Where does meaning come from?

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!

James

Hopefully I am still “on track”.

I cannot argue with you here James - it is still true that Metaphysics has many tools including intuition in my book - I think we mostly agree with each other that truth is that which is in a manner conforming with reality - which I still believe presents it’s own definition problems but only by virtue of language. Still, in the context of mapping out a language, I can see this small issue disappearing.

Problems happen to come about by the way people use language from what I have been able to discern.

WendyDarling

You or perhaps James can beat me up later . . . :laughing:

First we don’t want anything to be loosey goosey - 1% should perhaps mean nothing to you. I think even 50% creates it own two problems - I am not suggesting that everybody follow degrees of belief - I am saying that a degree is useful for analyzing, so belief should be lent to the analysis and what appears to be true. At the end of the day however, even the analytical minded person has a need for sanity and this can only come about by stability in your reasoning(very likely what you already believe).

You are a truth seeker from what I have been able to determine and there is injustice to you in that which makes no sense and this to me is understandable and for this reason I say that all roads lead to Rome(figure of speech) unless one is walking the wrong way. To your question then >>

Only in the case of deep analysis is what I would answer. Word choices should be ever important when describing truth.

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps.

:smiley:

Not everything is interpretation. Observation of the physical through the senses is objectively real in the sense that what is experienced
can not be denied. The brain might interpret it differently if it so chooses but the actual observation itself remains above interpretation

A person cannot choose to believe

Ultimately I have no need for anything because my own physical existence is merely finite. But while I am alive I have a need for food and water and shelter. I have
other needs also which are not as necessary or important but which are nonetheless required to maintain a quality of life as opposed to merely existing. And for me these needs are intellectual for my goal in life is knowledge acquisition. So I need access to that which enables me to learn. This includes all serious subject matter
but especially physics and history and philosophy about which I am most interested

The small number of people who agree with me about there being no objective meaning to the universe has no bearing at all on how true that may be

Just because one does not see something does not mean it does not exist but one should be very sceptical of any evidence free assertion
Sometimes the meaning of evidence is changed to accommodate the knowledge gap but presenting evidence is what is actually required

I have no belief in anything as I see absolutely no reason to believe things that cannot be shown to be true either logically or empirically

The objective is what is actually true. The subjective is what human beings want to be true. There is no reason to ever conflate them