Where does meaning come from?

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.

What happens when in one’s mapping a theft, murder or rape is observed? What symbols would apply in one of these sets of circumstances to obtain their relevant truth?

Anomaly654

Just a small reflection inspired from what I have read.

You have given me much to think about in your post - much of value to me - let me somewhat respond to a small piece of it now.

OK, I really like that: it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing - indeed - that is a new way for me to view it, thanks. I am not sure that it is common enough for the whole world to take notice - I personally notice people going about their daily business as if nothing has ever gone wrong. Those with enough intellectual capacity(including those on national news shows) are able to question but I think the general populace are still not situated where they need to be to help make a difference. I think as long as we can keep ourselves in check then adding a little of the theologically fringe topic is OK.

Perhaps a little off topic but I think worthy of inclusion . . .

Interesting side notes to the conversation/s taking place in this thread that can be extended to information, fact, truth, reality and a few others whether subjective or objective is a 2013 study by scientists: In 2013, scientists took 72 tenth graders and put them through a reading comprehension test with one catch: some read from paper and others from computer displays. Interestingly the paper readers performed better.

One reason the paper readers performed better is related to our spatial awareness of information. According to researchers, we don’t just read physical texts; we experience them. Similar to remembering a route you take with your car, you create a mental map of the material while reading. You can remember where bits of information are in relation to one another. With e-Readers, that connection between ideas is disrupted. It’s more difficult to create a mental image of how the pieces fit together.

< << <<< The following is not well formed but hopefully enough to start the conveyance from an idea to a fact >>> >>
While not immediately apparent the connection that I am trying to make here, I think there is enough in this phenomenon and my intuition to say that meaning as well as information, fact, truth, reality as well as what I might have missed to prompt an idea that just sort of popped into existence and that is there is a small amount of proof that meaning is not just internal to the person and that it is in fact a part of the universe or external existence and is connected to subjective experience.

I may have to reword what I have written for it to make perfect sense but for now I will leave it how it is.

This post may also help to backup why there appears to be this fragmental falsification that appears to be increasing.

Perhaps our technology is part to blame . . .

I see or “play with” four categories of existence:

  1. matter
  2. information
  3. value
  4. force/energy

These are just four aspects of a single reality, four different ways I’ve come to view existence. Notice that meaning isn’t included in the list. (Until recently I had five categories, but backed “properties-relations” out of it as they seem to be more “meaning expressions” of especially 2,3 and 4 than a separate category.) For me, meaning is an intrinsic feature or ‘reporting principle’ or characteristic of existents. Popular theories of truth and value (separate topics in academia it seems, but two aspects of a single topic from where I’m sitting) appear, as you seem to indicate in your last post, to place truth and value mostly or entirely in the mind. I think of meaning as something of a dynamic facet of information [and would be best explained from within #4 imo] such that it offers itself to intentionality—i.e., the meaning of existents unite with, or form an amalgam with, the meaning of living information (consciousness, apprehension) to provide “isness” to perception. It “feels” like meaning is in the mind, maybe because of our subjective ‘entrapment’ in a body, but in my world meaning is an instructor/instructiveness or conveyor of the informational content (the ‘that-what’ symmetry) in all existents by which understanding is obtained. To what degree this might be a two-way relation, I can’t guess.

Don’t know if this makes any sense to you en-de, but the reading experiment you referenced fits with this hypothetical construct of reality insofar as not all meaning is the same—some seems harder for the mind to grasp than others—so the differences between screen and text on paper makes sense to me.

You have them in the wrong order;

  1. force/energy
  2. value
  3. matter - a particular state of energy
  4. information - a particular state of value.

Hadn’t really considered any certain taxonomic arrangement. But now you mention it, seems to me matter should be consigned to either highest or lowest order, probably depending on one’s ideological stance. Not sure about the other three, have to give that some thought.

gib

I have this concept that I use, and hopefully I will get a chance to talk more about it, and that is the concept of interface, where two or more systems meet - in the case of this conversation many systems have met. There is the external system - the internal system - the interface between them. The ball/wall system that we previously discussed also have an interface because the ball and the wall can be considered to be two separate systems and a single system when combined. A combination is a little like a confinement in that you are setting limits to what the system is constituted of. The totality of existence is a confinement in that it is everything combined into a single system. Each subsystem is its own separate system and that would include the entire system of meaning as a subsystem of the single system of existence - there exists an interface between the meaning subsystem and the existence system and therefore an interface between the meaning system and the existence system.

These interfaces are like expressions and they become atomic upon the choosing of a bounded selection - a bounded selection is a confinement and a confinement can be a system(AKA subsystem). When we say meaning then what we are really doing is choosing a bounded selection of an atomic part of existence even though we have chosen the entirety of meaning - it is still an atom of existence - we are then free to choose a bounded selection of a select part of meaning(a sub-meaning which is still a meaning). My suggestion is that surface meaning is atomic to always meaning - that there exists an interface between surface meaning and always meaning. You can squish/squash the confinement but you are only changing its shape - you cannot divide a confinement because then it would no longer be the same confinement.

I am suggesting that division is infinitely possible - hopefully this first part made sense and you can see that . . .

Moving on . . . Take one of these lesser mentioned divisions and contrast them with what is left . . .

. . . to be continued . . .

This is interesting. Is the external-internal distinction an indicator of spacetime systems or can abstracta also have this sort of interface?

Everything here makes good sense except I struggle to see meaning itself as a subsystem. There are just a few things that I can’t place in an informational framework [‘that-what’ pattern for both spacetime existents and abstract entities]; feelings, sensations and emotions seem to be just feedback effects, reactions or expressions of consciousness (or living information) and not existents per se. Meaning is also in this category, but peculiar. I might be off here, but seems to me no one subsystem can contain every value or kind of information.

Maybe what I mean can be explained thus: In one subsystem [that of you and I communicating on ILP] I express this or that emotion and various ideas at certain points while you contribute others. The exchange of language and ideas are fluid and changing; different words are used at different times, truth content (actual and perceived) waxes and wanes, etc. So certain items of information, values, material components and energies are brought into and fade out of our subsystem at various times.

Yet meaning simultaneously inheres the information, values, energy and material interfaces of not only our but every subsystem at once. It isn’t divulged or extracted all at once, but is present to everything. This is why I struggle to see meaning as a subsystem of its own; while all other aspects of existence are partially present in any given subsystem, meaning permeates everything, everywhere, all the time.

Anomaly654

I am not one hundred percent certain how you worked that out but you are very close to the truth of the matter.

Very impressive.

I will have to put further thought into your post/s. I think I am beginning to understand how you are thinking.

I will work on an answer to this for you.

:smiley:

Anomaly654

I had a thought overnight that meaning could perhaps be an interface or at least be treated that way. I have this thing I like to call abstractive layers which work such that different ways of describing truths or facts belong to certain layers - how to know which layer is the difficult part but I kind of think along the lines that the more evidence available to support a theory or belief then the further along the abstractive layers that theory or belief belong.

Meaning as a subsystem might belong less further along the line of abstractive layers - yet I was thinking of meaning as being in a field and growing like soap bubbles in different parts of that field to eventually join up with other bubbles of meaning - just a tempting way to look at it I suppose.

Whether or not abstracta can have this interface I guess would be dependent on the type of conversation being had or theory or belief in play.

I hope this lends a little bit of intuition to my position so far - I am still in deep thought about what you have said.

I can see how this is true to a degree - yet I can see how intuition also plays a part.

I have no real issue with being proven wrong here James - I like to learn as you know.

Correct me if I am wrong but Metaphysics has more tools at its disposal than ontologies.

I like this idea of abstractive layering, makes a lot of sense to me. Seems to fit well with the “matter-information-value-force” perspectives. I need to give more thought to formal structure and will borrow this notion of abstractive layers as a rough working theory. Agree, logical structuring between realms is difficult. I think of existence mostly from an informational point of view [for theological reasons], only recently have expanded to other categories, so finding someone willing to share these ideas as you are is like finding nuggets of gold in my metaphysical pan, En-De. Thanks for your input.

Sure, I’m not disagreeing with placement of meaning in different domains, just noting that I’m a bit dull and have trouble moving it from the peg I’ve stuck it into in my thinking.

Truth is the words and concepts used to describe reality. Those concepts comprise the ontology.

Is reality described in a manner of degrees as effective as the either/or:is/ought descriptions? I ask since word choices are becoming more and more important to me when describing truth…reality. Why would a few degrees of relevance make something realistic…the truth? How can a few degrees of being this or that make something mostly or all of whatever you are describing? I have to take things in terms of percentages rather than some infinite amount of degrees (that’s too loosey-goosey for me), 100% is definitive, under or over 50% is definitive(either/or), 1% means next to nothing to me. Help!