And there's also what a word means: which is objective. — S

The meaning is the subjective stuff. Thinking about things associatively, the picturing and conceptions we perform, etc.

The meaning is the subjective stuff. Thinking about things associatively, the picturing and conceptions we perform, etc. — Terrapin Station

No, that's just the related mental activities. They are what they are, and meaning they are not. The meaning is what it means. The meaning of "boat" is not my thinking about it. The meaning of "boat" is a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine. You miss the point by rightly saying that that's a definition, but the point is that it expresses the meaning. Obviously I can't give you the meaning without expressing it to you. That's how I give it to you.

The meaning of "boat" is a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, — S

Nope, that's the definition. The meaning is different.

Again, the definition is simply the text strings (which is what you've presented) or sound "string" etc. There's no meaning in that. The meaning occurs in you thinking about the text strings.

Text can't literally express anything. It's just ink marks or whatever. That's the whole point of noting that objectively, it's just ink marks. There's nothing else to it.

Nope, that's the definition. — Terrapin Station

Predictable. Yes, it's the definition. That's how I express the meaning to you. How else could I possibly do that?

The meaning is different. — Terrapin Station

No, the meaning is what I just expressed to you. It's no different to that.

Again, the definition is simply the text strings (which is what you've presented) or sound "string" etc. There's no meaning in that. The meaning occurs in you thinking about the text strings. — Terrapin Station

Regarding "occurrence" in this context: you're talking weird again because of your weird views.

The definition is the words which convey the meaning. The meaning is what it means. What it means is a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine.

Your error here is a finger/moon, use/mention, de dicto/de re kind of error.

Predictable. Yes, it's the definition. That's how I express the meaning to you. How else could I possibly do that? — S

You can't literally "express meaning to me." You can say and do things that I assign meaning to.

The meaning is what it means. What it means is a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine. — S

That's not what it means. There is no meaning in a text string qua a text string. We have to think about it in a particular manner in order for it to have meaning.

You're taking metaphorical ways of speaking to be literal. It's a form of projection. Projecting mental activities into the (extramental) world, as if the (extramental) world itself is doing the activities in question.

It's the same exact mistake that people make when they take moral or aesthetic utterances to be objective.

You can't literally "express meaning to me." You can say and do things that I assign meaning to. — Terrapin Station

That's funny, because I just did express meaning to you. I'm doing it now. That's how we're communicating successfully enough.

The meaning is what it means. What it means is a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine.
— S

That's not what it means. — Terrapin Station

That's what it means. You don't know what "boat" means? :brow:

There is no meaning in a text string qua a text string. We have to think about it in a particular manner in order for it to have meaning. — Terrapin Station

The text is meaningful because it has meaning in the language. That's already established. We only have to do that mental stuff of which you speak in order to understand the meaning.

Ironically, you do not understand what it means to understand, as opposed to what it means to have meaning. You're muddling up the distinction.

That's funny, because I just did express meaning to you. — S

No, it's funny that you're insisting this, because you didn't. I assign meaning to things like text strings. It's not somehow, mysteriously-in-some-manner-where-you-can't-possibly-pinpoint-the-properties delivered to me via lightwaves. It's a way that I think about it. Communication involves us both assigning meanings in a manner that makes sense to us.

That's what it means. You don't know what "boat" means? — S

Sure I do, and I can't tell you, because meaning is a mental activity. There's not a way to make a mental activity into lightwaves, etc.

The text is meaningful because it has meaning in the language. — S

What is "having meaning in the language"--text strings?

I've given you what understanding is functionally already. We had already talked about this.

You're taking metaphorical ways of speaking to be literal. It's a form of projection. Projecting mental activities into the (extramental) world, as if the (extramental) world itself is doing the activities in question.

It's the same exact mistake that people make when they take moral or aesthetic utterances to be objective. — Terrapin Station

You're making the mistake of overthinking what's simple and evidently true: that I'm expressing meaning to you through language.

You're making the mistake of overthinking what's simple and evidently true — S

People say that objective/factual morality is simple and evidently true. Do you agree?

That's funny, because I just did express meaning to you.
— S

No, it's funny that you're insisting this, because you didn't. — Terrapin Station

Then how did you receive my meaning loud and clear, as evidenced by your reply? :lol:

You understood the meaning that I expressed to you.

Sure I do, and I can't tell you, because meaning is a mental activity. There's not a way to make a mental activity into lightwaves, etc. — Terrapin Station

You can't tell me what the word "boat" means? That's very funny. You might have just overtaken the guy who said that rocks don't exist.

What is "having meaning in the language"--text strings? — Terrapin Station

Having meaning in the language is having a rule in the language that makes sense.

Then how did you receive my meaning loud and clear, as evidenced by your reply? — S

I didn't. I assigned meaning to it. I said something that was correlated to the meaning I assigned. You assigned meaning to that. We both did this in a way that made sense to us, that was consistent to us, etc.

The above is what (mutual) understanding is. Understanding doesn't involve literally sharing meanings.

Having meaning in the language is having a rule in the language that makes sense. — S

Makes sense to whom? Rocks?

People say that objective/factual morality is simple and evidently true. Do you agree? — Terrapin Station

That's a false analogy. Moral objectivists and I absolutely agree that there's a right and a wrong. That's an appropriate analogy here. You're like a moral nihilist who denies this simple and evident truth.

That's a false analogy — S

That's a false accusation of a false analogy.

Then how did you receive my meaning loud and clear, as evidenced by your reply?
— S

I didn't. — Terrapin Station

:rofl:

Are we in a Monty Python sketch?

Having meaning in the language is having a rule in the language that makes sense.
— S

Makes sense to whom? Rocks? — Terrapin Station

That makes sense per the rules of the language. In English, "The don't why up on the change please you can", doesn't make sense.

That's a false accusation of a false analogy. — Terrapin Station

That's a false accusation of a false accusation of a false analogy.

That makes sense per the rules of the language. In English, "The don't why up on the change please you can", doesn't make sense. — S

So making sense isn't to anyone in particular?

So making sense isn't to anyone in particular? — Terrapin Station

Depends what you mean. Not in my sense, no. I know what I mean, and I can guess what you'll mean because you're predictable. You'll probably set aside what I mean and go by your own subjectivist interpretation.

Depends what you mean. Not in my sense, no. I know what I mean, and I can guess what you'll mean because you're predictable. You'll probably set aside what I mean and go by your own subjectivist interpretation. — S

No idea what you're saying here.

What is "your sense of making sense" that isn't to a particular person?

No idea what you're saying here.

What is "your sense of making sense" that isn't to a particular person? — Terrapin Station

I doubt whether your first sentence is sincere. You have no idea? Despite what I already said? You have no idea what it means to say that gibberish doesn't make sense in English?

I doubt whether your first sentence is sincere. You have no idea? Despite what I already said? You have no idea what it means to say that gibberish doesn't make sense in English? — S

I have no idea what you were saying in that particular post.

Things make sense or not to individuals.

If the idealist can't even handle a hypothetical scenario of a rock (as defined by the dictionary) after we've died, then that's a big failing for idealism. — S

That there's no one to interpret the dictionary definition of "rock", or the meaning of "rock" in any way,and therefore there is no such thing as "what a rock is", after we all die, is a statement of reality, fact, it is not a failing for idealism. Those who refuse to recognize the reality of this fact simply fail to understand.

Am I asking whether there would be a rock? Yes. — S

Since there would be no such thing as "what a rock is", then it makes no sense whatsoever to ask if there would be a rock. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

The meaning isn't objective in the sense that it never required any subject or subjects at any point previously, because it did: that's how it got a meaning in the first place. But it's objective in the sense that it doesn't need there to be any subject or subjects at the time, or all the time. It simply means what it does, and would continue to do so an hour later, even if we all suddlenly die in five minutes. Once the meaning has been set, it is retained, unless there's any reason for that to change, and no one here, yourself included, has been able to reasonably provide such a reason. They've instead assumed or asserted a reason which is inadmissible. There's an unwarranted link that they make. — S

You point to a rock, you say that's a rock, and voila, it's a rock. Now everyone dies, and time passes. As time passes the world changes, and the thing you pointed to no longer exists as the thing you pointed to because it changes along with the rest of the world. Why would you think that the thing you pointed to and called "rock" would still exist as the thing that you pointed to and called "rock"? Are you denying the reality of change?

It's the same exact mistake that people make when they take moral or aesthetic utterances to be objective. — Terrapin Station

This is a confusing example, because isn't it your position that ALL utterances are subjective? If definitions are subjective can anything be said that is NOT subjective?

So since religious people take certain claims to be objective, that is the "exact same" as someone claiming that words have consistent meaning?

I think I am missing your point?

I assign meaning to things like text strings. — Terrapin Station

But surely you do not do so arbitrarily. Otherwise language does not work.

This may help me understand your position:

Why should a student NOT be allowed to argue (and actually win / get credit) any wrong answer on a test, because that is what the question "meant" to them?

2 + 2 = 5? Well I interpreted = to mean equal plus 1. Why am I not allowed to do that?

In case you will make some "math is objective" argument...

If a 2nd grader had a vocabulary test and defined a "boat" as: something that glows in the sky and provides heat to the earth. The teacher might say, "it sounds like you are describing the sun." Huh, what's that? I call it a boat. If language and meaning are subjective why can't somebody do that?

I get that these are ridiculous examples, but if you can explain them from your viewpoint I think it will help. I am just trying to understand your position by taking it to logical extremes

No time “telling”, no temporal reference frame, time itself becomes nothing. — Mww

It doesn't follow that time becomes "nothing", that conclusion is merely a dim reflection in the dark mirror of your prejudicial thinking. Time becomes untold is all. If time were "nothing" then what would there be to be told in the first place?

This is a confusing example, because isn't it your position that ALL utterances are subjective? If definitions are subjective can anything be said that is NOT subjective? — ZhouBoTong

We can talk about language per se (a la utterances qua utterances, for example) or we can talk about what language is referring to, what it's about. "All utterances are subjective"--sounds like we're talking about utterances qua utterances. Above, though, we were talking about what we're referring to, what the utterances are about. If we say something about a river, we're not talking about something that is itself language, that depends on us to obtain, etc. That's only if we focus on the utterance as an utterance. "The river" is something we can say, but the river itself doesn't depend on us saying anything--it just depends on there being water in a channel, etc. Basically, this is the use/mention distinction. "The river" has two words, eight letters, two of the letter e, etc. The river, on the other hand, has no words or letters, but water, fish, etc.

In some cases, what we're referring to is something that doesn't obtain independently of us.

In other cases, what we're referring to does obtain independently of us.

So since religious people take certain claims to be objective, that is the "exact same" as someone claiming that words have consistent meaning? — ZhouBoTong

We weren't talking about whether words have "consistent meaning." The topic has been whether meaning obtains independently of us.

But surely you do not do so arbitrarily. — ZhouBoTong

No. I don't do so arbitrarily. That doesn't imply that the only alternative is to literally receive meaning from outside of me.

Why should a student NOT be allowed to argue (and actually win / get credit) any wrong answer on a test, because that is what the question "meant" to them? — ZhouBoTong

If we're talking about something like grammar, say--something where there is nothing that's objectively correct or incorrect, what we're teaching are conventions. And it's objectively correct or incorrect that such and such is the convention. (For example, it's objectively correct that there's a convention to end a sentence with a period. It's not objectively correct that there's a convention to end a sentence with an open parentheses sign.)

If we're asking for definitions, we're asking for conventional definitions. And so on.

It might not seem like it on the surface, but given this context, I think that that line might be an indication of his extreme empiricism. I am an empiricist. I am onboard with Hume that a huge amount of things require experience. How would I know stuff about rocks, like what they look like, if I hadn't acquired that knowledge through experience? How could I even engage the thought experiment if I had never undergone the experience of learning English? But there is some knowledge which doesn't require experience in every respect, for example, that I know that there would still be rocks in the scenario doesn't require that I am there to experience it, not that that would even be possible, since it would violate the thought experiment and result in an obvious contradiction. — S

I think I am fine with all of that. I would say that any single experience I have is subjective, but it can be made more objective by comparing it to other people who have had similar experiences. Isn't that a major part of the scientific method? I can agree that experience is how we learn. Heck, I would even say that experience has taught me that the rock will still be there when humans are gone because when I leave a room and return, everything is still there (I get there could be some crazy supernatural or just plain weird stuff going on, but extraordinary claims blah, blah... it seems simplest to assume it all just stayed there vs thinking it disappears and re-appears every time I blink).

You all get in a lot of responses each day. I try to read everything, but apologize for any overlaps.

think I am fine with all of that. I would say that any single experience I have is subjective, but it can be made more objective by comparing it to other people who have had similar experiences. — ZhouBoTong

Re the way I use the terms, what makes something objective is that it occurs independently of us. Comparing, agreeing with others doesn't make something objective, and disagreeing, not comparing doesn't make something subjective.

Re the way I use the terms, what makes something objective is that it occurs independently of us. Comparing, agreeing with others doesn't make something objective, and disagreeing, not comparing doesn't make something subjective. — Terrapin Station

Correct. Agreement does not make it objective. However, if objective is "something that occurs independently of us" (I am fine with that) then surely having agreement from outside "myself" implies my subjective experience is more likely to be objectively correct - right? Isn't that why scientists have to publish?

Correct. Agreement does not make it objective. However, if objective is "something that occurs independently of us" (I am fine with that) then surely having agreement from outside "myself" implies my subjective experience is more likely to be objectively correct - right? Isn't that why scientists have to publish? — ZhouBoTong

Isn't there pretty widespread agreement about, say, characteristics of Santa Claus or vampires? Or pretty widespread agreement about the Beatles being a good band?

Neither is any closer to being correct, especially not objectively so.

Am I asking whether there would be a rock? Yes. — S

Relax your blood pressure, there, bub. Call it a course correction, aligning the stars. The question remains the same, and so do all my replies.
————————

Or, if you do understand what I'm asking, then do you have an answer that isn't either a bare assertion that I don't accept — S

Answer, yes. Bare assertion, no. That you don’t accept....ehhhh, looks that way.
————————-

It looks like you make a logical leap in order to reach a different conclusion to me here. — S

Logical leap, yep. Different conclusion, yep. Nothing wrong with a different conclusion, as long as it reached with valid premises.

What else you got? Time for another thought experiment?