11 Observations on meaning (discuss, please)

@FBM,

I prefer the Wittgenstein "ladder" metaphor though (Tractatus; ending lines)

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

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

In that case, I'm all for it. I've been gradually incorporating the Pyrrhonean practice of establishing equipollence of opposing claims, then epoche. I'm a lot more tranquil than in any other point in my adult life, save one. I still engage in select debates, but pretty much only to expose claims that have over-reached the evidence, not to make claims of my own. Cheers and best to you in your endeavor(s).

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/cheers.gif

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

I prefer the Wittgenstein "ladder" metaphor though (Tractatus; ending lines)

Not sure how that fits here, but I like that metaphor, anyway. I apply it routinely in my work as an educator. (Krashen's Comprehensible Input Hypothesis.)

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

I do not see the confusion.

I suppose not. Because in your system your postulates are unquestionably true and definitions become "self-evident" to you.

You have, in your mind, made some vague, yet indisputable, "connection" between truth, knowledge and meaning which are, to me, by no means "self-evident."

Can you define "meaning" without simply repeating your premises?

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Is truth strictly dependent on knowledge?

In other words, can something be true, even if "we" don't KNOW it to be true?

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Is "meaning" strictly dependent on truth?

In other words, can a statement have "meaning," even if it is known to be false?

Take the statement: "Santa Clause lives at the North Pole." Is that statement "meaningless," or merely untrue?

Don't you think people would know what I "mean," even if they don't believe my claim to be "true?"

1 Reply

@layman,

"Santa Clause lives at the north pole" needs semantic interpretation; which relies on a truth claim itself (before!) the content is processed. Whether that interpretation is true or false is the whole crux of the meaning; and so reliant on a truth claim.

1 Reply

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

Whether that interpretation is true or false is the whole crux of the meaning..

The "whole crux?" How so?

What is this supposed to mean, exactly?:

Quote:

...needs semantic interpretation; which relies on a truth claim itself (before!) the content is processed.

Can you elaborate? What "truth claim" is necessary?

1 Reply

@layman,

I say statement x: "Carpets are blue".

There is a truth claim that I said x. There is a truth claim that x is "true" in the sense that when it is passed from me to you, you know what I said was (statement "x") and so on.

1 Reply

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

There is a truth claim that I said x.

OK, so? Are you just saying I have to believe you said it? How does that relate to meaning?

Quote:

"true" in the sense that when it is passed from me to you, you know what I said was (statement "x") and so on.

OK, so? Are you just saying that a rock doesn't know the meaning of anything?

1 Reply

@layman,

It's quite simple:

You gave me an example of a statement in which the meaning can still be, despite the fact that it may be true or false. I said:

I have to know you said the statement, that the statement was what you intended it to say, that the words which you used are the same words which I know:

The truth claims go backwards, if you concede that they exist, as each of these things need to be "known" before one must take the statement seriously, or derive any meaning from the sentence all together.

2 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

The truth claims go backwards, if you concede that they exist, as each of these things need to be "known" before one must take the statement seriously, or derive any meaning from the sentence all together

Is something that is a necessary condition for consciousness "meaning," then? I don't see how your answer is even relevant to "meaning," let alone "truth."

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

It's quite simple:

I have to be alive to hear you, to understand you, to make any kind of judgment about whether what you say is comprehensible and/or true, etc.

So is existence (being alive) "meaning?" Is it "truth?" Is it "knowledge?" No, it's just a necessary condition for ME experiencing those things. It's just a "condition of," not the thing itself. So I can't see how you are explaining "meaning," and it's relationship to truth, by merely noting some necessary conditions for them.

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

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.

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

i know that you're trying to figure this out, but you're in the tall grass -- you're in the weeds.

It seems like you are looking for a formula where none exists:

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

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.

No, this postulate uses many words that seem "meaningful", but the statements, not to mention the sentences, are not coherent. Perhaps you should pat yourself on the back for defying your own criteria, because the above quote is neither meaningful, nor entirely devoid of meaning...just devoid of coherence.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Forgive my incoherence, what I was attempting to get across is this:

That meaningful statements and meaningless statements can follow the same structure, and so, they can (on appearance), be easily confused.

I guess that is quite ironic.

1 Reply

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

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.

ghoti = fish

This is off-the-cuff, but relevant, I think. It seems to fulfill all the above requirements.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That 'x's' can appear to be 'y's' in different contexts,
or that one can appear to draw meaning from a meaningless structure is a good reading (if that's what you were aiming for).

1 Reply

@Isaac-A-Russell,

From your original, I substituted utterances vis a vis visual stimuli instead of statements. That might disqualify it. Utterances are not always meaningful in the same way that statements are. Or are they? Hmm.

0 Replies

11 Observations on meaning (discuss, please)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know