When you say, "Bring me the cup." and all they learned was the action of pointing to the cup when the sound, "cup" is heard, then why don't they just point to the cup, when you say that command? Wouldn't they need to learn the meaning of "bring" and "me"? Doesn't that require different actions and different lessons? Again, what they would be learning is what the words refer to. "Bring" is an action, not an object, and "me" refers to the self speaking the words. Your words refer to an action, which is why the child would perform an action, not recite more words.Consider the following Harry: When we teach a child the use of certain words we sometimes do it by using the ostensive definition model, that is, by pointing to an object and giving it a name. For example, I say cup, and I then point to the object associated with the the word cup. We may do this a number of times before the child starts to associate the word with the object. However, note that the way we are able to tell if the child has used the word correctly, is if they demonstrate the proper association - word/object. So do they use the word correctly in a particular context? For example, you tell them to get a cup, and they bring the cup. If they brought a pencil, then they would not have used the word correctly. One does not teach the meaning of the word cup first, one teaches the child how to use the word first, meaning comes later. — Sam26
To say that an action has to be performed in concert with a spoken sound in order to teach someone what the word means, shows that words mean what it refers to, not it's use. The cup is a perfect example. If you teach child the meaning of "cup", you end up having to show them a cup, not just use the word in a sentence. This shows that the meaning of a word is what it is referring to, not how it is used. If you are showing a child how to use the word, you'd have to use every sentence that the word "cup" can be used in. If you want to show what the word means, you have to show them a cup.This would also be seen in primitive man, before the advent of writing. Primitive man may have a sound associated with a particular action, a grunt or some such noise. However, if you don't perform the correct action associated with the sound, then you don't understand how the word is used within a community of language users. It's the community who establishes the correct use of the words, that is, they have established implicit rules associated with the noises they make. Note that there are no dictionaries at this point, they don't come along until much later in history. Moreover, when someone decides to write down meanings, these meanings come from how words are used in a variety of ways and contexts. — Sam26
↪creativesoul Sorry, had to edit out that link. The book is still in copyright, so I'm pretty sure it's illegal to host (and link to, I guess). — Michael
No one that I know of holds to that simplistic notion at face value.
Using words does both shows and attributes meaning.
— creativesoul
It's not the use of words that is meaning... — Harry Hindu
...the same string of words can mean different things. Meaning is tied to the cause of the words being spoken or written, which would be the intent of the speaker or writer.
One does not teach the meaning of the word cup first, one teaches the child how to use the word first, meaning comes later. — Sam26
I'm not sure I agree with this. I guess it depends on what you mean by external to thought. Let's consider a thought experiment. Let's suppose that there are a group of us existing as brains in a vat, and let's further suppose that the reality we are experiencing is fed into us via electrodes. Thus, everything we experience is within the mind/brain, all of us could be linked into a reality that we perceive to be independent of us, but actually all of it is happening within our minds. All of us can communicate via language, thus the meaning we attach to the words would have the same impact as any language, but it would be all internal, even though we believe we are seeing real things, objective things, it wouldn't really be external to what we thought. It would appear to our senses to be external, it would feel like we could move from place to place, but it would be a kind of illusion based on what our brains were fed via the electrodes.There is no meaning without something external to thought. So, if consciousness consists of thought, then there is no consciousness without something external to it. — creativesoul
So, if there wasn't anyone looking at the tree rings, then the tree rings don't mean the age of the tree? What you are saying is that there isn't any cause and effect relationship independent of a mind. What you are arguing for is solipsism.Meaning is related to causation, but it is not absent thought/belief. In other words, when there is no thought/belief there can be no meaning. Meaning is attributed. — creativesoul
So, if there wasn't anyone looking at the tree rings, then the tree rings don't mean the age of the tree? — Harry Hindu
What you are saying is that there isn't any cause and effect relationship independent of a mind. What you are arguing for is solipsism.
Let's consider a thought experiment. Let's suppose that there are a group of us existing as brains in a vat, and let's further suppose that the reality we are experiencing is fed into us via electrodes. Thus, everything we experience is within the mind/brain, all of us could be linked into a reality that we perceive to be independent of us, but actually all of it is happening within our minds. All of us can communicate via language, thus the meaning we attach to the words would have the same impact as any language, but it would be all internal, even though we believe we are seeing real things, objective things, it wouldn't really be external to what we thought. It would appear to our senses to be external, it would feel like we could move from place to place, but it would be a kind of illusion based on what our brains were fed via the electrodes.
Thus according to this thought experiment meaning wouldn't be external to what we thought, that is, we would derive all meaning based on the illusion of reality, the illusion of an objective reality. — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.