Where does meaning come from?

It ain’t so . . .There is no nihilist in me. I believe meaning is everywhere and not because I want it to be so - but because that is what is evident to me in nature. Your response was well formed given the jilted nature of my instigation. I wanted to see how well you would smooth out the bumps. Now I will combine some of our writing and add pieces to it and edit small pieces and you should see a little harmony present. Meaning should be evident

This is an experiment - if you take enough notice you will see that there is a kind of flow that was not there before.

< << <<< Disturbance can be harmony >>> >> >

. . . I must admit I have not been following it as pantheist logic. Obviously it is that and I do see what you mean. Pantheism might be a bit strong. How 'bout panpsychism. Objective, subjective or whatever else-ive, meaning I do not believe is confined to an ism. I have never thought of it as confined to an ism either–as in meaning makes sense in this-ism but it doesn’t in that-ism . . .

The quality of a good argument, a good debate and anything agreed upon can be seen as a sort of harmony when comparing the words of the interlocutors. Quality would then become a separate topic. Is disturbance not a quality? You might think of it as a class of qualities. When building a good argument you can see disturbance in it and this I believe is a type of meaning and knowledge. When having a good debate as we stated earlier, both parties are able to express differing points of view, enjoy the debate and still there is harmony in the disturbance - a type of quality involved. When people agree, it is hard to distinguish the outcome from the outcome. Yet when we agree, the previous state of the situation when we didn’t agree has been disturbed.

< << <<< Disturbance is a set of qualities >>> >> >

I can not distinguish one of my cells from the other - they are too small - the ones flowing through my veins present a particular difficulty. Yet they are built in to me. That’s a limitation of epistemic awareness. And “disturbance” is just the best word I could think of. I’d be cautious about running with it–as if to say: there are experiences that count as “disturbances” and there are experiences that don’t. The outcome for each person is different and yet they believe the outcome to be the same - two sets of qualities, experiences and ultimately meaning - one of the sets is disturbance or all of the sets are disturbance if not two of the sets.

< << <<< Disturbance holds meaning >>> >> >

Do we experience when we believe? What is knowledge? How are we defining knowledge?

Knowledge and belief as such aren’t experiences–they’re more like states or dispositions–in the sense that we can say: Joe knows X even though Joe may not be thinking of X. Similar with belief. But there are states of mind that we do experience in which we can identify the belief or knowledge. When Joe actually is thinking of X, I think we can say he is experiencing his belief/knowledge.

We are defining knowledge as the ability to say “X is the case” and to believe it (obviously, if you go with the Aristotilean definition, you also need truth and justification).

If not, then it still might be possible to say that the universe knows about us but only by way of some indirect physical effect that our more immediate effects on our surroundings have on the wider world (i.e. further along the chain of cause-and-effect). If, at some point on this chain of cause-and-effect that we initiate, the signature of the physical action in question qualifies as that which corresponds to knowledge, and if that knowledge is specifically about the original “feel” that we directly caused (the disturbance), then we can say that the universe knows about us. But I don’t take that as a foregone conclusion.

< << <<< Disturbance can be felt and becomes knowledge >>> >> >

This small essay points out one of the “most human traits” in nearly everyone that dare not think outside the box. Can you see the trait in these words? I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion? Why would I? I have no idea how to identify knowledge in terms of physical actions. To think that there is no meaning - we may as well not do anything. To think that there is meaning - we may as well do something.

Sophistry, art or neosophi? Let us conclude.

So with our combination have we presented a third point of view? A third set of opinions? A third meaning? A triangle has been formed by existence, the first person and the second person in the form of discussion and a disturbance has been left in the wake - somehow in some sort of harmony, a good or bad set of qualities and holding some sort of meaning to present to us new knowledge and a new slice of wisdom pie.

Oh, nooo!!! You’re a nihilist! Say it ain’t so! :smiley:

It ain’t so.

I am looking for things that I can calculate and so far I have discovered some patterns to our communication - patterns that show me that at all times there are multiple flows going on even when we think there is only one - I would say that there are thousands of different meanings being employed in a minute - these things are many and component to the conversation - the meaning of the conversation is modular and is made up of many smaller compressed meanings. Meanings are also connected to the outside world and within everything in the outside world there is more meaning. Meaning can be added to and subtracted from and there are other operations that can be performed too.

As per usual our conversation eventually gets out of proportion - isn’t it great - I find it stimulating. Pantheist or not, your insight is useful to my, whatever you would label it, kind of philosophy. I know I am not always remaining bounded. Identity does change gib and the components do constitute the whole but then I also think the whole is greater than it looks. Maybe it is the parts and the whole that constitutes a separate identity - an identity that is in contrast to its surrounding.

Hmm, this is an interesting way to think of things - this time I am getting your gist and developing one of my own.

I can understand this >> Objectively speaking we cannot say that people experience color the same way anyway - that is being sensible - there are millions of differences that become significant to each individual - still we can be reductive in our approach to gaining perspective on vision for instance - just not precise. I know a few people here that would love to waste my time arguing this concept but my only response would be to take their argument back to the drawing board because it holds not more validity than my own - likely less. This is objectively speaking.

No two planets are the same - no two birds are ever the same - and so on. Oh but we are people - oh but are we?

This strangely reminds me of the proton conundrum whereby the hydrogen atom’s proton is smaller than other protons - how can this be? Not to worry. I would say that equivalence is more like setting standards and I would really like to see you argue me on this - no really I would . . . I think because it would help us uncover something new and I am all about the new. Now the relation part you are mentioning is important to me - obviously - it is how I am basing my contrast for a start. Things are only relative in contrast to other things - in other words they only appear the same but are in fact always different - hard for some to grasp, no doubt, but empirically able to be proven the case. We can only conceptualize reality we can never nail it entirely - we can say that tolerances are changing all of the time and they are relative to our conceptual understanding - there is enough stability for us to work with. I hope I am making sense.

Oh this is very true >> No one atom is having the same experience as its conceptual counterpart. Can we really say that two atoms experience the same state of orbital electrons in any given moment - we would have to look infinitely close for that and that as far as I know is impossible. When we compartmentalize states the rock becomes the shell state and not the collective atomic state. As you say “a flurry of diverse and conflicting experiences” is what the atoms experience but conceptually the rock is only in contrast to its background and the atoms collectively - there might even be a dimension missing here. I would say that the space the atoms collective occupy and the rock occupy are the same and they are the same as what the measurements represent in one instant - so there are a number of equivalence relations going on but they are always relative to our knowledge of them and the meaning we apply to them.

Hmmm, I will leave this as is for now - why I dont know - just a gut feeling.

:-k

Perhaps meaning is a critique of the myth of the given. Humans traditionally live in a world which is hostile to them. From this, there is the myth of the given, like the bear who eat a human. But reality is not that fix given, but with Peirce an order of signs. And meaning does represent what is the Fixation in the myth of the given.

Encode,

It seems what you are doing here is to interleave your comments with my comments, making them read seamlessly together. This seems to demonstrate that when an exchange unfolds like this where the two parties involved agree with each other, or find it easy to reconcile their difference, you could read them as though it were a single individual just writing his or her thoughts. If you were to instead interleave the thoughts of two parties who vehemently disagree, that would be quite a jarring read indeed.

^ How am I doing?

Now, your second post strikes me as an actually response to what I said (you know, in the usual sense of responding to the content). You said:

Well, if you ask me, meaning is not “atomic”–that is, it can’t be broken down into simple indivisible units the way matter can–which is not to say it can’t be broken down, but that if it is to be broken down, it is by any arbitrary method that we choose–much like in the way 1 can be divided up into .5 and .5, or .25 + .25 + .25 + .25, or .1 + .9, or 8-9+2. There are no “atoms” of meaning, in other words, but meaning isn’t indivisible either. It’s more like the idea of matter that some of the ancient Greeks held, the ones opposite to Democritus and his theory of the atom, that said that matter is infinitely divisible. But for me, this idea must be accompanied by my concept of equivalence (if you’re gonna invent the atoms of meaning as you see fit, you can’t very well rely on identity). So if you find the meaning to something, and you divide that into smaller “component” meanings, those components, even collectively, may only be equivalent to the original meaning, not identical.

Well, I think this is just how the human brain works: it identifies objects based on the collection of its parts (based on the conglomeration of its features and components). After having identified that collection, it gives it an identity over and above the full collection of components–so yes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts–and this whole is defined by its its boundaries, which, as you said, allows it to contrast with its surroundings.

You are a brilliant writer, encode, with penetrating insight. You are one of those thinkers that leave people like me with much to think about. Thank you for that.

gib

I am so happy that you understand the approaches that I was taking. :smiley:

I think your response is worth my while putting some thought into, so if you don’t mind giving me a few days - I will have something for you then.

Kind regards,

Aaron.

:sunglasses:

…so meaning is acquired over the years. from experiences? :-k

…which may be why city folk start moving out… to seek a quieter life elsewhere, to gain meaning back into their lives.

…meaning that there is comfort in meaning?

…running on all cylinders all of the time? sounds very exhausting., especially if you lived in a city centre.

Perhaps such types are restricted by capacity? having less of it than others in order to create a more meaningful existence for themselves… I too have seen and known such types. Samsara, perhaps?

You have summed up the current state of the world nicely here… the pressure on the individual is now immense… shifted from the top down, or has it always been like that and I am only just realising it now? :confused: We now have obligations that have nothing to do with our immediate circle or peers, but of everyone.

Humans don’t flourish well in the wrong or negative environment, but do what they can/must to live some semblance of a meaningful life. :eusa-violin:

Now that is a nihilist. :mrgreen:

surreptitious75 wrote:

Oh, I don’t know. If you sit under this beautiful giant Oak on the hottest day of the year ~~ let’s say 115 degrees lol and you feel all refreshed and new and cool, doesn’t that sense of qualia which you are experiencing (meaning) tie in with the function and purpose of that Oak?

I may not be expressing this well but do you not think that there are times when the meaning does not so much come from us but is derived from the sheer utility of something in itself (the Oak). If that made sense. Maybe not. Maybe I am wrong here. #-o Perhaps it is all the Mind.

.

I do not think that that is necessarily so. When I look up at the stars and see their great beauty and mystery, can almost feel their heat and energy, the last thing on my mind is that “Oh, they must be there for a reason”.

The heart needs no reason and the play of beauty on the mind/psyche is for its own sake, not for that of interpreting the universe.

Of course, on the other hand, at some point, meaning may creep in ~~ one may feel that the Universe is there for their pleasure, that they have been graced by it. But denying and resisting that is denying our own humanity and what gives us that urge to go on - that life can be good ~ even though it is simply based on the qualia of that interface between the Universe and our Self.

Could something which has the capacity to be something have a reason behind it?

Of course it can. The reason for being is the possibility to exist, or not. To be or not to be is the ultimate question. Which suicides sorrily reasoned into the wrong conclusion

But really the deeper question is, to what can they credit to their reasoning? To truth, or to fiction. The meaning of this ultimate question pertains to understanding of the most basic concepts of faith, love, compassion, capacity, and utilization of tools of clarity.

Meaning when unhinged from the manifestation of conceptual symbolism do not demark all effects of.civilization, when humanity denies its own humanity in reference to the Ape, then what we are doing is doing disservice to the animal. The thin slice, the facade of.civilization hides the tremendous undertow of pre civilised man, a well meaning docile animal perhaps.

It’s is.fearless of a hunter to go into the deepest jungle and understand really how fragile a construction of civilization really is. It’s discontent and its overcoming are.heroic attempts.to salvage at least.some.presumptive urges.

surreptitious75

I always find your posts interesting enough to read and consider them not to be a waste of time to spend some time thinking about them. I find myself disagreeing with a significant amount of what you say, even though I do not see this as a negative thing. I will say that we are inseparable from the universe that defines us.

You say that you see no objective meaning to the universe but clearly this is just you and a small group of people. I also know that just because one does not see something, does not mean that it does not exist - so you have a belief of some sort - this is clearly evident. I would be interested in what ways you think that I have blurred the lines between the objective and the subjective. What do you mean by using meaning like this? What is this?

??? Clearly defined how exactly ??? How do you know what is true given that everything to do with your existence can be boiled down to electrochemical signals interpreted by your mind? Everything is really just an interpretation to us. For the human being there is no absolute truth, just and interpreted truth that seems to work the best - I prefer to keep the mind open just in case I am missing something along the way and there might be the chance of detecting the said something. In all cases any given person goes with what they want to be true; a person chooses to believe what makes the most sense.

What exactly do you have a need for?

:-k

Brando

I am somewhat lost by what you have written so I make the request that you give me a little more information or further your thoughts here.

I can only make assumptions based on what you have written. I understand the hostile world as you have written it. Myth of the given, I am a little lost on.

Clearly meaning is tied to every connection that exists - take us out of the picture and there is this human-non-interpreted meaning that still exists because a why and a how can exist with out us or at least the universal interpretation of it.

:smiley:

Truth and meaning are some of my favorite topics, so I’ll jump in.

First, I agree wholly that truth is the “greatest treasure” and I mourn its erosion in society.
The way I see the world, meaning is a natural “byproduct” of information and information is being or “isness”. This hardly an extensive or all-encompassing definition, but maybe it’s a starting point.

gib

I have become fixated on part of your post - I look forward to responding to the rest of your post soon.

It would pay off for us to remember this:

- without any of the people that have taken part in this conversation . . .
. . . what chance would remain that the conversation would have went this way -

I say this for a reason that I will leave for now and instead say something else . . .

. . . " something else " . . .
Our minds are at the very least, working on taking in that which is useful to us, and trying to filter out any garbage - garbage is something each individual unconsciously defines, and filters following some conscious thought into what the definition should be - hopefully I wrote that right.

each one of us, is eventually to be wrong about something, inevitable it seems, yet we journey on . . .

. . . searching and finding meaning . . . meaning that is to an extent, also partially predefined by our expectations and/or wants.

You are right on regarding my experiment of interleaving comments to lessen the appearance of a seam, and I think the experiment was worth the trouble. For one it highlights the connections made between interlocutors. It also pointed out the objective flow of the conversation as far as I am aware - and I will say clearly pointed out - to me at least - but I sensed you have picked up on this, hence my happiness in your interpretation of these events.

You: Now, your second post strikes me as an actual response to what I said (you know, in the usual sense of responding to the content).

Me: Indeed you are very correct. :smiley:

There is a chance that meaning is not atomic but I am hoping you see the beauty in everyone being unique and thinking differently, even when they are being harsh. I am breaking meaning down in an atomic and yet causal way - there is a flow of sorts that of one(usually more) thing leading into another. We are able componentize nearly anything on any scale - we break our own world up, seemingly in an infinite fashion - why not the same with meaning? We do compress meaning a lot - there are many words that we use to do this and yet we still attempt to atomize everything - generally the smallest units that make sense. There should be no doubt by now that meaning is connected to the environment and not just the person and yet there are those who believe different - and why is that do you think? What limits do these mentioned beings place to allow for this kind of belief system(of sorts).

This to me is very well stated - I suspect there is slight disparity, even though I really like what you have written here and I wonder what mechanism will come into play to rectify this disparity - that is what I allow to happen - some call it “go with the flow” but that is not exactly what I am doing as is evident in many of my responses.

This sentence of yours: There are no “atoms” of meaning, in other words, but meaning isn’t indivisible either; leaves me with a lot of food for thought. It is the one sentence that will help me construct meaning for your words that follow:

Somehow, I see here, a doorway to intelligence - I don’t mean your obvious intelligence - I mean as a means to analyse any intelligence.

Hopefully I can find a way, to put what I have last expressed in this post, into better words . . . thinking time . . .

:-k

Anomaly654

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to this conversation.

I am glad that you agree that truth is the “greatest treasure” and I too mourn its erosion. I like the way that you have responded and I will put a little more thought into giving you the response that you deserve - I actually think your response is elegant and a perfect starting point to be used on many facets of meaning.

:smiley:

MagsJ

There is much I am able to harvest from the interaction we have had . . .
. . . and I am not sure my response in this instance indicates that but I will do my best for this occasion.

It can be and I think this is definitely a part of it. Each year certainly adds a new “aspect” to each of our existences. Nostalgia I guess is what we have chosen to be the things that are important to us at a foundation level - so when you are remembering something fondly then this is but one element of who you truly are. I personally think it is our subconscious doing the shaping of our foundation and it can be helped along through conscious thought and remembering, with and without intent.

Totally, which makes me wonder why small town folk do the opposite and move to the city - is the greatness of a city perceived to be a cure to the monotony of a small town living circumstance? We can say too that we eventually fall into a monotony, living in the city. Perhaps the small town person moving to the city is liking the idea of more choice - perhaps choice is the problem . . . but then I imagine that with less choice comes less meaning - so I think we end up looking for completeness instead. We just want to feel completed. We want to be particular and stand out by limiting our choices(in turn honing our abilities in these choices) because it is easier to complete the smaller than the larger and on the other hand we like to have options in front of us to take away these limitations. We humans are in constant battle with ourselves.

There is to be had, much comfort in the completeness of meaning, as it focuses on our-self

Well, I cannot argue with you here. I will say though that I believe our subconscious is always running on all cylinders – perhaps warranting thought to some of what I have previously said. Learning to release some of the battles of internal conflict into the oblivion.

Consciously rejecting the less meaningful . . . more thought required!

I think you are correct - I think meaning can still be gained at a simpler level but I think it is less meaningful. I do not think an aimless existence is healthy or conducive to a fruitful life and I do think that wisdom can help us to trim the aimlessness off of our being. Being practical in our decision making should of course be balanced with a healthy imagination of possibilities else how can we break free of any cycle?

No, I think you have completely nailed it with regards to your question - at least I totally agree with you here.

Yes, again I totally agree.

:sunglasses:

Although not aimed at myself - I answer yes.

:wink:

Thanks for the welcome.

Kind words, again thanks. Look forward to discussion.

Anomaly654

I now present to you a kind of basis for conversation from my point of view and I welcome yours too.

My only hope for now is that this is an acceptable format . . .

First we should consider what truth actually is: I prefer one of the usual meanings—that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. But this meaning presents it’s own two problems and they are >> 1. What is fact? and 2. What is reality? The fact part is easy given that it is synonymous with truth but reality is not so. How do we define real given that there appears to be more than one version of it?

I started out with the idea of a more abstract mental impression of meaning - a subjective experience of it - because I believe it ties in with reality, logic and emotion id est my version of mind and its ever changing nature which is in contrast to the ever changing nature of that which surrounds it.

Affecting and being affected . . .

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.

Truth then becomes hard to nail down to an exactness that we all seem to wish for and hence we spend time in disagreement trying to sort through it. It is evident to me that belief and truth hold great meaning to the individual and yet it is not one hundred percent clear to me whether meaning starts out as external or internal.

So I would change what I originally said to: This mental pathway shows how it can be said that truth, the alchemy of philosophy, is one of the greatest treasures as it leads to the giving of value itself, to self-knowledge, to value-knowledge and perhaps meaning. Everything else of value would be derivative.

What is it that is being eroded? Perhaps an agreed upon truth . . . a truth of the past—I can say with a level of certainty that this is the case but what of what remains? Some truth appears to be permanent like what happens to a person falling out of an aircraft at 20 000 feet.

Now we get to the part that really interests me - your concept that meaning is a natural “byproduct” of information - I once wrote the following as a device for further thought and I think it is good enough to get the gist of where I come from on the topic:

► Everything known was once unknown.

► Everything there is still to know already exists, it is just undiscovered, un-evolved an un-configured.

► Everything can be expressed as information.

► Discovery is just the unknown configured into formation.

► Inception is formation.

► Unknown in-formation is known.
To get my point across I had to play with words a little. If as you say meaning is a natural “byproduct” of information and information is being or “isness” then I would say that information is being or “isness” because everything can be expressed as information and lack of information cannot be and is not.

Meaning is the expressed byproduct of the expressed information of everything that affects and everything that is being affected - all else is not there.

Hopefully you can see why your comment stimulated this line of thought and why I thought your words held merit at the time I said that and from my point of view, still do. I don’t expect a response to this post because as I said to start with I am only laying the foundation from my point of view.

I have said this quite regularly and I will say it to you: apologies for any errors in logic that I may have made in advance.

:smiley:

I don’t think I have a firm enough idea hammered out of what reality is to be able to offer much of interest on the subject. But as to truth, I see the ‘standard’ theories—the most popular being correspondence, which you appear to start with—not as theories of what truth is, but as declarations of what it does. I started years ago with Aquinas’ interpretation of Avicenna in the Summa, Part One, Q. 16, A. 1, "Whether Truth Resides Only in the Intellect?”, “The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it.”

From here, I factor in Mortimer Adler’s comment in “Ten Philosophical Mistakes”… “In Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, clearly cognizant of what he himself had said about the character of descriptive truth, declared that what he called practical judgments (i.e., prescriptive or normative judgments with respect to action) had truth of a different sort. Later philosophers, except for Aristotle’s medieval disciples, have shown no awareness whatsoever of this brief but crucially important passage in his writings.”

…to answer your first question, what is fact? Facts as I see them are (as you suggested) relations derived from a union of truth content of the intellect (“living” information) in union [apprehension] with truth content in external states of affairs. Facts are truths discerned of the so-called material realm. This seems in line with your comment,

As to question 2, best answer I can give might be taken from Joseph Margolis in his Introduction to Philosophical Problems, where he identifies the difference between, "…the nature of numbers and…of fictions and the nature of perceptual objects and the like…where we hold that we may think of, or consider, or admit, or refer to, or speak about, whatever we may (in purely grammatical terms) make predications of, we are referring to what “exists1”—which does not, as such, commit us to holding that what we refer to exists in the actual or real world (“exists2”, or “really” or “actually exists”).

I apologize if I’m piling on too much unwanted info, but in order to attempt an answer to your later questions I feel the need to flesh out where I’m coming from as it’s a bit unorthodox.

In my book, both existence1 and existence2 are “real”, though as Margolis notes, not equally real.

I agree completely with your position here, and might explain it thus: Everything that exists is information, and all information (being) is value-bearing. Most informational entities (both existents1 and existents2) are truth-bearers. All matter is truth-bearing—hence, part of our ease discerning factual value. I use the term “value-bearing” because there is also falsity. Only one type of information can be falsified: the intellect. Though I haven’t an articulate defense just yet (I’m still drawing breath and am working on it), I believe “freedom” of the will (such as it is) wields the power to fragmentally falsify the truth-bearingness of consciousness or the intellect. It seems to me a state of indistinctness and uncertainty with respect to abilities to process, discern and hold true beliefs would logically be the natural state of a fragmentally falsified consciousness–hence our inability to understand, recall, express, etc. clearly.

Falsified information is prescriptive because the intellect, though united with matter, is pure prescriptive value/information. This prefaces how I’d answer your question:

It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing. It’s now common enough knowledge that there is something going noticeably “wrong” with our social/moral/political/cultural affairs that it’s being questioned even on national news shows. But of course I’ve now approached the threshold of theology, and philosophy prefers to not mingle in what to her is so odious a house. I’ve enjoyed our walk nonetheless.

This sounds quite reasonable to me. Good stuff, thanks encode_decode.

Truth is the ontological choice of symbols with which to construct a map of the terrain called reality.