Where does meaning come from?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Where does meaning come from?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:36 pm

James S Saint wrote:Truth is the ontological choice of symbols with which to construct a map of the terrain called reality.

I can see how this is true to a degree - yet I can see how intuition also plays a part.

I have no real issue with being proven wrong here James - I like to learn as you know.

Correct me if I am wrong but Metaphysics has more tools at its disposal than ontologies.
    Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
    - which is to say there is always meaning.

    (gib - 2017)

    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself - 2017)
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1030
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
    Location: Metaspace

    Re: Where does meaning come from?

    Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:30 pm

    I have this thing I like to call abstractive layers which work such that different ways of describing truths or facts belong to certain layers - how to know which layer is the difficult part but I kind of think along the lines that the more evidence available to support a theory or belief then the further along the abstractive layers that theory or belief belong.

    I like this idea of abstractive layering, makes a lot of sense to me. Seems to fit well with the “matter-information-value-force” perspectives. I need to give more thought to formal structure and will borrow this notion of abstractive layers as a rough working theory. Agree, logical structuring between realms is difficult. I think of existence mostly from an informational point of view [for theological reasons], only recently have expanded to other categories, so finding someone willing to share these ideas as you are is like finding nuggets of gold in my metaphysical pan, En-De. Thanks for your input.

    Meaning as a subsystem might belong less further along the line of abstractive layers - yet I was thinking of meaning as being in a field and growing like soap bubbles in different parts of that field to eventually join up with other bubbles of meaning - just a tempting way to look at it I suppose.

    Sure, I’m not disagreeing with placement of meaning in different domains, just noting that I’m a bit dull and have trouble moving it from the peg I’ve stuck it into in my thinking.
    User avatar
    Anomaly654
     
    Posts: 35
    Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

    Re: Where does meaning come from?

    Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:10 pm

    encode_decode wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but Metaphysics has more tools at its disposal than ontologies.

    Truth is the words and concepts used to describe reality. Those concepts comprise the ontology.
    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
    Else
    From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

    The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

    You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
    The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
    It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
    As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

    Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
    Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

    The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
    .
    James S Saint
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 25798
    Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

    Re: Where does meaning come from?

    Postby WendyDarling » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:43 pm

    Is reality described in a manner of degrees as effective as the either/or:is/ought descriptions? I ask since word choices are becoming more and more important to me when describing truth...reality. Why would a few degrees of relevance make something realistic...the truth? How can a few degrees of being this or that make something mostly or all of whatever you are describing? I have to take things in terms of percentages rather than some infinite amount of degrees (that's too loosey-goosey for me), 100% is definitive, under or over 50% is definitive(either/or), 1% means next to nothing to me. Help!
    I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

    I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

    Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
    User avatar
    WendyDarling
    Heroine
     
    Posts: 6330
    Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
    Location: Hades

    Re: Where does meaning come from?

    Postby encode_decode » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:33 pm

      James

      Hopefully I am still "on track".

      James S Saint wrote:
      encode_decode wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but Metaphysics has more tools at its disposal than ontologies.

      Truth is the words and concepts used to describe reality. Those concepts comprise the ontology.

      I cannot argue with you here James - it is still true that Metaphysics has many tools including intuition in my book - I think we mostly agree with each other that truth is that which is in a manner conforming with reality - which I still believe presents it's own definition problems but only by virtue of language. Still, in the context of mapping out a language, I can see this small issue disappearing.

      Problems happen to come about by the way people use language from what I have been able to discern.
        Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
        - which is to say there is always meaning.

        (gib - 2017)

        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself - 2017)
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1030
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
        Location: Metaspace

        Re: Where does meaning come from?

        Postby encode_decode » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:51 pm

          WendyDarling

          You or perhaps James can beat me up later . . . :lol:

          WendyDarling wrote:Is reality described in a manner of degrees as effective as the either/or:is/ought descriptions? I ask since word choices are becoming more and more important to me when describing truth...reality. Why would a few degrees of relevance make something realistic...the truth? How can a few degrees of being this or that make something mostly or all of whatever you are describing? I have to take things in terms of percentages rather than some infinite amount of degrees (that's too loosey-goosey for me), 100% is definitive, under or over 50% is definitive(either/or), 1% means next to nothing to me. Help!

          First we don't want anything to be loosey goosey - 1% should perhaps mean nothing to you. I think even 50% creates it own two problems - I am not suggesting that everybody follow degrees of belief - I am saying that a degree is useful for analyzing, so belief should be lent to the analysis and what appears to be true. At the end of the day however, even the analytical minded person has a need for sanity and this can only come about by stability in your reasoning(very likely what you already believe).

          You are a truth seeker from what I have been able to determine and there is injustice to you in that which makes no sense and this to me is understandable and for this reason I say that all roads lead to Rome(figure of speech) unless one is walking the wrong way. To your question then >>

          WendyDarling wrote:Is reality described in a manner of degrees as effective as the either/or:is/ought descriptions?

          Only in the case of deep analysis is what I would answer. Word choices should be ever important when describing truth.

          Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps.

          :D
            Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

            It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
            (Anomaly654 - 2017)

            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
            - which is to say there is always meaning.

            (gib - 2017)

            Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
            (Myself - 2017)
            User avatar
            encode_decode
            Philosopher
             
            Posts: 1030
            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
            Location: Metaspace

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:14 am

            encode decode wrote:
            surreptitious75 wrote:
            As for me such a line is very clearly defined. I am more interested in what is true rather than what I want to be true since I have no say in the latter and so focus more on the former. But even then one has to try hard not to confuse the two. I say there is no meaning in the grand scheme of things but is this because I think
            it is true or is there a part of me that also wants it to be true? There probably is if truth be told but I try to keep such thoughts to a minimum as I have no real
            need for them

            Clearly defined how exactly??? How do you know what is true given that everything to do with your existence can be boiled down to electrochemical signals interpreted by your mind? Everything is really just an interpretation to us. For the human being there is no absolute truth just and interpreted truth that seems to work the best - I prefer to keep the mind open just in case I am missing something along the way and there might be the chance of detecting the said something. In all cases any given person goes with what they want to be true a person chooses to believe what makes the most sense

            What exactly do you have a need for

            Not everything is interpretation. Observation of the physical through the senses is objectively real in the sense that what is experienced
            can not be denied. The brain might interpret it differently if it so chooses but the actual observation itself remains above interpretation

            A person cannot choose to believe

            Ultimately I have no need for anything because my own physical existence is merely finite. But while I am alive I have a need for food and water and shelter. I have
            other needs also which are not as necessary or important but which are nonetheless required to maintain a quality of life as opposed to merely existing. And for me these needs are intellectual for my goal in life is knowledge acquisition. So I need access to that which enables me to learn. This includes all serious subject matter
            but especially physics and history and philosophy about which I am most interested
            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
            surreptitious75
             
            Posts: 276
            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:09 am

            encode decode wrote:
            surreptitious75 wrote:
            As a nihilist [ atheist existentialist is a more accurate descriptor but I prefer nihilist for reasons of brevity ] who sees no objective meaning to the
            Universe I am very sceptical of it being applied in such a way. And particularly as the line between objective and subjective becomes quite blurred
            for those using meaning like this

            You say that you see no objective meaning to the universe but clearly this is just you and a small group of people. I also know that just because one does
            not see something does not mean that it does not exist - so you have a belief of some sort - this is clearly evident. I would be interested in what ways you
            think that I have blurred the lines between the objective and the subjective. What do you mean by using meaning like this

            The small number of people who agree with me about there being no objective meaning to the universe has no bearing at all on how true that may be

            Just because one does not see something does not mean it does not exist but one should be very sceptical of any evidence free assertion
            Sometimes the meaning of evidence is changed to accommodate the knowledge gap but presenting evidence is what is actually required

            I have no belief in anything as I see absolutely no reason to believe things that cannot be shown to be true either logically or empirically

            The objective is what is actually true. The subjective is what human beings want to be true. There is no reason to ever conflate them
            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
            surreptitious75
             
            Posts: 276
            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:34 am

            Wendy wrote:
            Is reality described in a manner of degrees as effective as the either /or is /ought descriptions

            Yes as it is on a spectrum rather than just binary. There are degrees of complexity that become
            more greatly understood over time because of increases in knowledge
            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
            surreptitious75
             
            Posts: 276
            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:43 am

            James wrote:
            Truth is the ontological choice of symbols with which to construct a map of the terrain called reality

            Language is the ontological choice of symbols not truth which requires no symbols at all
            But language does for it is a means by which truth can be communicated and explained
            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
            surreptitious75
             
            Posts: 276
            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:48 am

            Language is not only relevant for communication, but also for e.g. expression without any communication partner.

            Also, communication can be misused.

            Arminius wrote:We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power ... and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse ... and so on and so forth.

            Arminius wrote:Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.

            So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.
            Image
            User avatar
            Arminius
            ILP Legend
             
            Posts: 5700
            Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
            Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

            Re: Where does meaning come from?

            Postby encode_decode » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:45 pm

              Anomaly654

              This post is more an extension on what I have already said - my recommendation is that you do not get too lost in what I am saying here.

              I would skim read this, because I have much deeper stuff to say later, much more worthy of your attention.

              I have quickly noticed, there is a special kind of beauty in the way you write, and deep thought in what you have presented . . .
              . . . I am very interested in what you have to post here at ILP . . .
              . . . there is much value in it for me - selfish, I know but I am sure there would be others who would agree.

              Anomaly654 wrote:I like this idea of abstractive layering, makes a lot of sense to me. Seems to fit well with the “matter-information-value-force” perspectives. I need to give more thought to formal structure and will borrow this notion of abstractive layers as a rough working theory. Agree, logical structuring between realms is difficult. I think of existence mostly from an informational point of view [for theological reasons], only recently have expanded to other categories, so finding someone willing to share these ideas as you are is like finding nuggets of gold in my metaphysical pan, En-De. Thanks for your input.

              Layering techniques work well in a number of configurations from my experience. Not only do they work well for what I suggested but they also work well for true abstraction as you may have already guessed from my rather lazy description. You can wrap multiple attributes and/or functions into a single entity and treat a group like this however you want - we kind of already do the same with many words - 'The Olympics' for example is two words that can be treated as a single entity of information that covers many sports and I can imagine already how much documentation is involved in organizing such a huge event.

              So events too could be wrapped along with attributes and functions into single entities [possibly many things could be wrapped] - these entities could be treated as single layers or a part of a layer - obviously this is a way to organize information but interestingly it has found use in such odd places as engineering too. My original suggestion was intended to be for viewing truth from different layers or angles - suggesting degrees of accuracy and such. My purpose was also philosophical based on an all roads lead to Rome principle for the truth(see my last comment to WendyDarling in this thread).

              Anomaly654 wrote:I’m not disagreeing with placement of meaning in different domains, just noting that I’m a bit dull and have trouble moving it from the peg I’ve stuck it into in my thinking.

              I strongly recommend that you do disagree with me if you feel the need from within. Being dull is fine - I mean within the context that I am assuming from what you have written - it usually indicates a willingness to support your own judgement and/or opinions. I think it is important(and healthy) for one to keep the mind open for whatever may prove one wrong - also, research shows that acceptance from other people is also healthy for the mind - having a certain amount of confidence in what you are saying also helps to weed out the trolls on the internet from my own experience.

              Apologies if I sound a little opinionated here . . . for some reason I felt the need to say what I said.

              - - - Moving along - - -
                Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

                It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                - which is to say there is always meaning.

                (gib - 2017)

                Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                (Myself - 2017)
                User avatar
                encode_decode
                Philosopher
                 
                Posts: 1030
                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                Location: Metaspace

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Postby Anomaly654 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:16 pm

                Truth is the words and concepts used to describe reality. Those concepts comprise the ontology.

                But correspondence, like other theories of truth, don’t really tell what truth is, only what it does.

                Daniel D. DeHaan, interpreting Avicenna in (a paper that used to be on Academia but can’t find it now)"Avicenna's Healing and the Metaphysics of Being and Truth", notes [p. 12],
                "In brief, the truth of things is the foundation of veracity in the intellect...Just as everything has a quiddity...which answers to what...it is, this same principle is also called its truth-determination...which answers to the truth...of the thing. In other words, whatness and truth are parts of the very furniture of reality; they are fundamental aspects of all things...in themselves. This dimension of everything as a whatness and a truth-determinate is the existentially neutral principle which is able to exist isomorphically in concrete reality and intentionally in the mind. The thing itself is what we might call a truth-maker; truth in the mind is entirely derivative from the truth found in existing things.”

                This is the idea of truth I think fits reality best. I’m no philosopher, but the notion of truth—or more accurately, value—inherent in (or as a natural constituent of) information [what I take to be the ground of existence] itself appears to me would naturally grant strength to the idea that correspondence is just what naturally takes place as perception of value(s) relations in a world of value-bearing existents. Why or how would this not be viable?
                User avatar
                Anomaly654
                 
                Posts: 35
                Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:03 pm

                Arminius

                Language is not only relevant for communication, but also for e.g. expression without any communication partner.


                Are you speaking of the written word here or something else?


                Arminius wrote:We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power ... and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse ... and so on and so forth.


                Arminius"]Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.



                Hitler is known for saying, “What good fortune for governments that people do not think,”and his policies were based on the premise that most individuals are conformists who do not think for themselves. Hitler and Nazi officials believed it was possible to manipulate public opinion by using propaganda techniques including euphemisms, name-calling, fear, and “bandwagon” (you are either for us or against us). For example, the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda changed the words used in the army, replacing the word “work” with “service to Führer and folk” and “worker” with “soldier of labor.” Writer Max von der Grün recalls the impact these euphemisms had on him during his service in the German army:

                It is easy to understand that if, for whatever reasons, these words are hammered into a person’s brain every day, they soon become a part of his language, and he does not necessarily stop and think about where they come from and why they were coined in the first place.

                https://www.facinghistory.org/resource- ... conformity


                So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.


                Deliberate?
                SAPERE AUDE!


                If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                Thomas Nagel


                I learn as I write!
                User avatar
                Arcturus Descending
                Consciousness Seeker
                 
                Posts: 14949
                Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Postby Alf » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:50 pm

                Alf wrote:
                James S Saint wrote:
                Alf wrote:Thoughts are always conscious.

                In a different sense, unrelated to art, a great deal of thinking and the associated "thoughts" are not conscious (unless you are defining thoughts as only the conscious thoughts). A great deal of cognition is subconscious deducing, predicting, and presuming and often very complex thoughts, difficult to express in spoken language.

                But the spoken language can and does express those very complex thoughts.

                James S Saint wrote:So if not thoughts and thinking, when you are on autopilot driving through typical city traffic while your mind drifts away onto distant day-dreams, what do you want to call that calculating, predicting, strategizing, and so on??

                Those so-called "strategists" are liars and fakers; so by "strategizing" they just mean "lying" and "faking".
                User avatar
                Alf
                 
                Posts: 230
                Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:21 pm

                Arcturus Descending wrote:Arminius

                Language is not only relevant for communication, but also for e.g. expression without any communication partner.


                Are you speaking of the written word here or something else?

                I am speaking of language in general.

                Arcturus Descending wrote:
                So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.


                Deliberate?

                The misuse of communication is a wilful one, at least to a very large extent.
                Image
                User avatar
                Arminius
                ILP Legend
                 
                Posts: 5700
                Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
                Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Postby encode_decode » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:13 am

                  Anomaly654

                  I have not put a lot of deep thought into this yet but in a moment of inspiration came up with the following - partially based on what I said in the proto-post.

                  Anomaly654 wrote:
                  Truth is the words and concepts used to describe reality. Those concepts comprise the ontology.

                  But correspondence, like other theories of truth, don’t really tell what truth is, only what it does.

                  It can be said that truth, the alchemy of philosophy, is the greatest treasure as it leads to the giving of value itself, to self-knowledge, to value-knowledge. Everything else of value would be derivative.

                  Indicating a mix of some sort, would be to me a mix of states that make up truth - there are many truths. Truth is the label we apply to all truths. The words and concepts then are just symbols/tokens that represent these states or mixes of states - depending upon the level of abstraction used. Truth is a combined state of all that which is in accordance with reality. Truth relies on reality to be defined.

                  Anomaly654 wrote:The notion of truth—or more accurately, value—inherent in (or as a natural constituent of) information [what I take to be the ground of existence] itself appears to me would naturally grant strength to the idea that correspondence is just what naturally takes place as perception of value(s) relations in a world of value-bearing existents. Why or how would this not be viable?

                  This is quite viable - you are viewing it from an equally valid perspective in my eyes.
                    Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

                    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                    - which is to say there is always meaning.

                    (gib - 2017)

                    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                    (Myself - 2017)
                    User avatar
                    encode_decode
                    Philosopher
                     
                    Posts: 1030
                    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                    Location: Metaspace

                    Philosophy and random thoughts . . .

                    Postby encode_decode » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:19 am

                      Philosophy is deeply connected with the expression of meaning. I wonder whether is it wise enough to speculate that meaning is expressed somehow in the first instance that meaning came to be - in other words - can meaning come about by lack of contrast? Meaning has been there forever.

                      Meaning is able to be expressed through the unrelated by virtue of metaphor - meaning is always there in some form or other. If there is no meaning then why does it present itself - this message I write to my self because there are those who seek to destroy meaning without reason. Their intention through their own search for their so called truth is to understand reality and yet they come up pitifully short. What is precious to them in their truth? Why bother with truth or meaning? Why bother with anything? I bother because things are there to be bothered with.

                      Science can not and does not give meaning - it can uncover some truths but it can not answer what meaning these truths have - science can not express the meaning from these truths that science uncovers. Science is merely a shovel to dig in the garden of nature with - turning your whole life over to science is to give up a part of you that science never sought to take away in the first place. Science is only a tool - science will only ever be a tool - would you turn your life over to a shovel?

                      Meaning is more than just an expression of connection - it is also an expression of information, direction, the known and the past and the future.

                      Philosophy then is deeply connected to meaning giving, since all the philosophical questioning, all the philosophical exploring is aimed to connect to everything: all the finer points of existing, of language, of dealing with experiencing and deriving sense from all of it. And yet it can also lead to meaninglessness, probably when one would stop applying this thought to all sense and all times. When all thought on life would become a bubble of life, becoming isolated. Such perhaps unavoidable form of alienation could then be part and parcel of having a mind in the first place; creating limited representations as a way to reason.

                      We should be careful when employing any reductionist attempts to anything - reduction is not there to take away anything except the cloudiness in our judgement - reduction is there to make things easier to deal with. Reduction makes our personal confinement more bearable because we seek to understand everything and by ourselves we cannot - one human is not alone - he or she is in the company of the whole universe - an infinite expanse.

                      As I have already stated: If meaning indeed flows out of complex connection making, being it physical, interactions between senses and events, or pure mentally -- words connecting with words -- then it would connect deep down to the fundamental, driving forces of life itself. From these connections, all importance and value can be derived.

                      Truth is the alchemy of philosophy and meaning is its expression.
                        Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

                        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                        - which is to say there is always meaning.

                        (gib - 2017)

                        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                        (Myself - 2017)
                        User avatar
                        encode_decode
                        Philosopher
                         
                        Posts: 1030
                        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                        Location: Metaspace

                        Re: Where does meaning come from?

                        Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:29 am

                        Alf wrote:Those so-called "strategists" are liars and fakers; so by "strategizing" they just mean "lying" and "faking".
                        One who strategizes might be tempted to lie, but in general strategizing has nothing to do with lying.
                        Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                        Else
                        From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                        The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                        You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                        The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                        It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                        As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                        Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                        Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                        The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                        .
                        James S Saint
                        ILP Legend
                         
                        Posts: 25798
                        Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                        Re: Where does meaning come from?

                        Postby encode_decode » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:08 am

                          Anomaly654

                          Again I have covered truth and now I will briefly cover reality again. Reality is best summed up in another thread that I am working alongside James with in that we are talking about that which affects. I do not recommend you read that thread because it is insanely long and you would only get lost. I believe that I can do a pretty good job explaining it here and you can make you inquiries here as to what I am talking about.

                          If meaning is an expression of information then we should perhaps attempt to understand what that information is
                          - so let us jump on an abstractive layer and get started.

                          First is would be prudent to start with that with which we can imagine to be the smallest possible thing as surely reality is made up of an infinite amount of the smallest possible things - these are of course points. We are only interested in that that exists - all else is pointless << keep this in mind.

                          For something to exist, it must have the ability to affect and be affected << this includes points.

                          Only when something has a potential is it in existence. A point must have potential << we call this PtA << Potential to Affect.

                          This can be applied to information quite easily. I will not do that yet. But I do have that potential.

                          This is reality. Reality is infinite.

                          In accordance with reality are states >> truth states << these are PtA's as far as I can determine. There are those that are permanent - permanence is not what you would think though - permanence is not so intuitive because it is ever changing and yet the truth does not change << that is the mind bender.

                          I also have the potential to explain this.

                          So what does all this mean >> well that would be its expression << give me some more time to formulate this for you.

                          Jump in if you please . . .

                          :-k

                          To reiterate from earlier: Reality then has an external appearance that is projected internally and modified to become a mental interpretation of what is real. This involves known facts, beliefs, evidence and other imaginings and perceptions - forgive my redundancy. You are however, a part of that reality.

                          Something to at least think about.

                          Anomaly654 wrote:…to answer your first question, what is fact? Facts as I see them are (as you suggested) relations derived from a union of truth content of the intellect (“living” information) in union [apprehension] with truth content in external states of affairs. Facts are truths discerned of the so-called material realm.

                          This I am happy with.

                          :D
                            Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

                            It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                            (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                            - which is to say there is always meaning.

                            (gib - 2017)

                            Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                            (Myself - 2017)
                            User avatar
                            encode_decode
                            Philosopher
                             
                            Posts: 1030
                            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                            Location: Metaspace

                            Re: Where does meaning come from?

                            Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:40 pm

                            First is would be prudent to start with that with which we can imagine to be the smallest possible thing as surely reality is made up of an infinite amount of the smallest possible things - these are of course points. We are only interested in that that exists - all else is pointless << keep this in mind.

                            For something to exist, it must have the ability to affect and be affected << this includes points.

                            Only when something has a potential is it in existence. A point must have potential << we call this PtA << Potential to Affect.

                            This can be applied to information quite easily. I will not do that yet. But I do have that potential.

                            This is reality. Reality is infinite.

                            Seems surprisingly easy to incorporate the way I view things into what you’ve written En-De, unless I’ve missed completely what you mean by “points”. My trek into thinking about existence and reality started some years back under an assumption that there must be some connection between thing and attribute because they are both present to thought. The notion of information came to me; both hard and soft (or concreta and abstracta) things seemed to share the ability to inform perception. A working methodology remained to be worked out. As briefly as I can, here’s what I’ve come up with to date.

                            Premise: Material reality lends itself to lots of ones composed of manys; if information grounds material reality, might it not also be reducible? My working hypothesis is that the universe as a closed system (what I’d call 'designed and manufactured' reality) is made up of “bits” of information. Bit is a term attached to time and space, so I start with information in reduction as an “iota”. This, unless I miss your meaning above, might satisfy your “smallest possible thing” reality consists of. A micro level reduction of information would look like this: Consider that the human body has an estimated 50-100 trillion cells, the brain 80-120 billion. Further assume 1016 [sorry, superscript is apparently unavailable] atoms per cell. Each atom contains multiple elements of information—mass, position, spin, charge, momentum, subatomic arrangements, etc. and numerous relations between those parts. Information is available for each property and relation at each level of organization for every iota of data a mind can grasp, from points in time and space to properties, numbers, governments and relations between components. It’s easy to see that in reduction there would logically be many more “elements” of information than there are material components, as each piece of matter can have multiple properties and fluid, unending relationships to other pieces.

                            Information in Structured Reduction
                            Each iota of information (I) then has to have the “parts” necessary to form both hard and soft existents. Thus:
                            I = P^V, where P = particularity and V = value.

                            Briefly as possible, P is a simple quality that performs a single task: providing individuation for the formation of particular entities, abstract or concrete. This feature is functionally comparable to the Scholastic metaphysical idea of “thatness” or haecceity in particulars. Thatness seems usually used to signify substance, but P is more than this. P is the “power of particularization”, an individuating principle to form what I call “point-locales”. The term point-locale is includes P’s function of the formation of what we think of as substance at identifiable points in spacetime (material particulars) as well as furnishing a particularization identity to abstract entities like redness, the individuality of which is distinguishable from other abstract entities like greenness, triangularity or legality. P is in this sense—and in both cases—an idiosyncratic identifier, creating a capacity of discreteness at point-locales which occupy either spatiotemporal or non-spatiotemporal positions.

                            Value is much more adaptable than P and difficult to explain succinctly in message board format. Generally, while P holds reality “in place”, V “becomes” what is at that point-locale. When we extract properties, attributes, features, characteristics, etc. from things we are perceiving V content.

                            P lays out the playing field for V to do its dance. But the view of value proposed here is that value just is information, and information is wholly value. On this analysis, because all things that exist are a multiplicity of values, the notion of axiology as a branch of ethics is reversed: ethics, along with all other fields of knowledge including the sciences, are, in all their various pursuits, contemplations of value.

                            The concept of information as a twofold P and V is not just the idea that reality is fundamentally an abstraction—most of us presumably don’t feel like abstractions—it’s a case that all reality is value. Of the two hypothetical components that form information—which in turn forms reality—particularization may seem to be a different kind of thing than V, but it isn’t. Both V and P are value, they merely serve different functions.

                            This idea that being is naught but value is not as controversial as it might seem to some. Hume’s bundle theory suggests a reality of properties. Properties and relations are arguably themselves expressions of information. They both consist in and present information content to intellects, so information seems just as easily at home in thought as it does in neurons, mathematics or societal structure. Color, taller than, odor, repulsion, is the sister of, viscosity, combustibleness, x is fond of y, having 3 GHz of frequency, etc. either communicate some value directly or imply systems of values. To stand in relation to Jane as a sibling requires that Jane and I share parents, possesses appropriately coded DNA, the physical bodies involved in the relation occupy measurable positions in space at various points in time (including birth events resulting from the same mother and/or father), etc. These all boil down to multiple values (collections of I) associated with various spatial and temporal values.

                            Each body has cells, molecules, atoms and subatomic components that are just energy fields in certain capacities and quantities. They’re articulated in thought in the value-language of properties: spin, mass, resonance, charge, atomic number, location, electrostatic attraction, decay, strong force, etc. Chemical compounds are formed by transfer of or sharing between energy fields at material point-locales (electrons), changing the values of the individual components involved and creating a substance with new (sometimes emergent?) values. The sharing and exchange of values goes on up the chain with new traits, attributes and features inexplicably emerging along the way until Jane and I are produced from sufficient interactions in this enormous gumbo of interacting, substitutive values for the relation “sibling” to manifest. Everything that exists is a value-bearer. Thus, everything is information, everything is value and information is value are equivalent statements. The above isn't the whole picture of reality, just the "internal" or informational part of it. Information itself isn't a sufficiently cogent account of existence.

                            For me, unformed iotas (ioti??) of I are reality in potential. Might it be that unformed I is what occupies “empty” space? (by “unformed” I just mean individual “unconnected” iotas under the assumption that reality as we experience it is formed by multiples or "clusters" of P^V.) Apologies for length, felt need to elaborate ideas clearly.

                            Reality then has an external appearance that is projected internally and modified to become a mental interpretation of what is real.

                            This is true of material point-locales (particular energy [value] fields in time-space), especially, but of apparently timeless abstracta also, albeit with less force.

                            And yet the values attached to spacetime are not those driving human behaviour if Hume was correct. The energy fields of matter are directed by what appears to be a more powerful "external" force--unless one commits to deterministic materialism.
                            User avatar
                            Anomaly654
                             
                            Posts: 35
                            Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

                            Re: Where does meaning come from?

                            Postby Alf » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:10 am

                            James S Saint wrote:
                            Alf wrote:Those so-called "strategists" are liars and fakers; so by "strategizing" they just mean "lying" and "faking".
                            One who strategizes might be tempted to lie, but in general strategizing has nothing to do with lying.

                            I am not saying that each kind of strategizing has to do with lying and faking. I am saying that lying and faking have to do with strategizing. Do you know anyone who uses a lie without a streategy behind it?
                            User avatar
                            Alf
                             
                            Posts: 230
                            Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

                            Re: Where does meaning come from?

                            Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:56 am

                            encode decode wrote:
                            If meaning is an expression of information then we should perhaps attempt to understand what that information is

                            Meaning is an interpretation of information and so is separate from the actual information as such. It can be objective or subjective or both
                            The objective explains the information using knowledge about it while the subjective explains how one feels or thinks about the information
                            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
                            surreptitious75
                             
                            Posts: 276
                            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

                            Re: Philosophy and random thoughts . . .

                            Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:19 am

                            encode decode wrote:
                            We should be careful when employing any reductionist attempts to anything - reduction is not there to take away anything except the cloudiness in
                            our judgement - reduction is there to make things easier to deal with. Reduction makes our personal confinement more bearable because we seek to
                            understand everything and by ourselves we cannot - one human is not alone - he or she is in the company of the whole universe - an infinite expanse

                            Although I agree with this reductionism is not a universally accepted methodology with regard to understanding our place in the universe
                            Since many prefer alternative means of understanding and therefore do not see exclusively scientific explanations as entirely satisfactory
                            A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
                            surreptitious75
                             
                            Posts: 276
                            Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

                            Re: Where does meaning come from?

                            Postby encode_decode » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:47 am

                              surreptitious75

                              I see there are benefits to both subjectivity and objectivity independently and together - I see there are problems being too semantically bound to language and/or logic especially in the onset - while I agree that distinctions should be maintained, I also believe that anyone who is able to keep those distinctions maintained is free enough to experiment in the onset to use intuition along with less semantically bound terms to see what may have been missed previously through the use of anal retentive systems.

                              surreptitious75 wrote:
                              encode decode wrote:
                              If meaning is an expression of information then we should perhaps attempt to understand what that information is

                              Meaning is an interpretation of information and so is separate from the actual information as such. It can be objective or subjective or both
                              The objective explains the information using knowledge about it while the subjective explains how one feels or thinks about the information

                              I do see what you are saying - really I do - I also think that depending on what one is trying to achieve and what one is trying to understand and the freedom we have to move things around in that attempt to achieve and understand the topic in question then the word subjective can be extended to cover new ground. We are after all a part of the reality that we are trying to study in this case. I see science has become hamstrung in its attempt to provide all the answers and I wonder what may have caused that.

                              I keep bringing science into this because that is what I sense intuitively that is making every attempt to taint philosophy.

                              Whether you see what I am talking about or not is not the end of the world so to speak - I say everything is up for interpretation - I say everything is up for expression. I also think it is very important to maintain convention - convention allows us to understand each other sensibly and some things in this thread have diverted from convention - I do know however that I am not the only one diverting from convention - of the top of my head, I count four.

                              At the moment, I am not really sure else how to explain what is in my mind.
                                Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

                                It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                                (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                                - which is to say there is always meaning.

                                (gib - 2017)

                                Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                                (Myself - 2017)
                                User avatar
                                encode_decode
                                Philosopher
                                 
                                Posts: 1030
                                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                Location: Metaspace

                                PreviousNext

                                Return to Philosophy



                                Who is online

                                Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]