Does the phrase "the addition of other things" also refer to the addition of other things?

When expressions refer to the same thing, you should be able to substitute one expression for another salva veritate, in non-intensional contexts at least. So the following are equivalent in truth-value: — Srap Tasmaner

Sure, but then how is that two different strings of words mean the same thing if meaning is use and how is it that the same string of words can mean different things if meaning is use? In speaking or writing there is always an intent to convey information. You can never say there is non-intentional contexts when using language. There is always intention preceding the use of words, or else how can you explain your use of words?

I haven't said I intended to confuse anyone, and I deny that I intended to confuse anyone. In fact I specified when there had been some discussion of what I said, that I meant exactly what I said. It was you that declared an intention to confuse. — unenlightened

But you did confuse someone - me. If you didn't intend to confuse, then you didn't use the correct words to accomplish your goal. If your goal was to actually say something to me (which is evident by your post being a reply to me) - you failed and you failed because I didn't grasp your meaning (your intent in using those words). Saying, "I meant exactly what I said" doesn't help me at all. All that does is refer me back to those words that I don't understand. It doesn't help because you still haven't explained why you used those words (your intent).

I don't doubt that you do intend to confuse people with your words, but I do not. — unenlightened

But you have confused people with words.
1st you say that meaning is use. Then you say that use is the common use of the words and that if you use words in an uncommon way, then that is misuse. You then go about arranging words in a post that isn't the common arrangement of those words and say that you "meant what you said." If you misused words then you didn't mean anything except what your intention was in posting it. So instead of contradicting yourself again by telling me you meant what you said, try telling me why you made that post. What was your intent? What was it that you wanted me to think or do after reading it?

An 'inside' seems to imply a boundary and an 'outside'. But this is normal; most people don't speak any given language, and many languages, such as Cockney rhyming slang, French Argot, and so on, are deliberately designed to exclude, and confuse 'outsiders'. So an inside joke is understood by the community it is directed at, and the consensus of people who are excluded from that community has no bearing. But how is all this relevant to our discussion? — unenlightened

If you want to argue that correct word-use is a consensus of word-use, then how is it that Chinese (the most common language spoken) isn't the correct way to use words? If your argument is that any small group can use any symbol to refer to anything, and it actually be the correct word-use, then there can be no consensus of word use. It only takes two to agree on the symbols and what they refer to. To say that there is a consensus of word-use is to say that a particular group uses those words in that way to refer to some thing. Which groups are you talking about? If you are talking about all humans, then Chinese would be the most common way to use words. If you are talking about the United States, then all the non-English speakers are misusing words. This is absurd, so obviously correct word-use cannot be a consensus of word-use.

In the case of your "confusing" post, how is it that the one you were speaking to didn't understand, where it seemed that others the words weren't directed at did understand. So, if you "use" words where the person you were speaking to didn't understand, but others did, did you really use words correctly? The person you intended to say something meaningful to didn't get the meaning. So how can you say that you used words correctly?

I don't think there is a bottom limit. That's a question YOU need to answer, not me, as you are the one proposing that to use words as opposed to misusing them requires a consensus of word-use.

You can intentionally use words to confuse, and that is to say that you intentionally used words in a way that doesn't reference anything but your intent to confuse. It is you that can't seem to follow your own arguments. You seem to agree now that you used words in some way - to accomplish a goal. If you didn't have a goal-in-mind, then how can you say that you used words, or any tool for that matter?

What about an "inside" joke? Isn't a joke only an "inside" joke if a certain number of people understand it's meaning? So, there are obviously instances where words can be used that aren't part of the consensus of word-use and a limited number of people can understand the use of those words.

Now that two people are using those words to cause confusion, can it now be said that to use those words is to cause confusion? What is the bottom limit of the number of people who use a word certain way to say that is how that word is used in the language?

I'd use them to cause confusion. As a matter of fact, I copied the text so that I can use it to confuse someone. Now that two people are using those words to cause confusion, can it now be said that to use those words is to cause confusion? What is the bottom limit of the number of people who use a word certain way to say that is how that word is used in the language?

"and" refers to the addition of other things.

Then you did use words to mean something?

Wrong. The meaning of a word is what it refers to in the world. This doesn't take into account that we can make up new meanings for words. This is what poets, musicians do and people who make memes and metaphors. A new word, or a new use for an existing word, must first be heard used for a consensus of words-use to take place.

Then W. is wrong. I'm not conflating, "meaning". If correct word-use is simply a consensus of word-use, then "meaning" is frequently used to refer to intent. It is W. that is conflating "meaning" with "use".

Then how is it that I was able to understand what he means (his intent)? We can misuse words on purpose, but then are we really misusing them if we accomplish our goal as a result of using them that way? Poets and musicians "misuse" words all the time, yet we still try to get at the intent of the writer to get at what those words are meant to say. Using metaphors is using words the "wrong way", yet still convey some meaning (the intent of the user).

When a Harry spurge psychic dilemma because five sideways, misusing symptom communicates upside. But all that's by the bye; The point is can you understand? I you can't then call it misuse or call it ad hom, or call it a fuckwit playing games. Whatever you call it will be a misuse of words. — unenlightened

Then a "transgender" is misusing words when a male calls themselves a "female"?

Well, you did use those words for a reason - no? If not, then why did you post it? What was your intent in using those words? What did you mean by using those words? It must have been to make some point, or simply to confuse. Whatever you call it will be a use of words because you had a goal-in-mind when using them.

Harry C. here meant (intended) to say the same thing as you, but regardless of his intentions, "banana" does not mean "look". He simply failed to use the words aright. — unenlightened

When a man says "I'm a woman.", are they misusing words?

If someone possesses a trait that, if all members of the species possessed would mean the demise of the species - like being hostile to other members, then that would be sufficient to call that trait an illness. — Harry Hindu

I'll have my own go at addressing this. What about being male and being female? If all members of the species were male, or if all members of the species were female, then that would mean the demise of the species. Therefore being male and being female are illnesses? — Michael

This seems like an impossible situation. How would a species even survive to make it to be an all male or all female species? There are species that are neither and can procreate just fine. Let's just say that if you are born different than the species you are part of and what makes you different would be a detriment to the species you are part of if they all had it (meaning that they wouldn't even be considered the same species), then it would be an illness to the survival of THAT species.

It's to say you're willing to assert the same proposition. If John says "Two is a prime number," we'd have to look to context to understand why John is saying this. Does he intend to correct someone else? Is he teaching math?

If you repeat that two is a prime number, you may do so without the same purpose as John, but you're still asserting the same proposition. — Mongrel

Correcting someone is teaching them. It doesn't matter whether you, I, or God utters the sounds, "2 is a prime number.", we would all have the intention of relaying the information that the number 2 is actually a prime number.

Use vs. mention — Srap Tasmaner

I still don't see a distinction. We are still using words to refer to things. Words are things that can be talked about just as your ideas, your trip to Rome, or your chicken soup recipe are all talked about. The quotes around a word is the symbol that we are referring to the word rather than to what the word means (what it refers to in the world).

How is it that a sound and scribble can be associated together anyway? How is the sound of the word, "cheese", associated with the scribble, "cheese"? Isn't it just two different ways of referring to the dairy product that you can buy in blocks or in slices at your local supermarket?

It seems to me that if meaning-is-use isn't just repeating the way words (which are just sounds or scribbles) are organized in speech - that there is a relationship between a sound and scribble and the thing it represents and that words are used to convey what it is those sounds and scribbles represent via intention, then we don't have a disagreement.

I said, ancient man. None of what you said takes away from my point. Notice you couldn't say the same thing in regards to "space shuttle".

sure you can, but then you'd just be repeating sounds you've heard which people on the side of meaning-is-use say that isnt what they mean by "use".

Saying what someone else says just to say what they said rather than to mean what they meant is not use, it's mention. — Srap Tasmaner

You need to use the dictionary to look up the word, "mention". It means to refer to something. By using words, you are mentioning something. To mean what they meant is to say that you share their same intentions.

I'm sure by "full time" he meant something along the lines of the standard 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. — Michael

Read what he wrote again:

If everyone was a full time writer, or a woman, or for that matter, a metal worker, the species would die out. But these are not illnesses. — unenlightened

Most people are already full time workers in that sense and still have time to have sex and raise a family, so no, that isn't what he meant.

This works from the dubious presupposition that being a thing is what allows introspection(metacognition).

We can think about our own thought/belief because of the terms "thought/belief". That is how. — creativesoul

I only need the terms "thought/belief" to convey to others that I have a thought/belief. I don't need the words to think about thinking, only to convey that I'm thinking about thinking to others. I can imagine myself thinking about something without using those terms at all.

What is sensory data, and does containing it equate to being about it? — creativesoul

Sensory data is the sounds, colors, shapes, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations that appear in the mind. If we didn't equate the data as being about something then, the sensory data would be the things themselves (solipsism). There would be no causal relation between the "data" and some external cause of the data. There would be no world for the data to be about. Our minds would effectively be the world. Making the distinction of sensory data being about something as opposed to not being about something is making the distinction between realism and solipsism.

It seems you're trying to distort what I said by not taking the full context into account. I said you can "use" something "uselessly"; that is in the practically useless sense. If you are just playing with something in a way that has nothing at all to do with the proper function of the thing then you are not "using" it in a practical sense; and it is thus, in that sense, useless. — John

I'm not trying to distort anything. It is you that isn't taking everything I have said into account. I can use a chair as a step-stool, which has nothing to do with it's "proper" function, and it is useful in accomplishing the goal of reaching something higher than I can't reach without it. So how was the chair useless? It is only if I don't have a goal-in-mind, or if the tool isn't helping me accomplish the goal, that the "use" of something becomes useless.

So your intended meaning causes you to use the word "look" rather than the word "banana" because ... you speak English and know that "look" has the meaning you intend, and "banana" does not. — unenlightened

Yeah, so far so good.

You use words this way because we (English speakers) use words this way. And it is common usage that confers meaning on the otherwise arbitrary grunts and squiggles. — unenlightened

Sure, if what you mean by "use" is to refer to a particular idea or thing or state-of-affairs that you intend to convey. Sure, if what you mean by "common usage" is the common idea, thing, or state-of-affairs that the word refers to. You can use words all day long, but if the other person doesn't know what the words refers to, then you can never understand it's use. Sure a congenitally blind person may copy someone's use of phrase, "The sky is blue". But do they really know what "blue" means? Knowing how to copy someone else's use of words doesn't entail that you know what the words mean - only how to use words. Would the congenitally blind person really understand what they are saying? Could the blind person then use the word, "blue" in a sentence that they have never heard? Could they then make their own sentence with the word, "blue" and it mean something?

If meaning were use, then ancient man could have used the word, "computer", or "space shuttle", and it mean something! None of those things existed at the time, which is what the words refer to, which is why it wouldn't mean anything even if you used the terms then as we use them today.

Does a parrot understand what it is saying when it repeats it's owners words? Does a parrot mean for you to "fuck off" when it says, "fuck off"? Isn't that why it's funny to hear parrots and young children say "fuck off" because they are simply repeating use, and don't understand what the words really mean?

And we know they are arbitrary grunts and squiggles, because those damn foreigners use completely different grunts and squiggles to say la meme chose exactement. — unenlightened

Absolutely, but if language were use then how can different grunts an squiggles mean the same thing as other grunts and squiggles? Other languages also use words in different order with adjectives AFTER the noun as opposed to BEFORE, yet means the same thing in English. When translating words from different languages, we aren't translating their use, we are translating what the words refer to.

I think it's much more the case that you are running two senses of "use" together and failing to make the distinction between 'use' in the (practically) useless sense of playing or mucking around, and 'use' in the sense of employing a function.

The so-called "meaning is use" argument is only concerned with the latter, so instances of the former have no bearing on it. — John

Why don't you read your own words. You even make the same distinction yourself. You can use something uselessly or in a way that is useful. Something is only useful, and therefore meaningful, to accomplishing a goal.

"Meaning" can mean intention.

But the meaning of a word is not the intention of the word, because words do not have intentions. — unenlightened

No, entities have intentions and they use words to express their intentions. No intention prior, means no use of words at all, or at least no useful, or meaningful use of words - like I explained about using ANY tool. You have to have a goal-in-mind in order for any tool to be useful or meaningful, as a tool only becomes meaningful or useful in accomplishing a goal. Tools that don't help accomplish some goal are useless and meaningless to the goal.

"Meaning can also mean implication.
Footprints mean feet.

In this sense, footprints mean feet regardless of the intentions of the owner of the feet. — unenlightened

Well, yeah, and I'd go a step further and say that any cause is the meaning of the effect. Tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree and tree rings are the natural result of how the tree growa throughout the year. Our word use points to the idea in someone's head and their intention to express it. Both of these things need to exist prior to word use or the use of words would be meaningless and useless - in other words, the use of words doesn't point to any cause of their use.

Scent-marking is an animal communication of territorial claim; perhaps it is intentional, or perhaps it is unconscious instinct, who knows. But it is meaningful and understandable to animals. It is hardly a language though, consisting of one smell-word - "me", though that word can itself be read into as to gender, dominance, and so on. — unenlightened

This has doesn't go against anything I have said. As I have said all along is that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. When some other animal smells the odor, it imbues it with meaning by associating a cause to the smell. The information one garners from the odor (gender, health, etc.) is all part of the process of imbuing it with a reference to some state-of-affairs in the world (meaning).

Now when you use the word "look" above, you presumably intend to convey something, in this case to direct the reader's attention. But the meaning of "look" does not at all depend on your intention.

We are on the same (web) page, just banana at the screen! Just banana at your metaphor... — Harry Christian


Harry C. here meant (intended) to say the same thing as you, but regardless of his intentions, "banana" does not mean "look". He simply failed to use the words aright. — unenlightened

So, you're saying that metaphors are simply failing to use words right? When I looked up the word, "page" it doesn't include anything about "arguments", as in " We are not on the same page (you don't get my arguments)". If a word like, "page" can be used in a way that isn't defined in some dictionary and it still mean something, then anyone can use any word they want to express any idea they want. It would be up to the listener to get at the true meaning - which would what the speaker or writer intended to say.

This is the (probably deliberate) confusion you have been spreading though the thread, based on an equivocation between the intention of the speaker and the proper use of words. It is the same equivocation, incidentally that is is at the base of Humpty-Dumpty's declaration in Alice inWonderland: — unenlightened

Heh, more like deliberate obtuseness on the part of those that don't seem to get that any use of words (or any tool for that matter) is useless and meaningless without a goal-in-mind.

Like any tool, we can use it in a way that wasn't intended, or the common use of the tool. How it is used, and whether it is useful or not has to do with the goal. I can use a chair to sit in, stand on, or as a weapon, and the way I use it goes back to my intent. I can use words in the same way.

Thoughts are things. Some thought is about stuff. Others are more simple in constitution and facilitate the very ability for our thinking about stuff. — creativesoul

Yes, thoughts are things too, which is why we can turn our thoughts on themselves - of thinking about thinking.

I don't understand the last part. Why don't you try to show ANY thought that DOESN'T consist of sensory data.

You're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thinking and thinking about stuff. I suspect that you've also neglected to consider the difference between pre-linguistic thought and linguistic. I would even go as far as to guess that you also neglect to consider the difference between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

You neglected to address the long answer, which argued for the short. Gratuitous assertions aren't acceptable. — creativesoul

This wasn't a reply to me, but I don't see a distinction between thinking and thinking about something. When thinking, it is always about stuff. If thoughts weren't about things then the thoughts would be the things themselves, similar to how words must be about things or else the words are the things themselves.

Your thoughts must take some form. They take the form of sensory impressions. You can only think in shapes, colors, sounds, etc. Words are simply colored shapes and sounds. In order for them to mean anything more than just being colored shapes and sounds, they must be about something that isn't the colored shape or sounds. There is an aboutness to our experiences and hearing or seeing words is no different than seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or feeling anything else and establishing an association between, or aboutness to, them.

We are on the same (web) page, just look at the screen! Just look at your metaphor and because your phrase could be taken to mean something else, as I just did, you had to put what you meant (your intent in using those particular words) in parentheses.

Seriously though, I understand you. It is you that simply can't accept that you are wrong about meaning is use, and that's too bad.

How is it that when you simply use words but don't refer to anything with them, your words become useless and meaningless? — Harry Hindu

You said it yourself; if there is no use (words become useless) there is no meaning (words become meaningless).

You seem to be equivocating on the word 'use'. If you just utter a bunch of words as nonsense, you can say, in one sense that you are using them, but in another sense you are not using them at all. An analogy is that if you are fiddling with a hammer, you are not really using it in the way it was designed to be used. — John

What I said is that you can use words, but if they don't refer to anything, then they are useless and meaningless. Yes, you can use a hammer in a way that it isn't designed, but if you have a goal-in-mind, then you are still using the hammer to accomplish a goal, which makes the hammer useful and meaningful to accomplish the goal. If you don't have a goal-in-mind, and you are just fiddling with the hammer, then that would be useless and meaningless, and you said it yourself, would still be using the hammer, but not with a goal-in-mind. Youg seem to be conflating "use" with "useful". You can use a tool, but if you don't have a goal-in-mind, then your using the tool is really useless.

The issue of testimony doesn't change my point. Because for me to know (1) there must've been some scientists who did all the right experiments that confirmed it (knowledge doesn't come from nowhere). What's the alternative on your view? Do you want to say that we know all that stuff about DNA apriori and independently of scientific experiments and observations? — Fafner

That's what YOU said - that you can only know something by experience - which I thought you meant by directly experiencing something as opposed to reading or hearing about someone else's experience. It is you that are conflating knowing by experience and knowing by hearing or reading about someone else's experience.

Well no, the meaning of the sentence is not a picture - the sentence says that Bernie Sanders is the president (not that his picture exists), and this is what it means. Your view that all false sentences are meaningless is really just incredible. It follows that whenever you understand a sentence then you can know apriori that it is true (so I know what the sentence "I'm a millionaire" means therefore it is a proof that I am a millionaire etc.).

(Also, you describe the picture as a picture of Bernie Sanders being the president, so the picture does after all has meaning despite being false? Or is there another picture which it pictures etc...?) — Fafner

When I mentioned, "picture", I meant the image of Bernie as president in your mind, as that is the only place Bernie can be president and can be the only thing that your words refer to, which is to say that is what the words mean.

I find it incredible that you think that false statements ARE meaningful. What does it mean to be false? It means that it isn't true. False statements may be useful but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful independent of the intent to deceive!

It's the same in the respect that there's an intent to deceive. — Terrapin Station

Well, yeah, it is the intent, or the goal-in-mind, that is the cause of the words being used.

You're both using "yellow" and "blue" to refer to the same colors. You're not actually using "blue" to refer to yellow. Because you're not thinking of "blue" as the name of "that color." You're thinking of "blue" as blue and also thinking, "I'm going to deceive this person so that they think these yellow bananas are blue." — Terrapin Station

I don't get it. One thing is for sure is that when I deceive some one, I'm not referring to the thing I'm lying about as something else. I'm not referring to "yellow" as "blue". That's not how the deception develops in my mind. Instead I'm thinking about how they will behave based on what they know and what I don't want them to know, and replacing it with what I want them to know. The goal-in-mind is making them think this particular thought, NOT the other. We have a habit of putting ourselves in each other's head - of simulating other's thoughts. We are one of the few animals that can do this, and this is an ability that is required in order to deceive. Simply referring to something as something that it isn't in your own mind, isn't enough to deceive, nor is it the process that I follow when I deceive. I make a prediction of the victim acting in some way as a result of my projecting a false thought into their mind via language.

Now, my point is that you can infer (3) from (2) only if you know that (1) is true, but you can't know it apriori since (1) is a hypotheses that could be known only via experience (it could've been false - it is false in the case of some insects for example). — Fafner

How have you experienced every person on the world has a unique DNA fingerprint other than reading that to be the case by in a science journal or something like that? A lot of our knowledge is from reading books or watching documentaries, not by direct experience. Is what we read more wrong than what we subjectively experience and take as truth?

But it is meaningful. (I rest my case) — Fafner

Sure, if the meaning of your words is to make me picture Bernie Sanders in the White House, even though he isn't. Your words refer to the image of Bernie being President.

Neither the intention nor the goal is the act of hammering. Neither the intention nor the goal is the meaning of the word. — Michael

Wrong. The goal is always in mind while using the tool. It is what keeps you using the tool, at least until the goal was accomplished. This is why we hate people who repeat themselves. We get the idea, shut up already.

An imagined dance isn't a dance. A dance is the movement of the body, not your intention or your goal. The meaning of a word is its use, not your intention or your goal. — Michael

As I said, you wouldn't keep dancing if you didn't intend to keep dancing.

The meaning of a word must be publicly accessible if we are to understand each other. Therefore the meaning of a word can't be your intention or your goal. — Michael

If all we needed was a publicly accessible word catalog, then there would never be misunderstandings. When you don't understand what someone says or writes, it is the speaker or writer's intentions you aren't getting.

It's not the same scenario as the kid because this person on the phone knows their colors and the words associated with them. This is why they picture blue bananas in the mind. How did that happen if the color I was referring to when I say "blue" is actually "yellow" which is nonsense, because I picture blue bananas, not yellow ones, when I say "blue bananas", and that is what I'm trying to get the listener to think when I say it.

No, it's simply that it's a particular kind of use. — Michael

Yeah, like using a tool. You use a tool to accomplish a goal, which requires intent. Again, the tool is only part of the process so it would be wrong to say that the tool itself and how it is used is the meaning when the tool wouldn't be used at all if intent didn't precede the use.

Perhaps, but the dance itself is the movement, not the intention. Dances happen on the dance floor, not in your head. — Michael

Wrong. You can dance anywhere you want - all you need is the intent. You can imagine you are dancing in your head.

And for me to understand what you're saying, it must be that the meaning of your words is publicly accessible. Your intentions aren't. We're not mind-readers. So for communication to work, meaning must be found in the things that we actually see and hear and feel. That you intend to achieve some end doesn't refute this. — Michael

What is publicly accessible is the world we share and that is what we are talking about when we use language - or meaningful, useful words.

Meaning cannot be a causal relation. If X means Y because Y causes X (X being some mental state in our heads, or whatever you like), then you can't know that X means Y, since causality is something that can only be known through experience, but you cannot learn from experience that Y causes X, unless you already know the meaning of Y, so you get a circle here (in other words, you already need a language that can represent the causes of your mental states in order to know them, but if this is the case, then you cannot know what means what since knowing the causes of your representations requires a prior ability to represent them). — Fafner

Wrong. We establish causal relations all the time that we never experience, and we make good predictions from this knowledge often. What does a crime scene investigator do if not creating an explanation of causes of the effects of the crime scene - all without having been an eye-witness to the crime itself? This fingerprint along with this DNA means that this person was at the crime scene when it happened. We can predict behaviors of things we never experienced based on similarities with things of a similar kind.

This is simply not true. What about false sentences or negative truths? They don't 'refer' to any states of affair by their very nature. For example: "Bernie Sanders is the president of the united states" (the sentence is false but meaningful despite the non-existence of the state of affairs which it represents), and "Bernie Sanders in not the president of the united states" (which is true and meaningful, despite again the non-existence of the state of affairs which it describes). — Fafner

How is "Bernie Sanders is the president of the united states" meaningful, or useful?

Was it something like (to use our banana example again) pointing at a banana and thinking that it's yellow, but saying, "That is blue"?

The thing there, though, is that you're not really personally using "blue" for that color. You're using "yellow" but just saying "blue" for whatever reason you've decided to say "blue" instead. (Maybe just for this example.) In other words, you're thinking "That's yellow but I'm going to say that it's blue"--thus you're using "yellow" for that color.

Now, someone who hears you will either say, "What? You're crazy, that's not blue! It's yellow"--further cementing that they're using "yellow" for that color. Or maybe it's a really young kid who doesn't know his/her color terms well yet. In which case they might start calling it "blue" instead.

None of that goes against meaning hinging on use, really. It's just that maybe you're trying to squeeze what counts or doesn't count as "use" into some unusually narrow idea. "Use" isn't normaly limited to "utterance." — Terrapin Station

What if I have the intention to mislead? I could tell someone on the phone that these bananas here are blue. They would then picture blue bananas in their head, not yellow ones, all as a result of my intent to mislead. If I never intended to mislead, the person on the phone would have never had a visual of blue bananas.

I keep hearing that my arguments are a straw-man because of how I'm using "use". (Go figure). If they would care to define "use" in such a way that makes sense in the use of words is consistent with it's other uses, I'm open-minded.

This shows that you don't understand meaning-as-use. Wittgenstein wasn't saying that simply speaking any old sounds makes it the case that one has uttered meaningful words.

Dancing is just the movement of one's body, but that doesn't mean that any movement of one's body is a dance. — Michael

If W. wasn't saying that then he must be implying that there is more to meaning than simply use. So maybe we shouldn't be calling it a "meaning is use" theory.

Dancing is just the movement of one's body, but that doesn't mean that any movement of one's body is a dance. — Michael

Yet, any movement of one's body IS a dance if one intends it to be a dance. Again, intention comes into play, as with using words. It is your intent that a listener or reader attempts to get at as the cause of their speaking or writing. Why are they saying what they are saying? What is it that they mean (intend)? We often use "mean" and "intend" interchangeably.

I already quoted some passages from Wittgenstein where he gives an argument (especially the sections about the cube picture) against views like yours, but you however completely ignored that argument. — Fafner

And I keep pointing out that if meaning were use then we could never say what we don't mean. We could never lie. But everyone on your side seems to ignore that.