Where does meaning come from?

gib

The changing is all the time because everything in the physical universe is changing all the time.

I am also saying that meaning’s shape is warping all of the time throughout the universe. We are impacted by new knowledge even on a biological level as we have already worked out - the interesting thing to take notice of is that our wisdom is in an up and down motion - for the lucky, mostly up - but there are times when our judgement fails us - yes, even our good judgement - I always recommend to myself not to panic when this happens.

Like I said, this stands by itself - and quite solidly.

You are very welcome gib.

:sunglasses:

Meaning is a way of attaining understanding about something. It is not knowledge but something more subtle. But unlike knowledge it is not objective so treating it as
if it was is unwise. When looking for meaning therefore the question should be asked from whose perspective? even though the answer is already known as it can only
be from human perspective. Is meaning easier to find if one thinks it exists? And is that because one actually wants it to exist? If so then how does one recognise their
own self delusion and confirmation bias? Why does there have to be meaning in the grand scheme of things anyway? Why cannot there simply be no meaning? Why can
not the things that make some seek meaning such as death not simply be accepted or welcomed rather than feared? So if meaning is subjective then why cannot it be
applied differently? And the answer to that is there is no reason why

As a nihilist [ atheist existentialist is a more accurate descriptor but I prefer nihilist for reasons of brevity ] who sees no objective meaning to the Universe I am very
sceptical of it being applied in such a way. And particularly as the line between objective and subjective becomes quite blurred for those using meaning like this. As
for me such a line is very clearly defined. I am more interested in what is true rather than what I want to be true since I have no say in the latter and so focus more
on the former. But even then one has to try hard not to confuse the two. I say there is no meaning in the grand scheme of things but is this because I think it is true
or is there a part of me that also wants it to be true? There probably is if truth be told but I try to keep such thoughts to a minimum as I have no real need for them

Meaning is also definition and interpretation of words, concepts and actions. Everything that exists is acting in that it behaves in a specific way. The specific way I do believe is meaning. This is how I view it anyway.

I disagree, I think it is a type of knowledge that is more subtle.

Now this is where I believe you are incorrect - not entirely though - as definition, meaning is objective(as in agreed standard) but as interpretation not so much.

The answer comes before the question otherwise there is not point to the question. Part of knowing is based on belief so you tell me how we are supposed to recognise our own delusions - what I do know is that some things work - I chase after the meaning question because it is working somehow.

I am not god(by anyone’s definition, from my point of view) so I am not sure why we seek out meaning - I know why I do - because it works - it gives us a language as to help us store our knowledge. Death would void meaning.

Why is there no reason why?

I must admit I have not been following it as pantheist logic. Obviously it is that and I do see what you mean.

Objective, subjective or whatever else-ive meaning I do not believe is confined to an ism.

Allow me to try a different approach - a psycho-jilted one - go with me on this one gib - respond as best you can.

Quality would then become a separate topic. Is disturbance not a quality? 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.

I think we can say the universe feels us - from our point of view there is an impression left by us for the universe.

I like the way you distinguish awareness.

I am not going to argue the finer points of your argument here.

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

Hmmm

I like this paragraph - it 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?

To think that there is no meaning - we may as well not do anything.

Pantheism might be a bit strong. How 'bout panpsychism.

I 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.

Prepared to be psycho-jilted.

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.

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.

I’m 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).

You mean how 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.

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

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