You're increasing the complexity of your argument without considering what I've just said with regard to what the meaning of a term consists of.

The term is one elemental constituent. That fact refutes your initial objection. No kidding.

...how a person comes to hold awareness of a particular concept and, hence, of a conceptual meaning holds no bearing on what is here at issue... — javra

If the meaning of a term consists of the term, then when one cannot remember the term, one cannot remember the meaning...

Pretty simple and always true.

Meaning is a consciousness phenomenon, — Qwex

not true. Datamining algorithms discover tremendous meaning out of otherwise meaningless data-sets/bases.

The distinction between meaning and causality is one of elemental constituency. They are existentially dependent upon very different things. — creativesoul

logically that does not prove, or even evidence, that they are part of the same thing/process (e.g., forming knowledge). There can be multiple very paths/ways to the same result (e.g., knowledge). So, if 'causality' is one type of 'meaning' then they are not distinguished by elemental constituency differences but by hierarchy in a path for transforming information to knowledge.

Causality is not a type of meaning.

No — creativesoul

then you have to indicate which part of my clarification is not clear enough to you. I'm not going to play a guessing game on that after trying once.

Causality is not a type of meaning. — creativesoul

why not? give me a concrete, detailed example, not abstract, circular, statements.

None of it is clear. Not the first, not the last. Makes no sense to me.

Define the terms. Substitute the definitions for the terms. See what it looks like. I quickly performed this test and arrived at incoherence/self contradiction.

Causality needs no creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. All meaning does.

Causality needs no creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. All meaning does. — creativesoul

now I see why you think all I said was incoherent, b/c you are off topic and missing the point of the thread. The thread is concerning only 'meaning' to (human) creatures, not some abstract inherent meaning in the universe of things. In that light, your statement is nonsense. To further a meaningful discussion on this top, please restate your position on the relation of 'meaning' and 'causality' to each other in the context of its import to (human) creatures who use observations of causal relationships to infer meaning between the causally linked entities. Anything else is off topic.

...now I see why you think all I said was incoherent, b/c you are off topic and missing the point of the thread. — Sir Philo Sophia

:brow:

Give me one example of meaning that does not consist of a plurality of things as well as a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things.

That's all it takes to refute the position I've been advocating here. You've yet to have done so.

Touching fire causes pain. The correlation drawn between touching the fire and the ensuing pain makes both meaningful to the creature drawing the correlation. The correlation need not be drawn in order for touching fire to cause pain.

There's a simple actual distinction. Causality and meaning are not equivalent.

Everything is necessarily ‘meaningful’ to us if it is within our scope of attention. That — I like sushi

not true. attention is paid in hopes of finding something meaningful worthy of the attention, often we pay and expand the scope of our attention try figure out the meaning of something we initially had to little scope of attention to make any sense of. The quest for allusive meaning almost always expands the scope of our attention.

The correlation drawn between touching the fire and the ensuing pain makes both meaningful to the creature drawing the correlation. The correlation need not be drawn in order for touching fire to cause pain. — creativesoul

you are confounding so many things there it is incoherent. Introducing qualia adds needless further complexity and confounding. Pain alone, of course, is programmed to have meaning to the sentient agent. So, that is a non-statement. When it comes to the agent wanting to gain knowledge of how to best avoid experiencing that pain (or worse) again, it has to figure out that cause of it, so it has to seek out meaningful predictors of causing that event, and when it associates its touching the fire it creates meaning in the fire object as a meaningful source, touching as the meaningful process creating the causal nexus resulting in the qualia pain, thus the causal meaning created knowledge of how to avoid that pain/harm problem. In this way, you still have not provided us a concrete example which does not relegate causal relationships as one (of many) mode of creating meaning for use in building knowledge.

I used your own example to make my point. If you cannot focus on point out and correcting where you think my logic is wrong then, I'm afraid, we will not converge to anywhere productive.

So long...

:chin:

You're increasing the complexity of your argument without considering what I've just said with regard to what the meaning of a term consists of.

The term is one elemental constituent. That fact refutes your initial objection. No kidding. — creativesoul

An assertion of fact based on what evidence?

In all honesty, my experience contradicts it. Given that the experience which “tip of the tongue” specifies is universal enough to be termed in multiple cultures and languages, including sign language (here, “tip of the finger”), I’m quite confident I’m not alone in experiences where I know what I want to say but can’t find the term for it. The meaning is there; the term is not.

Again, if a term at the tip of one’s tongue is meaningless (because its meaning is forgotten along with the term, this since they're both are one and the same "elemental constituent"), than how would one be aware of there being such a thing?

Addressing this would be an argument. Again implying that it doesn’t fit your offered definition of meaning and thereby is erroneous would not be.

You're increasing the complexity of your argument without considering what I've just said with regard to what the meaning of a term consists of.

The term is one elemental constituent. That fact refutes your initial objection. No kidding.
— creativesoul

An assertion of fact based on what evidence? — javra

Every example thereof.

The meaning of a term always includes the term.

Again, if a term at the tip of one’s tongue is meaningless (because its meaning is forgotten along with the term, this since they're both are one and the same "elemental constituent") — javra

That is not a rendition of my argument.