Where does meaning come from?

Oh I’m afraid that you beat me to that one.

Totally irrelevant (and thus “stupid”).

Science’s assumption is their philosophical stance - “Realism”.

Interesting, understandable concept. Given this insolubility, do PtA and PHT ever finally intersect in your understanding?

You accept the status quo definition of truth as a relation. I think my approach—truth as an actual, dynamic quality that inhabits the essence of things and powers existence—has created a lot difficulties in trying to discuss the idea, probably also due to the fact [among others] that I tend to mix ontological and epistemological issues like most non-philosophers.

Point of convergence was just reference to subject matter of question in previous paragraph.

I think I’d better back off posting and study further, apparently am not putting pieces of AO together correctly.

I’ve been tinkering with this approach to understanding reality lately:

what what a thing is
how how things work
why why things work as they do

such that in the world I picture….
What truth as dynamic potential (force)
How provides thatness to particulars by producing dynamic point-locales (from Particularity) [energies; particulars] populated by assets (from Value)[forces; qualities, attributes, properties] of two kinds:
i. descriptive forces (physical properties)
ii. prescriptive forces (moral properties)
Why existence arranged due to truth’s fundamental organizing, coordinating nature (cohere, unify, fit together, unite, coalesce, etc.) Its forces form particulars (abstract and concrete) at point-locales, bundles of energies and forces whose interactions are an orchestration of internal or value-bearing energies (existents) with external force (Form). Truth as force forms factual energies, all of which bear descriptive assets, and some of which [organics] also bear prescriptive assets.

I’ve taken your descriptions of how AO uses PtA, PHT, Affectance [what] and its mechanics (above average ambient PtA=positive, below = negative, balanced = neutral, etc.) as “how”, but don’t understand “why” it works the way it does. What and how are ontological parameters, maybe why is more epistemological. Another possible problem is that how (methodology) is often framed in or leads to intuitive “whys”, but these are just parts of how things work and isn’t the sort of why I’m trying to understand.

In my thinking, placing truth as a fundamental cause [why] rather than relation [mental construct associated with “how”] seems to provide an explanatory model for the “what-how-why” prototype. If things develop naturally they just “are” and “why” need not exist; whats and hows are sufficient, why is just because stuff “is” and works as it does, e.g., laws of science. For example (though I know you have a disagreement in function here) to the observer, equal numbers of electrons and protons produce a stable atom due to attract-repel electromagnetic forces at work. The whats are protons and electrons as points combined into a particle, intuitive how is emf, with whats and hows populating each successive step. I just can’t grasp the why.

I was watching your 2D videos when this thought crossed my mind, was trying to imagine Affectance formation and its fundamental workings from different angles or viewpoints on the grid. One interesting idea I got from videos—if I have it right—is that of the universe as a pool or grid of PtA essentially “holding still” while affectance “affect upon affect” is merely fashioned and populates different/successive points on the grid, suggesting the illusion of movement. Somewhat like the hole theory of electrical current [electron] “movement” in a conductor?

life advances into its own purpose; the experience of its own existence.

Well certainly. PHT could never exist without PtA.

And perhaps it would be helpful, from the information standpoint, to think about the fact that data propagation causes delays in data propagation, right (affect upon affect)? Congestion in data flow, as experienced by ISPs for example, forms a inertia that requires time to move from where ever it is (assuming one doesn’t merely unplug the system). That is the exact same thing that is going on in physics that causes subatomic particles to exist that have inertia. Rather than data, the universe propagates affectance (or ultra-minuscule EMR pulses, if you prefer). The only difference is that data is a higher construct than mere affect and thus dependent upon lower constructs.

And that is the exact same way it is with PHT. The mind is a higher construct, requiring a lower construct to be built upon.

Very astute and accurate. although do keep in mind that the “grid” is purely mental. A “point” is merely a chosen location, not an object. There is no set distance between actual points. They can be chosen to be infinitely close or miles apart. The universe is a continuum containing segregable “objects”, not formed of objects.

Don’t know if En-De is around any more, but been mulling over how meaning would factor into the informational universe I play in. Along the lines of is there sound when an unobserved tree falls to the ground in the forest, I wonder: is meaning still there [in existents] without at least one mind to grasp it? For the moment I’m defaulting to “no”, but certainly not dogmatically.

Among the many problems I have trying to bring concepts about information into focus is trying to find coherent paths for explaining, 1. information just is value, and, 2. value just is force or energy. Occurred to me last few days that meaning plays a glaring role here, need to find out where it fits. I’d hoped that reducing factual and moral reality to “value” might negate the p - ~p chasm, but it’s still there, obviously. Not as harshly as we feel it in macro existence, but still there. View from meaning is the same: still divided.

I digress…could prescriptive(-force) and descriptive(-energy) values–whatever they might be when someone’s not thinking about them–be meanings, just from another perspective? Assuming that evaluations/measurements of any kind, factual or moral, are fundamental value expressions/meanings—might meaning be values acquired and encoded or structured into information arrangements which are then decoded in cognition and mapped to language [words]? In this scenario meaning and value are identical…is meaning just another word for value? Just rambling.

Oh yes, I am still around - hopefully I will be around for a long time yet. I am in a stage of deep thought, plus I have been working on ways to improve my website - this all takes time and sometimes I get writers block or something like that.

My state of deep thought is surrounded by the presence of seeking an answer to the question: what to write next? Eddington also says something similar to: the truth shines ahead as a beacon showing us the path.

I do enjoy your posts, very much. Interestingly your last post reminded me of a conversation I am having with Meno in the Reality vs Perception thread, of which I will not get into too much here. We are talking about a universal intelligence - perhaps it is the mind to grasp the fallen tree.

Perhaps just mental gymnastics . . . who knows ? . . this is the realm I have visited lately and I do desire a way out but only through resolution of what has sent me into deep thought. There are so many analogies that act as a beacon to show us the path.

I will think more about your post and post a more complete and pertinent answer. :smiley:

Meanwhile, keep smiling . . .

I enjoy you posts also…your answers never take paths I expect, but always provide fresh material to mull over.

I’ll probably incur the wrath of James for this, but the quote above touched something I’ve been thinking about for some years now. I accept operating within a single reality in life currently lived, but have wondered for some time if intellects have some limited power to create their own reality–a sort of “stored” modification of reality not accessible (or only partly accessible) in this life. The creation would not be wholly separate from existing reality, but would be more like using the resources of an existing piece of land [the one reality] to plant crops and build houses of our own design [new additions to the one reality]. Your comment that the one’s are still remembered after the equation is completed made me think this might be analogous to the way an author, for example, creates in her fictional characters and landscapes a quasi-reality which is somewhere reduced to mathematical precision whose meaning–which was taken and designed from materials at her disposal in this lived reality–is then stored and can later [after physical life] be accessed and participated in. This would hold true of all intellectual creativity (except that derived from the false, which would find no place in a landscape of true information). The idea is mostly theological, depends on a particular type of value available to intellectual operation that’s absent in other kinds of intelligence and other qualifying data, but your comments about stored memory seem to fit the overall concept.

No need to comment on previous post: beyond my belief that meaning, like information, inheres all existents and is necessary component of fabric of reality, have no idea where to place it. Beginning to suspect it’s too big to be “placed” anyway, which renders previous meanderings irrelevant.

Anomaly654

Interesting thoughts . . .

This is an example of material that requires deeper thought to analyse, that is, you can not briefly read it without thought and expect to understand where you are coming from. It is like a feeling in that it can be hard to express but we know it is there somehow. It also shows how external reality is stronger than internal reality - with a bit of luck you can see where I am coming from here. I am saying that there is some limited power to create a stored modification of reality but in the face of external reality it becomes decayed to a limited extent.

Interesting thought . . . accessing the ones would require us to playback reality in reverse to get at them from this reality. The author is already playing reality in reverse to get at her quasi-reality or should I say that in a way she reverse engineers physical life to store for future participation. She is not so much storing things in reverse as she is rearranging the new reality as she is going along.

Again we have more material that requires deeper thought to analyse and is actually relevant to the discussion. This fits my model of how cognition comes about in the first place and I like the way you say mapped to language. Backing up, I like the perspective you have presented here and I feel that meaning must have its mirror value in external reality so that when things do happen without the observer they still contain meaning. When you stumble across the fallen tree, it can be determined that the tree has fallen id est the ones have been remembered and further, meaning the tree was once standing.

Been thinking about meaning. Realized was limiting myself to supposing that meaning is a specific, ready-made quality or attribute within all existents, material or immaterial, waiting to be picked up on by a mind in contact with them. I’ve settled on a modification (for now) that meaning is only in things [in information] in latent form, as latent heat not available to a room thermometer is present in water vapor. Meaning is produced or brought into fruition or clarity in the mind, produced in apprehension by extraction from the information of the existent[s] being perceived–in ways similar to how the ear hears different sounds when different bells are struck, or color is meaning extracted from light at various wavelengths.

Of course I reserve the right to change my mind without notice…

Anomaly654

Excellent, excellent. I am looking again at a piece of the puzzle not yet discovered by myself - your words are illuminating. These said words still point me at two different forms of meaning - one in physical form and one in perceived form(which itself can also be considered physical) and it is a missing conceptual form that makes its way in as usual to confuse matters - this confusion I believe is what maintains a conversation and produces many important branches that should be looked at.

I agree that there is a latency involved where meaning is concerned with the human mind. I still wonder about the external and what is going on with meaning before it is captured by a mind - not intending on negating what you are saying however as I am trying to capture the two forms of meaning - that which is there to be captured and that which is perceived upon capture.

It seems sensible as you suggest that meaning is produced via the route of clarity of mind through the apprehension of information at the point of perception - I do however maintain that there is an external mirrored class of information that can be considered meaning in a primordial form, negating the need for a human mind to apprehend meaning in the first place - but again not destroying the significance of your previous statements which lead me to this conclusion.

I am sensing that I have missed something here - that is perhaps mentioned in a previous post of yours.

Ah yes, that was it. I think the answer to this question is a simple yes, by definition however. By me saying that there is a mirror value of comprehension(as I stated earlier in a different form) we arrive back at prescriptive and descriptive values observed only by form when no-one is thinking about them. Form in this instance being existence itself.

Zoot Allures

I think there is something that brings about the impression and/or idea, a flip side if you will. The complex is even perhaps compounding the degree of force which brings about the impression but can lose its power when it comes to the idea. An impression on the body can be mirrored to an extent by that which applies the force and brings rise to the cognition that helps to complete the picture of what is happening.

I agree with an “idea isn’t necessarily a linguistic event”.

I am also boldly saying that meaning is not reliant on human words to be. I am inspired by Hume to a large extent, however, I do think his model is incomplete and void of some necessary explanation, leaving holes in his thoughts on reality. I think of Hume as completing a part of the puzzle much the same as other philosophers have or do. I am not one who thinks that everything in philosophy has already been done.

For me this brushes the surface of what I am exploring and shows how many different ways meaning can be pointed to. You could say that I think meaning has its own essence - that which makes it do its thing - mean something. Perhaps this all starts before it is apprehended as an impression and/or an idea.

Oh, I agree. I also think the act of conceptualizing can lead to its own confusions and nonsensical statements.

Perhaps you are correct, but think of the ‘things’ that are gained along the way in the exploration. Emotion is at times a good motivator and is often overlooked as something that is to be ignored when making an analysis of any conceptual situation. I think emotion can help imaginativeness and originality. Emotion however is something that should be kept in its place along with everything else.

Are these references to a realist framework? This is a bit confusing as the statements, “mirrored class of information in primordial form” and "Form in this instance [as] existence itself" also offer a pantheistic explanation.

I may be missing your meaning here, but the first thing that popped out at me is how this statement fits with basic value mechanics of the true-true union as a necessary connection between the information of a semantically enabled agent and that of an LoA under consideration for the completion of [true] knowledge to develop properly. The “missing conceptual form” that confuses issues would be accounted for by the number of t-f connections in the equation, which naturally cause confusion within the LoA. Or is this very distant from what you intended by “two different forms of meaning”?

Anomaly654

Your last post made me smile. I will say that you are very observant.

I think these are two accurate observations - even though I never intended for it to be this way.

More of your analysis would be appreciated.

Anomaly654

I had to make a separate post for the following:

I would like more explanation on this and perhaps I could learn a few things here. Judging by your previous analysis I would guess that what you are saying is accurate but I have to humbly admit that I do not know exactly what you are saying - it is a little bit of a foreign language to me - I pick things up quick though.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your statement, “These said words still point me at two different forms of meaning - one in physical form and one in perceived form(which itself can also be considered physical) and it is a missing conceptual form…” Some of the reason I’m so disjointed in my approach is that I pretty much concocted my ‘metaphysical informational approach’ in a vacuum as a personal quest to solve a theological problem. Until three or four years ago I had no idea there was actually a body of literature dedicated to the philosophy of information. I’ve been studying furiously (or at least my old age version of “furiously”, which is pretty pathetic compared to a few years ago) to catch up on the academic parameters. Being about 1/4 through the Philosophy of Information: an Introduction I recognized that you used the term LoA in an earlier post, indicating your familiarity with standards for discussing the topic intelligently. Unfortunately, I’m playing catch up. It now seems the physical/perceived forms you mentioned reference the information-semantics divide established in Shannon information ideas.

Don’t feel bad, I’m not sure I even know what I’m saying half the time En-De. Was just attempting to “fit” my stuff into the orthodox format. The t-t union between agent and data received would pertain to an agent’s perception of each observable within an LoA, i.e., the establishment as true and accurate both the information received and the semantic content said information presents. Falsification in the process, either actual in the information of the agent or in terms of information that–even though transmitted with physical accuracy–doesn’t present quite the appropriate connotation to this particular agent, assuming variations in understanding of various agents for any given set of information. Any and all micro level t-f connections in the process would theoretically account for the imposition of Shannon’s entropy into the equation. Actually, I’m forcing this on his view; his notion of entropy was apparently only concerned with the actual information sent and received, exclusive of its semantics. I’ve pushed an entropy conclusion on the semantic side of things based on the informational “value states” of information organized appropriate to sender’s semantic intentions, and reception and processing (extraction and interpretation of semantic content) of that information by the receiving agent.

I may be way off base, but take comfort in the fact that even if I am, at least I still possess my property of rugged handsomeness. Will probably vanish from sight for a while to study, hopefully return more enlightened and throw fewer “missing conceptual forms” into discussion. In the interim, my apologies.

I have my doubts that you did misunderstand me.

Regarding your last post - you have made things much more understandable.

:smiley:

Anomaly654

I would say, some, if not most of the blame, is on me for us ending up in these ambiguous moments - I do this on purpose to encourage thought that is partially outside the box, to be figurative about it. There are problems with following convention too closely in many cases.

I dont know, I have my doubts that you did misunderstand me. I too am disjointed in my approach - I fail to see how anybody could come up with something groundbreaking by closely following convention - or at least we should be partially in a vacuum whilst partially following some convention.

I am very interested in your: The “Spiritual Mechanics” of Truth, by the way.

Yes but the thing to keep in mind is that I too have been in a vacuum, and my use of LoA, I have made my own, albeit still compatible with its original form. Standards are good but let us keep in mind that it is quite OK to agree upon a standard for conversation and later adapt a more common standard to reach more people. Regarding Shannon - hmm - my theories in this regard are less fundamental, if that makes sense, however, where they approach the physical, my theories tend to be more fundamental - in both cases I tend toward less mathematical precision and bring the conversation into words - hopefully understandable words. There is a reason for this that is difficult to explain but it depends upon algebraic relationships between the right words that allow for communication to take place without the need for too much formal logic. James S Saint’s simple method is to Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony and I think that this can be applied to other things quite easily. Extracting: Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce. These four words are quite powerful when it comes to conversation and debating - we have followed this already which is why we are still here making an exchange.