Where does meaning come from?

gib

I have this concept that I use, and hopefully I will get a chance to talk more about it, and that is the concept of interface, where two or more systems meet - in the case of this conversation many systems have met. There is the external system - the internal system - the interface between them. The ball/wall system that we previously discussed also have an interface because the ball and the wall can be considered to be two separate systems and a single system when combined. A combination is a little like a confinement in that you are setting limits to what the system is constituted of. The totality of existence is a confinement in that it is everything combined into a single system. Each subsystem is its own separate system and that would include the entire system of meaning as a subsystem of the single system of existence - there exists an interface between the meaning subsystem and the existence system and therefore an interface between the meaning system and the existence system.

These interfaces are like expressions and they become atomic upon the choosing of a bounded selection - a bounded selection is a confinement and a confinement can be a system(AKA subsystem). When we say meaning then what we are really doing is choosing a bounded selection of an atomic part of existence even though we have chosen the entirety of meaning - it is still an atom of existence - we are then free to choose a bounded selection of a select part of meaning(a sub-meaning which is still a meaning). My suggestion is that surface meaning is atomic to always meaning - that there exists an interface between surface meaning and always meaning. You can squish/squash the confinement but you are only changing its shape - you cannot divide a confinement because then it would no longer be the same confinement.

I am suggesting that division is infinitely possible - hopefully this first part made sense and you can see that . . .

Moving on . . . Take one of these lesser mentioned divisions and contrast them with what is left . . .

. . . to be continued . . .

This is interesting. Is the external-internal distinction an indicator of spacetime systems or can abstracta also have this sort of interface?

Everything here makes good sense except I struggle to see meaning itself as a subsystem. There are just a few things that I can’t place in an informational framework [‘that-what’ pattern for both spacetime existents and abstract entities]; feelings, sensations and emotions seem to be just feedback effects, reactions or expressions of consciousness (or living information) and not existents per se. Meaning is also in this category, but peculiar. I might be off here, but seems to me no one subsystem can contain every value or kind of information.

Maybe what I mean can be explained thus: In one subsystem [that of you and I communicating on ILP] I express this or that emotion and various ideas at certain points while you contribute others. The exchange of language and ideas are fluid and changing; different words are used at different times, truth content (actual and perceived) waxes and wanes, etc. So certain items of information, values, material components and energies are brought into and fade out of our subsystem at various times.

Yet meaning simultaneously inheres the information, values, energy and material interfaces of not only our but every subsystem at once. It isn’t divulged or extracted all at once, but is present to everything. This is why I struggle to see meaning as a subsystem of its own; while all other aspects of existence are partially present in any given subsystem, meaning permeates everything, everywhere, all the time.

Anomaly654

I am not one hundred percent certain how you worked that out but you are very close to the truth of the matter.

Very impressive.

I will have to put further thought into your post/s. I think I am beginning to understand how you are thinking.

I will work on an answer to this for you.

:smiley:

Anomaly654

I had a thought overnight that meaning could perhaps be an interface or at least be treated that way. 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.

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.

Whether or not abstracta can have this interface I guess would be dependent on the type of conversation being had or theory or belief in play.

I hope this lends a little bit of intuition to my position so far - I am still in deep thought about what you have said.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

James

Hopefully I am still “on track”.

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.

WendyDarling

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

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 >>

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.

:smiley:

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

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

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

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

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

Also, communication can be misused.

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.

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).

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 - - -

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?

Arminius

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

[b]
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.[/b]
facinghistory.org/resource- … conformity

Deliberate?