That isn't what I asked. If I asked Donald Trump, "Does Unelightened like orange juice?" will the fact that you do or don't like orange juice be based on Trump's answer, or based on the state-of-affairs that is your fondness of orange juice?

Do YOU, unenlightened, like orange juice or not? You seem to be confusing "I like orange juice" with "Orange juice is the greatest". The former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Any time you make a value statement, you are making a subjective statement. Any time you make a statement about some state-of-affairs, like your relationship with orange juice, then you are making an objective statement.

This is great! You're a brilliant philosopher and teacher!! You've written a nasty, snotty post just so we can argue about whether or not it's an ad hominem attack. Or maybe it's the Fallacy of Abuse. I'm going to go with ad hominem, since you seem to be making a direct connection between my negative personal qualities and the truth of my position.

What do other people think? — T Clark

More inconsistencies. I thought you said that we should dispense with the terms and argue the points. Go figure.

An observation of your inability to answer questions that would clarify previous posts isn't "nasty" except to those for which the truth hurts. All of this would have been avoided had you simply been intellectually honest and answered the question as asked.

In my opinion, they are concepts that explain what happens with individuals. Mind is that we postulated for modelating how individuals make which they make. Brain activity is that we postulated for modelating how minds make which they make. — Belter

Huh..wha?