Where does meaning come from?

???

You do realize that you can insert as many blank lines as you like, just by pressing . Right?

You should try that some time.

I just did. Why do you think there are so many spaces under “gib wrote” in my last post?

Is your browser removing the spaces?

I meant at the beginning of your post, before anything is written.

.

.

.
Hi encode_decode :laughing:

Me too.

In that case, you’re right.

Woaw! Again! Cool avatar! Another girl in the rain, crying I presume. Long black hair. Monochrome just like your last one. Can’t quite make out the rest. How many has that been? Three in a row, I believe, with rain?

You’re a theme girl, aren’t you Arc? I remember your green eyes line of avatars. One of them was even crying IIRC. You had a couple anime ones before the rain, didn’t you? I think even the first rain one overlapped with the anime theme.

Ah, the phases we go through. The avatars people choose can sometimes be a little window into the pit stops and the scenery they visit on their life’s journey.

But anyway, back to meaning… :arrow_right: :arrow_right: :arrow_right:

Meaning?

Where does that come from?

:laughing:

Hi Arcturus Descending

Same here . . .

:laughing:

Plural

Yeah, that would be devices :laughing: too many computers here and only one tablet and one phone.

Arcturus Descending

What do any of us truly know? Mostly what we choose to believe. Even the empirical cannot be held in certainty without some doubt. Now back to meaning. To say that we invent meaning is to say that the start dust invents meaning if that is where we are from - then even the star dust is from somewhere of something. Elements - what are they but those things that are stable under certain mathematical laws - to change the laws might even change the elements. We do know now, for the time being and with relative certainty that we are here and made of something - energy - and what is energy - perhaps more questions arise than can be answered. We are taking it further back - yes - that is what we are doing - ideas are still tangible unless you can prove them to be otherwise - again I fear we are being poetic and forgetting the displacement of an idea with our brain.

Believe me for everything you agree with or like there is some person who cannot wait to disagree with you Arc.

Your star stuff sounds feasible.

:smiley:

How much do you think we can generalize this, encode? Would it be fair to say the Big Bang invents meaning? And at what point do we introduce intention? Would intention come before the apprehension of meaning or after?

Here is a thought experiment(I am too lazy to offer an hypothesis):

I want to imagine a new universe called “chaos” - “chaos” is full of triangles and all of the triangles combined is objectivity - so objectivity in this universe is all of the triangles that “chaos” contains which is infinity. This universe is a type of field that only contains blank triangles.

Now subjectivity is “magically” seeded - we are not going to care about the details. Subjectivity turns a blank triangle into a black triangle to form veins of subjectivity throughout this infinite universe called “chaos”.

Now lets imagine the triangle and lets refer to the points as atoms instead.

Where:
a = answer
q = question
m = meaning

(a,q,m)

This triangle allows all three atoms to connect to each other and by placing other triangles in connection to the original triangle a more defined being of triangle takes places.

Now if we change the question and answer parts to other “things” that give meaning we can eventually connect all meaning.

We start out with all the triangles at once(a big triangle universe) and get some sort of arrangement that resembles veins moving through the chaos and it is these veins that connect meaning in all its forms. Entropy then is when all the blank triangles become black. Once all the triangles become black the very next cycle they all become blank again. The transition between all black and all blank we call death or recycling.

Now I am imagining a “bigger universe” that has infinite copies of the aforementioned universe and its name is “meta”. So “meta” contains infinite copies of “chaos” and each chaos is a being of sorts. When one “chaos” correlates in any way to another “chaos” we end up with what we call “defined objectivity”.

That is my mental lapse of reason for today.

gib

To say that we invent meaning is to say that the start dust invents meaning if that is where we are from - then even the star dust is from somewhere of something. Elements - what are they but those things that are stable under certain mathematical laws - to change the laws might even change the elements.

Good question. Generalizing this is a big question gib. It is easier to work out the most fundamental laws but to start generalizing at the more abstract level which is in fact what we are is to enter a new realm all together as we are so complex - I do know that each mental effect, affects the next and continues to, based on the strength of its network. The big bang being the theory that it is, uncovers something interesting, which is, a beginning - stardust need not have a beginning but it seems as though we do - we can emerge from a universe that has been here for ever as much as one that came from a big bang - either way, you and I emerge in physical form with certainty and that form is a configured state of the same thing - fundamental substance.

Intentions . . . the baby’s intention is to survive even though it may not be aware of that. We introduce intention before awareness. Before the apprehension of meaning. I do think if the laws change then the questions change too . . . Perhaps intention is a law not unlike gravity mathematics.

Does meaning come from a derivative of the question plus answer? Does meaning follow something. I know questions follow answers or else we can not answer questions - answering comes after - but an answer is already there before the question is being asked otherwise you could not find any answer.

The answer to, how much I think we can generalize this, was there before I answered the question - if I even answered it that is. If not, what kind of questions we ask to get at the answer becomes all important.

So do you see the problem of meaning as reducible to the problem of first personhood? The usual assumption is that there was no “first person” at the moment of the Big Bang. I think most people assume there was no “first person” after the first round of super novas in the universe either (so star dust pre-dates persons). The question really is: when did third personhood (which we assume is the state of all unconscious inanimate matter) give rise to first personhood–and how?

Meaning is quintessentially an apprehended phenomenon–it requires some form of mental process, a consciousness, in order to exist (don’t talk to the externalist).

As for the question of intention–does it precede for succeed meaning (or the apprehension thereof)?–I would say you’re right that intention comes first when it comes to cogitated meaning–that is, meaning apprehending in thought. But then you can ask: if the simple fact of experiencing can be said to imply meaning (for example, in the way that sensory experience is said to imply sensory information (i.e. meaning) being conveyed to consciousness), then meaning must come first, for only upon experiencing can one then intend things.

gib

OK, I have been very busy but I have been still checking in on this thread from time to time trying to come up with an answer…

  • the following is the best I have for now.

I think the main reason we reduce it to first personhood is because we are unable to leave our own mind behind. Imagine for a moment though that we can - what is that moment like? Are we caught between a question and answer? Or are we caught at a pivotal moment where meaning comes into being?

But is it really? I do not necessarily disagree with anything you are saying, I am just trying to provide more substance beyond the apprehended phenomenon.

Where does the first intention come from though? Is it taught to us or is it instinctual? I still think somehow meaning is being produced through analogy.

Either way I am still very interested in what you are saying gib . . .

:smiley:

I would say sensory experience automatically contains sensory information where such information is a response to the experience
And it does not have to be meaning in any abstract sense but just a practical one such as wanting to eat when hungry for example

If you mean that there can be answers to questions without the infrastructure of human thought, that would be a form of externalism. Most externalists I’ve read would say that meaning can have an objective existence independent of human thought or experience. An example would be writing on a stone tablet. To human readers, the tablet obviously has meaning. But the externalists say that even if mankind died and all intelligent life ceased to exist, the meaning would remain insofar as the tablet remains.

Now, what you’re saying might be somewhat different (I sense you think of meaning as more abstract than writing on stone tablets), but I gather you believe there are answers to questions, answers that are “out there”–as in: the answer to “what’s 2 + 2?” would still be “4” even if mankind died and all intelligent life ceased to exist. Is that right?

Meaning as having an independent existence to consciousness and experience?

I think intention is a product of meaning. Imagine that you have two experiences: seeing food and pangs of hunger. These two experiences come with meaning: “there is food there” and “I’m hungry”. Together, these two meanings entail the following conclusion: “I should eat the food.” (not that’s it’s always a formal logical process like this). That conclusion counts as an intention.

The difficulties are what I think are the cutting edge - we have been here before as a race many times in history and now perhaps we are getting very abstract. Things can only be said with an arbitrary degree and some things work better than others - I also think most things that work better than others if not all are hiding necessary truths to a fuller understanding of what they encompass - here we are mister philosopher - doing this cyclic thing.

Hmm, I see your point - I only wanted to imagine it for a moment as things can function independent of people. Imagine that we can leave our mind behind - my words are permissive enough to allow for it - we could write many things that we would consider impossible but yet the words can be written for the imagination to make it possible based on a nonsensical but somewhat interesting scenario. What is that moment like - the moment that meaning springs forth - is it some pivotal moment.

Difficult to harness - let us come back to what we mostly know - we are centered around our own existence - but what does that mean? :-k

You are correct - your sense is accurate and low and behold you are one of the very few people to pick up on it. I am indeed being abstract and allowing for meaning to be abstract too - what if it is the case that meaning functions independently of us - as with some many questions there are answers more probable than others but they all have probability.

Answers are obviously there before the questions are asked or the questions would be impossible to answer - argue that with some people and you end up in a death spiral of human arrogance focused again around itself - should we think that we are special compared to anything else?

Leaving behind my riddle of words and letting their impact travel in our wake we can return to regular viewing - the hall of mirrors we call life.

Still meaning is necessary to understanding mind and yes it plays its part whether external or internal I am confined to the internal questioning the external.

And :-k always thinking on these little sidetracks for an awakening. We can calculate and calculation may lead to meaning and it may not but I am guessing it does.

That is pretty deep man . . . even radical . . . I want some of what you have been smoking - lol - kidding - I don’t do drugs. I agree that sensory experience automatically contains sensory information - I would contest what that would be. It as you say is not mandatory that it contain meaning but I do say that it contains, similar calculations, that meaning would based on a calculation of meaning - yes this is possible - I forget the name of the algebra right now but I will post it if it comes to mind.

Wanting to eat means one is hungry - this is an example of meaning being external. Or not?