Where does meaning come from?

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?

I am speaking of language in general.

The misuse of communication is a wilful one, at least to a very large extent.

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.

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.

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

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.

One who strategizes might be tempted to lie, but in general strategizing has nothing to do with lying.

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.

This I am happy with.

:smiley:

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

surreptitious75

I appreciate your posts - I appreciate your posts because you are explaining things from your perspective and I see that you put effort into maintaining a rational level of thought - that is easy for me to respect - we may not agree on everything but I do respect what you have to say.

Well, I cannot argue with you here. I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in it’s place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use, even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps.
This as a matter of course is something I personally do not do when I am engaged in deep analysis - that much should be evident from a great number of my posts and most people just let me go with it - still I have not forgotten what is conventional and I do return to what convention I see fit at the end of the day. There are a few things in life that I still have a hard time accepting i.e. the justified use of particle accelerators, the real value of the genome project and taking the right or wrong path when it comes to strong artificial intelligence.

Given that these were only ever meant to be random thoughts - I do hope they are beneficial thoughts.

:smiley:

I think this is wrong because it can lead to dogmatism and defending ones position at all costs. A position should only be held for as long as it can be reasonably
defended. Once that is no longer the case then it must either be modified or abandoned completely. Furthermore dogmatism might lead to some other position
being defended at all costs and so it is best to avoid it altogether. The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so