Philosophy Now Forum

Ok Terrapin, it seems that we agree on much more than we disagree. Agreement's no fun though. It also seems that both of us think the other is wrong regarding what meaning is. At least one of us is...

After carefully reading your last reply, it's definitely you...

...There are no non-mental/non-brain-state constituents for meaning...

That is the disagreement in a nutshell. I say that brain states are necessary but insufficient for meaning. I'll leave my position aside for now. It ought be openly stated here that I'm assuming you're referring to all types/kinds of meaning. In other words, I'm assuming that you're claiming that all senses of the term "meaning" are exhausted and/or covered by your assertion that "meaning is a brain state", and "there are no non-mental/non-brain-state constituents for meaning".

If that were so, then it wouldn't pose any problem at all to replace the term "meaning" with "brain state" in each and every utterance which includes the term "meaning", and after doing so the utterance wouldn't lose any meaning, or should I say, the utterance wouldn't lose any brain state.

That can't be right. Using your own claims and applying this method we get the following...

So for one, if we were to claim that the signals we receive from our visual or auditory nerves were necessarily semantic, we'd have to be able to account for how we could read or listen to something, so that we're aware of the words as words or sounds as sounds, yet attach no brain state(meaning) to it.

Instead, a brain state(meaning) is something that our brains can do (but something they don't always do) once we've received visual and auditory signals (and not only, of course, but that's our example).

Actually, as sounds we make, or marks we make on paper or computer screens, etc., they have no brain state(meaning). Brain states (meaning) are(is) only assigned by individuals thinking about as much.

Oh, and by the way, the following is nonsense...

So for one, if we were to claim that the signals we receive from our visual or auditory nerves were necessarily semantic, we'd have to be able to account for how we could read or listen to something, so that we're aware of the words as words or sounds as sounds, yet attach no meaning to it.

Being aware of words as words requires knowing what words look like, which indeed has meaning attached to it, as opposed to meaningless marks. If there is any question of the difference...

= y23 87 q.n\;{vy Alnnpkb
, q92375v
ln
alp febo--gu98834hr[

Even those are recognizable marks. Although the meaningfulness of those is limited to just recognizing different characters, there's still a but of meaning attached to them, it's just that nothing's being said. That is not the case of continentals however. Make no mistake about it, I'm no continental fan. Not in the least. Nonetheless, I do at least recognize that if one accepts their conceptual(linguistic) framework, and applies it consistently throughout the reading, they do make sense in that framework. Point is that just because you did not understand my earlier claim about the presupposition of truth, it doesn't follow that they were meaningless marks. The same holds good of continentals...

creativesoul wrote:Ok Terrapin, it seems that we agree on much more than we disagree . . .

Sorry, I didn't see this post until now. I've been relying primarily on "Notifications" to tell me when someone replied to me, but that doesn't pop up unless you use the "quote='person'sname" tag.

If that were so, then it wouldn't pose any problem at all to replace the term "meaning" with "brain state" in each and every utterance which includes the term "meaning", and after doing so the utterance wouldn't lose any meaning, or should I say, the utterance wouldn't lose any brain state.

I'm not making an argument about how people normally use language or suggesting word substitutions. I'm making an ontological argument.

Take a non-controversial example (although we have to invoke a bit of anachronistic fantasy): Say that it's 20,000 BC and someone argues, (L) "Lightning is really just an electrical state--it's an electrostatic discharge between electrically charged regions of clouds with respect to each other or between clouds and the ground."

Well, if you then replaced all occurrences of "lightning" in sentences with the phrase "electrical state," that's not going to work very well in most folks' opinions (including the guy who argued (L)).

That's because the guy arguing (L) wasn't making a comment about normal language usage or suggesting word substitutions (and regardless of syntactical/grammatical norms, etc.). He was making an ontological argument.

I'm also not saying, of course, that meaning is just any arbitrary brain state. It's a specific sort of brain state.

creativesoul wrote:Even those are recognizable marks. Although the meaningfulness of those is limited to just recognizing different characters, there's still a but of meaning attached to them, it's just that nothing's being said.

You have to do this via correlations (given my view), but if I see "electric" or the set of symbols ", q92375v," what are some examples of the meanings that you think are attached to them? You'd say that it can't be JUST "electric" or ", q92375v" to me, but must have meaning attached a la, for example, _____ or ______? What sorts of things would you put in those blanks?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.
~ Friedrich Nietsche ~ .

Have you thought that he might have meant you have to find meaning whilst you may be suffering not in the suffering and that if you do this you will survive?

.







Interesting perspective. NOW you're doing philosophy!


Keep it up & when you think of it use that toolbar that I showed you!








GOOD job!




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Interesting perspective. NOW you're doing philosophy!

Always have been. Shame you are not.

Keep it up & when you think of it use that toolbar that I showed you!

Since I'm not trying to be a gnu I'll pass thanks.

GOOD job!.

KMA. Comes to mind.

.




Not a psychiatrist but it's obvious, even to me, you are suffering.


Your words, the way you are expressing yourself, we can feel the suffering & the meaning in your suffering is expressed in the words that you choose.


Good luck to you...





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.Not a psychiatrist but it's obvious, even to me, you are suffering.

Your words, the way you are expressing yourself, we can feel the suffering & the meaning in your suffering is expressed in the words that you choose.

Your're not wrong there! But I'm amazed your insight doesn't extend to understanding that its the continuous pain and suffering I experience from watching a gnu punting for approbation and acolytes upon a philosophy forum that is the source of my pain and anguish.

Good luck to you...[/size].

'Luck'? What is that? Like your lost 'God' or something or is it like this 'we' you keep expressing?

.






Feel like I'm teaching you how to dance!

We'll take it one step at a time. I'll show you when you really fuck up! - Don't worry!!!







.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:. Feel like I'm teaching you how to dance!

You can feel what you like, its all your immaterial delusion to me.

We'll take it one step at a time. I'll show you when you really fuck up! - Don't worry!!!.

I don't.

Do you really think I'll bother to click your links? I've seen enough of your tawdry subconscious to last a lifetime thanks.

Terrapin Station wrote:Sorry, I didn't see this post until now. I've been relying primarily on "Notifications" to tell me when someone replied to me, but that doesn't pop up unless you use the "quote='person'sname" tag.

No worries. No need for apologies.

creative wrote:

If that were so(if all meaning is a brain state), then it wouldn't pose any problem at all to replace the term "meaning" with "brain state" in each and every utterance which includes the term "meaning", and after doing so the utterance wouldn't lose any meaning, or should I say, the utterance wouldn't lose any brain state.

Terrapin replied

I'm not making an argument about how people normally use language or suggesting word substitutions. I'm making an ontological argument...

Why would ontological arguments not be required to pass this substitution test? Are they not meaningful knowledge claims about what something is, and/or is not? It's the best way possible to test whether or not an author's claims about what something is make sense, particularly when they're suggesting an alternative composition of elementary constituents, or an alternative definition. The substitution exercise actually shows quite a bit. In fact, it's the only means I'm aware of to show equivocation...

Terrapin Station wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Even those are recognizable marks. Although the meaningfulness of those is limited to just recognizing different characters, there's still a but of meaning attached to them, it's just that nothing's being said.

You have to do this via correlations (given my view)...

Of course.



Not often someone shares that aspect of my view. All meaning is attributed by nothing more and nothing less than drawing mental correlations between different 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. The problem is that a brain alone insufficient for drawing correlations, as is our faculty of physiological sensory perception. It is for this reason and more, that I say that it makes no sense to talk about the location of meaning.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.
~ Friedrich Nietsche ~

Insufferable spelling...

.






..............................................................








.