Where does meaning come from?

[encode_decode]

Anomaly654

Interesting thoughts . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Anomaly654]

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...

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

i agree with hume in that everything we can be aware of can be classified as either an impression or an idea, the only difference between the two being 'the degree of force and liveliness', as he put it. further, an impression and idea can be simple or complex.

an impression (on the body) occurs when sensory data excites the nervous system, so impressions are not cognitive, but activate cognition the moment the sensation gives rise to the awareness of the impression. at this point the idea comes into being. an idea, in turn, isn't necessarily a linguistic event... it doesn't have to be in the form of inaudible thinking with words 'in our head', but can be simply the sensation or feeling of the effect the impression has on the body. if the sensation/feeling is associated with a learned word or phrase (being a signification), awareness of the impression becomes cognitive as well; one can 'think' about the sensation and describe it in terms as well as simply 'feel' the impression's effect... or we should say the 'contiguity of its event' with the experience, as hume would say.

hume's model is eloquently simple and has stood the test of time.

of course this is to explain briefly how 'meaning' is made possible in empirical terms, but not exactly 'what' meaning is. there are different kinds of meaning, different ways in which the word can be used sensibly:

x will result in y (you can replace 'result' with the word 'mean' and eliminate the preposition)

x is the same thing as y (x means y)

'what is she trying to say?' (what does she mean)

'that part i understand' (one is aware of a meaning)

the philosophical use of the word can lead to conceptual confusions or nonsensical statements. questions like 'what is the meaning of life' isn't asking what 'life' means unless it is asking what the definition of 'life' is... but it isn't asking that. it's asking all kinds of things that can be answered in all kinds of ways. what is life 'for', or what is life 'about', or what kind of value life 'has', etc.

this kind of speech is more poetic and emotive than it is prosaic, and as such it leaves open the possibility of some extraordinary ambiguity in answering the question.

[encode_decode]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

[encode_decode]

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.

x will result in y (you can replace 'result' with the word 'mean' and eliminate the preposition)

x is the same thing as y (x means y)

'what is she trying to say?' (what does she mean)

'that part i understand' (one is aware of a meaning)

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.

the philosophical use of the word can lead to conceptual confusions or nonsensical statements. questions like 'what is the meaning of life' isn't asking what 'life' means unless it is asking what the definition of 'life' is... but it isn't asking that. it's asking all kinds of things that can be answered in all kinds of ways. what is life 'for', or what is life 'about', or what kind of value life 'has', etc.

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

this kind of speech is more poetic and emotive than it is prosaic . . .
. . . and as such it leaves open the possibility of some extraordinary ambiguity in answering the question.

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.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

"I am also boldly saying that meaning is not reliant on human words to be."- encode_decode

if you mean that things are to some extent what they are independent of our knowing them, i'd agree. but do these things 'mean' anything? what do they imply other than the fact that they simply exist?

what something 'means' is what that thing is ABOUT, or what about that thing exists other than the sheer fact of its existence. no? if yes, the thing has to be known first in order for something to be known about it; what it CAN mean.

things aren't reliant on language to 'be', but what they mean, certainly is.

how else could you make statements about the meaning of meaning without using words?

"Perhaps you are correct, but think of the 'things' that are gained along the way in the exploration."- encode_decode

sure. all speech and literation has an effect on the body in some way. a subliminal effect you might say, that is on another kind of non-literal level... like a poetic, or metaphorical, or allegorical level. even simple phonetic sounds have visceral effects. if i growled 'grrrr arghhhgaaa!!', language processing centers in your brain would fire up and you'd 'feel' that i wasn't expressing timidity, but aggression. that sound i made meant something, communicated something, and yet it wasn't semantic in any way.

i think much of philosophy consists of laying out a jumble of semantics and kinds of syntax that contain individual words or phrases that get unconsciously 'flagged' by the mind and sorted into largely subliminal meanings and effects. like i can read a philosophical paragraph and without knowing what the hell the dude's saying, i can deduce that he's complaining, or protesting, or glorifying, or mocking, etc. i pick up the tone of the literation and know without him indicating anything, that he feels such and such a way.

meta-linguistic structures, if you will. language behaves and gestures just like people do, without needing to be perfectly ordered semantically and syntactically to do so. the thing is, should philosophy be one such kind of imperfectly ordered language? some serious philosophers say 'no fuckin' way, jose.'

btw, i started a forum and will pick up this convo there with you, if you'd like to join: http://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com

[Anomaly654]

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

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.

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.

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 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"?

[encode_decode]

Anomaly654

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

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

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.

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

More of your analysis would be appreciated.

[encode_decode]

Anomaly654

I had to make a separate post for the following:

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"?

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.

[Anomaly654]

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.

Anomaly654 wrote: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"?

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.

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.

[encode_decode]

I have my doubts that you did misunderstand me.

[encode_decode]

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

[encode_decode]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.