11 Observations on meaning (discuss, please)

http://able2know.org/topic/277180-1#post-5951205

Thank you for including the previous discussion which yielded some very good feed back. These premises are slightly different, however, the main theory is the unchanged more or less.

Why say that? What's the connection?

Is this an attempt at resurrecting the long-dead carcass of the logical posivtivists and their "verificationism" along with them?

Mathematics is one way of understanding patterns, and is, perhaps, the preeminent method. However, it is not the only field in which patterns are perceived.



What is your evidence for this claim? Especially since some of your later postulations seem to undermine the "necessity " of truth as a value for each statement vs. that statement's "meaning's" truth value being based on an interdependent web of coherent, meaningful statements. Does truth precede pattern, or is coherent pattern evidence of truth? Is "truth" just systematic agreement, or...? What?

Kinda strange that Bert comes into this joint, raises 3-4 "philosophical" questions, then just doesn't come back, eh?

What's up with that?

I have been working, reading the responses, and considering clarifications (the other question of time was merely a passing thought: as I stated, physics isn't my strong suit.) I am unsure why you included quote marks.

To your initial question: I am unsure whether logical positivism is actually necessary for the success of the argument: though in answer of [some] of the questions: perhaps this will help:

The human brain interprets the world as patterns. Mathematics is the understanding of that perception of patterns. Physics is the application of that understanding of the perception of patterns. And our picture of the world is the experience of those perceptions of patterns.

1.[The meaning of a statement relies on the possibility that it can be known to be true or false.] 1.1. Meaningful statements cannot exist without the possibility of meaningless statements. 1.2. The structure of meaning exists, not in one statement, but in all statements. 1.3. As the meaning of one statement is reliant on another. 1.4. Therefore: it is impossible to know whether a statement is meaningful or meaningless without prior knowledge of all possible statements.

2. It is possible for a structure of meaningless statements to exist, which is similar to that of meaningful structure in every aspect but meaning. 2.1. The distinction between the former and the latter is that one can be known and the other cannot. 2.2 Though for each there must be an actual distinction between the two, and so for one to exist, both must exist.

3. We assume that meaning exists because we assume that patterns of truth exist. 3.1. The difference between one thing and another is not meaningful unless there is a pattern which describes why one thing is and the other is not. 3.2. Therefore, meaning is reliant on an accurate perception of patterns.

4. The human brain perceives physical states as patterns because it has evolved to structure the states in to the form of patterns. 4.1. Therefore our brains are predisposed to witness meaning and meaningless states prior to any possible knowledge that such states exist outside of our perception.

5. Since the brain can only perceive in patterns, we cannot know whether a structure expresses an actual pattern, or, that we simply perceive the structure in that way. 5.1 Therefore we cannot know whether a structure has meaning or not. 5.2. Though we can ask ourselves which is more probable. 5.3 That we perceive reality in a structure of patterns that exist. 5.4 And which also happen to be the best tools for survival. 5.4. Or that we perceive reality in a structure of patterns because they are the best tools for survival.

6. Outside of our perception of patterns, it is possible that true propositions lay at the end of false statements, or false propositions lay at the end of true statements.

7. It is intrinsically impossible to know which structures are meaningful and which are meaningless, when we perceive reality in patterns, and therefore, within a mechanism of meaning. 7.1. We cannot say which is an actual pattern and which is a constructed pattern from a perspective that can only perceive patterns.

8. Therefore, it is just as possible that truth, if it exists, is random, and that no set of statements can make a proposition meaningful. 8.1.That some truths appear to work together (are logically coherent) and that some do not (are paradoxes) offers some slight support to this claim.

9. To say meaning exists, or indeed that it does not, is to presuppose the existence of patterns outside of the pattern seeking neural network, which is impossible to verify. 9.1. That which is impossible to verify is meaningless in itself. 9.2. It is impossible for us to perceive anything outside of the boundaries of patterns: absolute nothing, infinity etc, etc. 9.3. Though these abstracts may exist outside of the forms of all possible patterns.

10. It is wrong to assume that states contain meaning intrinsically, as such states are reliant on the knowledge of the existence of patterns. And since the perception of patterns is the starting point for all we can know, and is, therefore, the lever with which we separate one thing from another. 10.1. It is impossible to withdraw from this perspective and verify whether patterns exist actually or not.

11. The human brain cannot perceive anything which lays outside of the parameters of the evolved perception of patterns. 11.1. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether patterns truly exist or not. 11.2. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether meaning truly exists or not.

12. There are phenomena within the natural world which we can now perceive for the first time. 12.1. Such phenomena contradict the current structure of meaning. 12.2. As we could not perceive the phenomena during the process of natural selection which formed the current structure. 12.3. And so, such new perceptions lay outside of the current structure of meaning. 12.4. Though, it is possible to include new perceptions within the current structure. 12.5. Which may initially seem counter-intuitive.

13. Though, as we transpose through time our understanding builds. 13.1. As each thing which is not part of the structure may or may not be included within the structure itself. 13.2. Though such inclusion requires the support of a network of reliant patterns. 13.3. And may require the construction of another set of patterns all together. 13.4. Such a subset of patterns is a part of the set of all sets*. 13.5. Which is to say, the structure of meaning itself. 13.6. Which is to say, inexpressible from within itself.

14. Though, there is an important difference between that which we do not understand and that which we cannot understand. 14.1. As that which we cannot understand may be understandable in different circumstances. 14.2. And that we do not understand may never be known. 14.3. And each problem of metaphysics may be one or the other. 14.4. As each proposition is intrinsically meaningless. 14.5. And each perception intrinsically unreliable.

15. Though each of these propositions, if they are true, are not. 15.1. In that they mean nothing. 15.2. Though, equally, any reductio which is applied to them also means nothing. 15.3. The conclusion is that meaning itself is rejected. 15.4. As is the meaning of that meaning of rejection. 15.5. And the success or failure of the proposition. 15.6 Which can be expressed in action alone. 15.8. Is the final solution to the problem.

Does that manifesto differ from what you put in your initial post? If so, how about highlighting the differences.

It doesn't seem responsive to the questions posed, which are addressed to your very first sentence. "The meaning of a statement relies on the possibility that it can be known to be true or false."

You seem to be saying that only what can be "known" can have "meaning."

What kind of "known" (knowledge) are you talking about?

How would you ever "know" that something is true or false to begin with?

Suppose I say that "the chances of this coin coming up heads when I flip it are 50%." Does that statement have any "meaning?" Can it be "known" to be true or false?

It differs 1) with the inclusion of proposition 12-15 and changes in terminology 1-11, also the inclusion of 5.2 +.

Firstly, I am still unsure whether the first proposition is, in fact, required for the argument: though if it is: meaning is reliant on something being true or false in the sense I speak of because something which has meaning but cannot be known to be true has no meaning intrinsically.

Probability does not deal with "true" or "false": only which is more likely. Which is based on the perception with which I am arguing you cannot rely. That there is consistency within the logic of what we perceive/how we perceive does not provide evidence for the claim that we can rely on our perception. If you are to refute the argument (I think) you need to show that it is possible to trust the patterns with which we perceive.

That answer is rather circular, isn't it? As an "explanation" you're just re-asserting what you claimed to begin with (and then adding the word "intrinsically").



1. The basic question was about meaning, not "truth."
2. But, as to truth, can there be a true statement about probability? Such as, for example, "the probability that you will die sometime in the next 200 years is extremely high."

Suppose then, I answer in this way: In what way can something be meaningful without being known? (and so not depend on a truth claim).

And again if you cannot 'know' which is the case (without a truth value, this is impossible), the meaning of the probability is lost to the unknown.

Not within the constraints of my argument no. As the entire concept of the sentence is based on what we think we know: yet which we cannot.

Lots of ways, don't you think? For example, lots of people derive "meaning" in their life from the concept of God (and God's presumed existence). They might be said to "know" there is a God if by "know" you mean something like "subjective certainty." But that's a separate question. Let's just say they don't "know." Isn't the proposition that "God exists" "meaningful" to them all the same?

How can one know there is derived meaning in your example , again, without it being known?
(turtles all the way down fits nicely here).

What's your definition of "meaning?" Apparently it is different than mine.

You say meaning can exist without claims of truth and then give an example of purpose derived from something which may be false:

I say "but for you to know there is derived meaning there is still a true claim...which then goes all the way back.

I do not see the confusion.

*see above

Pardon me if someone else has already mentioned this (I have certain people on Ignore), but the above seems to be a truth or knowledge claim. In the Ancient Greek context, this would be called "dogmatic skepticism." Much like the Ancient Greek dogmatic skeptics, you seem to be claiming to know that knowledge is impossible. Would this be an accurate representation of your position?

Which is why one must follow proposition 15+ and only consider my answers as elucidation which is separate from the propositions themselves, so as to, not avoid the paradox, but render it meaningless.

I'm claiming that if we see the world in patterns, then the patterns with which we see (or do not) including mathematics, physics, language and so on: are impossible to know, as, we can not know which is actual and which is a construct of the brain. And that upon realising this one must also see the propositions themselves as meaningless and toss them aside. Only in action is the solution possible.

I see it now, thanks. So it's a uroboric system, like Pyrrhonism. Is there any goal analogous to ataraxia?

You have hit the nail directly on the head. Yes. To be able to stop questioning and live quietly; more or less.