Where does meaning come from?

This forum is for discussing philosophy. Academic, non-academic and new.
Discuss existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
For questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.
encode_decode
Software Engineer
Software Engineer
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

Where does meaning come from?

Post by encode_decode » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:06 pm

    La Première

    Please . . . you are welcome to join me for a walk on this mental pathway for a few moments - the question in the subject may seem vague if not impossible to answer for some people, but we all derive our meaning differently and the question has been left intentionally vague for that reason.

    I will offer up some some writing to prime the conversation. You may leave now if you wish . . .

    . . . Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together". I hope that by working together along with the original question that we find synergy with meaning - with a bit of luck I may set a theme. As we stop by my Zen Garden and take our seats, I say to you; by considering that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts - I wonder whether is it wise enough to speculate that meaning is derived somehow in the first instance of the first time meaning came to be - in other words - can meaning come about by lack of contrast?

    The total sum of experience from birth to the present does not always provide enough meaning to some peoples lives and hence they go soul-searching or seek enlightenment or participate in any number of other potential activities that might bring meaning to their own lives. By asking something abstract and only using the accumulated information in ones memory is it possible to derive meaning from anything? How is it that somehow we are able to gain meaning from the unrelated? For example metaphors, analogy, parables or what ever you want to call your chosen device - poetry has proven to be such a device - as has art.

    We get up and continue walking . . .

    I once heard a saying that went something like "The fish uses its tail to swim forward. The fish uses its head to swim backwards." and in my quest to find meaning I started to wonder whether meaning may be propagated in more than one direction. We use devices like metaphors to convey meaning and so it is that I am mixing concepts to make an attempt to get to the bottom of a more abstract mental impression of meaning. At what point in our mental process does meaning start?

    An acquaintance of mine once responded to me by stating, lets try again to add some meaning to it - the question - Where does meaning come from? Lurking in the background is the question of whether it is even meaningful to ask the question on meaning. For example if it might have to do with some kind of fundamental open-ended mess or ambiguity of things. The question itself then would relate to a potential answer or direction, starting off in the mental realm. Meaning then as an expression of direction, from the known to the unknown, from the past to the future.

    He went on further to state that until now I "simplified" meaning to be some form of expression of connection, of relating. This is based on the experience of when or how some activity, or even "life", feels meaningful or not. And it always showed itself to be a function of the amount of connections something or someone has to other activities, people and events. It also explains the well known experience of a complete loss of meaning, which seems to be a result of engaging in activities for too long all having little relation to anything, or anyone, else beyond its own confines.

    Philosophy then is deeply connected to meaning giving, since all the philosophical questioning, all the philosophical exploring is aimed to connect to everything: all the finer points of existing, of language, of dealing with experiencing and deriving sense from all of it. And yet it can also lead to meaninglessness, probably when one would stop applying this thought to all sense and all times. When all thought on life would become a bubble of life, becoming isolated. Such perhaps unavoidable form of alienation could then be part and parcel of having a mind in the first place; creating limited representations as a way to reason.

    But back to the question, which was not as much about what meaning was but also where it would come from. Perhaps it would simply flow out of a more useful definition. If meaning indeed flows out of complex connection making, being it physical, interactions between senses and events, or pure mentally -- words connecting with words -- then it would connect deep down to the fundamental, driving forces of life itself. From these connections, all importance and value can be derived, arriving back again at the usual dictionary definitions of meaning.

    This mental pathway shows how it can be said that truth, the alchemy of philosophy, is the greatest treasure as it leads to the giving of value itself, to self-knowledge, to value-knowledge. Everything else of value would be derivative.

    Two questions that come to mind:
    1. ► How do you derive meaning in your life?
    2. ► What gives your life meaning?
    And something like the original question: where do you think meaning comes from?

    We leave the path here to hopefully answer any question we want and ask any question we want with the intention of adding meaning to our existence . . .

      encode_decode
      Software Engineer
      Software Engineer
      Posts: 109
      Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

      . . . interest and expansion . . .

      Post by encode_decode » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:27 pm

        Points of interest . . . points of expansion . . .

        Whilst I believe that meaning comes in the form of logic as well, I still find emotion at times more expressive of meaning.

        I am inclined to agree with a concept of balance - I have found that the expression of emotion can be rational too . . .

        Nearly meditative, meaning . . . an expansion of meaning . . . I have found a similar thing with poetry . . .

        When you are able to construct meaning without the need for external coherence.

        We often have a pseudo-reality that our conscious mind seems able to agree on. This could add to the explanation of the occurrence of paradoxes . . . I still think the scale of the gap is where imagination comes in . . .
        . . . being able to construct new meaning next to reality . . . being able to make the imagining real . . .

        In this there is a great amount of meaning . . . Id est there is meaning in everything and its contrasts . . .
        . . . rather Socratic . . . new lease on life . . .
        Socrates wrote:The secret of change is to focus all your energy, not fighting the old, but on building the new.
        Old meaning meets the new to create synergy . . . and greater meaning . . . where does meaning come from? All around and often through whatever source we will listen to; to me could also include finding meaning in music, culture, poetry, society, science and philosophy as well as more . . .

          gib
          New User
          New User
          Posts: 7
          Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:29 pm

          Re: Where does meaning come from?

          Post by gib » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:33 pm

            Hey encode,

            Would I be laughed at or dismissed if I said meaning is in everything? That meaning is the foundation for things to exist?

            My belief is that all reality is fundamentally information. In human terms, it is information expressed as matter. The question for me is: how to make meaning comprehensible? Many people look out at the universe and fail to find meaning--it all looks arbitrary and accidental, without purpose, without aim--and become nihilistic. But how would you distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning? They would look the same. Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language: you know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling?

              encode_decode
              Software Engineer
              Software Engineer
              Posts: 109
              Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

              Re: Where does meaning come from?

              Post by encode_decode » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:38 pm

                gib

                ► I am going to answer your post twice - this time around I will answer my favorite part . . . and . . .
                ► . . . next time around I will answer the bit relating to reality being information expressed as matter.
                ► I have devised an artificial method that derives meaning from analogy - more on that at a later date.
                gib wrote:Would I be laughed at or dismissed if I said meaning is in everything?
                Yeah . . . some people would laugh at you and others would dismiss you and there are those that would do both . . .
                . . . I am not in any three of those categories however . . .

                I actually really like your post.
                gib wrote:That meaning is the foundation for things to exist?
                This will require a little more mental effort on my part - but I will get back to you about it.
                I do believe however, that at the very least, you have partially answered it already.
                gib wrote:My belief is that all reality is fundamentally information. In human terms, it is information expressed as matter.
                Yes, I have a similar view regarding reality and information - information expressed as matter is something I will put more thought into - making sure to consider the energy side of the equation.
                gib wrote:The question for me is: how to make meaning comprehensible? Many people look out at the universe and fail to find meaning--it all looks arbitrary and accidental, without purpose, without aim--and become nihilistic.
                Now this is where we get near to my favorite part of your post . . .
                gib wrote:But how would you distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning? They would look the same.
                I agree.
                gib wrote:Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language:
                • ► You know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling.
                And there it is . . . my favorite part of your post . . . I am totally inclined to agree.

                For the example you gave to make a contrast between what we perceive as meaning and meaning that otherwise exists even when we do not see it . . .
                . . . or in the case of your example . . . hear it . . . really tells us something about meaning.
                - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                gib
                New User
                New User
                Posts: 7
                Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:29 pm

                Re: Where does meaning come from?

                Post by gib » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:47 pm

                encode_decode wrote: gib

                ► I am going to answer your post twice - this time around I will answer my favorite part . . . and . . .
                ► . . . next time around I will answer the bit relating to reality being information expressed as matter.
                ► I have devised an artificial method that derives meaning from analogy - more on that at a later date.
                Has anyone told you you're very structured? :lol:
                encode_decode wrote:
                gib wrote:Would I be laughed at or dismissed if I said meaning is in everything?
                Yeah . . . some people would laugh at you and others would dismiss you and there are those that would do both . . .
                . . . I am not in any three of those categories however . . .

                I actually really like your post.
                Thank you! :) The feeling goes both ways. I really enjoy when two strangers can have a civilized exchange online. It gives both parties a chance to express themselves to the wider world.
                encode_decode wrote:
                gib wrote:That meaning is the foundation for things to exist?
                This will require a little more mental effort on my part - but I will get back to you about it.
                I do believe however, that at the very least, you have partially answered it already.
                It's my metaphysics of consciousness. It's a whole Pandora's box of philosophy.
                encode_decode wrote:
                gib wrote:My belief is that all reality is fundamentally information. In human terms, it is information expressed as matter.
                Yes, I have a similar view regarding reality and information - information expressed as matter is something I will put more thought into - making sure to consider the energy side of the equation.
                Think of it in terms of sensation. Our sensations are essentially information. What they tell us is: there's matter.

                There's also energy, of course, and physicists now-a-days tell us they're the same thing, but I'm a subjectivist (a specific approach to idealism). While that doesn't mean I disagree with science, I don't think science represents the "natural" or "intuitive" view of man. I think to get at the natural/intuitive view of man, one must appeal to one's subjective experiences. What we can glean about the world by appeal to our subjective experiences is that it seems to be made of objects--macroscopic sized objects around the order of chair, trees, TVs, human beings--that seems to be what's naturally "given" to us (or told to us if you buy my reality-qua-information spin). Energy's in there too, of course, but we experience energy as objects doing things, or changing, or perhaps as properties of objects, like light or heat, but objects are the basic units of our world, at least with respect to human subjective experience.
                encode_decode wrote:
                gib wrote:The question for me is: how to make meaning comprehensible? Many people look out at the universe and fail to find meaning--it all looks arbitrary and accidental, without purpose, without aim--and become nihilistic.
                Now this is where we get near to my favorite part of your post . . .
                gib wrote:But how would you distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning? They would look the same.
                I agree.
                gib wrote:Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language:

                Drum roll please. :D
                • ► You know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling.
                And there it is . . . my favorite part of your post . . . I am totally inclined to agree.
                Well, analogies are very powerful for getting a point across. I'm glad my use of them can make someone's day. :lol: Thank you!
                encode_decode wrote: For the example you gave to make a contrast between what we perceive as meaning and meaning that otherwise exists even when we do not see it . . .
                . . . or in the case of your example . . . hear it . . . really tells us something about meaning.

                =D>
                I certainly think so. I think it requires a bit of hubris to think that where you can't find meaning there is none. It's even more challenging when the meaning is incomprehensible--it means you're not only failing to find meaning but can't find it even if it's right in front of you.
                “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
                - Rick Sanchez

                Tender lumplings everywhere
                Life's no fun without a good scare
                That's our job, but we're not mean
                In our town of Halloween

                - The Pumpkin song, The Nightmare Before Christmas

                encode_decode
                Software Engineer
                Software Engineer
                Posts: 109
                Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

                Three things . . .

                Post by encode_decode » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:59 pm

                  Here are three things to consider . . . let us employ analogy to illustrate . . .

                  1 ► If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody was around to hear it, did the tree really fall?

                  2 ► If a person(lets call him Bob) is sitting in a stadium(which is filled to capacity) - and bob has no cognitive abilities - is the stadium really filled to capacity?

                  3 ► Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language:
                  • You know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling.
                    gib(2017)
                  You could say that each of us only receives an incomplete puzzle to work with when it comes to meaning . . . meaning being the puzzle.
                  A friend of mine once wrote:Meaning to anything comes when it is realized the answer is before the question. If not true, how then could an answer ever be found? which is to say, when one finds themselves without questions, there is no meaning to discover or expand, for meaning is always that aha moment.
                  It could be said that meaning always boils down to individual perception of comprehensive experience . . .

                  . . . I am saying: that when it does not boil down to individual perception, meaning still exists . . .

                  . . . to say otherwise, I would surmise, is to say that others do not exist . . .

                  . . . that is to suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

                  So where does that leave us? Well, your guess is as good as mine . . . mind.

                    encode_decode
                    Software Engineer
                    Software Engineer
                    Posts: 109
                    Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

                    Re: Where does meaning come from?

                    Post by encode_decode » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:18 am

                      gib

                      As promised, I said I was going to answer this post twice.

                      I have named the topic that you and I are discussing, Meaning Is the Foundation For Things To Exist, taken from your first post.

                      Last time I answered my favorite part of your post: Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language, You know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling - You made the contrast between what we perceive as meaning and meaning that otherwise exists even when we do not become aware of it. This time I will answer the bit relating to reality being information expressed as matter. At a later date you might also be interested in a method I have devised that derives meaning from analogy - if you are, I will happily PM this method to you. My claim in this post, is that we do receive meaning from things that we come into close enough proximity with, even if it is only subconsciously.

                      Meaning Is the Foundation For Things To Exist

                      Meaning is in everything . . .
                      gib wrote:My belief is that all reality is fundamentally information. In human terms, it is information expressed as matter.
                      As meaning is the foundation for things to exist . . . It is the intention to communicate something that is not directly expressed as the underlying basis or principle for any object that one need not give a specific name and has objective reality or being. It can be communicated to any person by way of each individuals senses - and becomes internalized as a subjective copy to be integrated into that which we call consciousness. Meaning then has a special relationship with consciousness and is connected to the fundamental, driving forces of life itself, expressed as direction, from energy to matter, from the past to the future, from the unknown to the known et cetera.

                      1 ► Here we are claiming that all reality is fundamentally information.
                      2 ► Meaning is the intention to communicate something that is not directly expressed.
                      3 ► We can say that meaning boils down to information.
                      4 ► Communication is all about information.
                      gib wrote:The question for me is: how to make meaning comprehensible? Many people look out at the universe and fail to find meaning - it all looks arbitrary and accidental, without purpose, without aim - and become nihilistic.
                      To make meaning comprehensible is to differentiate between patterns by way of our conscious mind and has to do with some kind of fundamental ambiguity of things. It is the difference between these patterns that we turn into meaning - from enigma to transparency . . . from paradox to harmony.
                      gib wrote:But how would you distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning? They would look the same.
                      We do this through vicinity and analogy. The closer something is to us the more meaning it is going to have whether the meaning is consciously expressed or subconsciously expressed. The expression itself is by virtue an analogy - it is a comparison between one thing and another - a comparison of the objective version of the thing and the subjective version of the thing - a correspondence that is trying to reach harmony. Conversely to distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning still requires us to be in the vicinity of the objective element - if it exists then we can be in vicinity of it and therefore it has meaning - the meaning remains incomprehensible until enough correspondence is made to determine meaning.

                      Meaning has a special relationship with consciousness and is connected to the fundamental, driving forces of life itself, expressed as direction, from energy to matter, from the past to the future, from the unknown to the known. We receive meaning from things that we come into close enough proximity with, even if it is only subconsciously.

                      Meaning is the foundation for things to exist . . .

                      . . . meaning is in everything . . .

                      With any luck gib, my post is not analogous to random meaningless babble for you - if it is, my apologies that you drew close to it's vicinity.

                      :lol:
                      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                      encode_decode
                      Software Engineer
                      Software Engineer
                      Posts: 109
                      Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

                      Re: Where does meaning come from?

                      Post by encode_decode » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:22 am

                        gib

                        I have been told a few times that I am very structured - I know a couple of those times were not compliments - but my civilized exchanges with you online tells me something different - it tells me that you have taken notice of something about me - remember that time I said to you that I like your friendly nature? Well, it reminds me of that because I was taking notice of our interaction - I was aware that you were being genuinely friendly.

                        I also really enjoy a civilized exchange online and I agree that it gives both parties a chance to express themselves to the wider world. Your metaphysics of consciousness sounds very interesting if your posts are anything to judge by. I really like how you describe it as a whole Pandora's box of philosophy.
                        gib wrote:Think of it in terms of sensation. Our sensations are essentially information. What they tell us is: there's matter.

                        There's also energy, of course, and physicists now-a-days tell us they're the same thing, but I'm a subjectivist (a specific approach to idealism). While that doesn't mean I disagree with science, I don't think science represents the "natural" or "intuitive" view of man. I think to get at the natural/intuitive view of man, one must appeal to one's subjective experiences. What we can glean about the world by appeal to our subjective experiences is that it seems to be made of objects--macroscopic sized objects around the order of chair, trees, TVs, human beings--that seems to be what's naturally "given" to us (or told to us if you buy my reality-qua-information spin). Energy's in there too, of course, but we experience energy as objects doing things, or changing, or perhaps as properties of objects, like light or heat, but objects are the basic units of our world, at least with respect to human subjective experience.
                        I also think that our sensations are directional and contained within a feedback loop - our higher senses are able to build meta-information from those sensations. Essentially information about information. They tell us there is matter and because of their directional nature and their containment within the mentioned feedback loop they lead to us knowing information about that matter.

                        Most certainly science does not represent our substance as beings - at most it can give us a meager description from the outside looking in. I think the term is introspection when you speak one one appealing to one's subjective experiences - and indeed that can give us a more natural view of man. In my last post I mentioned how vicinity and analogy help us to build meaning - the more meaning we have collected the easier it should be to connect the "future dots".

                        Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language:
                        • ► You know it means something but you can't tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling.
                        Yep. Still like it.
                        gib wrote:Well, analogies are very powerful for getting a point across. I'm glad my use of them can make someone's day. :lol: Thank you!
                        Have you ever wondered why? :D They seem to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. Your analogy did make my day and you are welcome.
                        gib wrote:I think it requires a bit of hubris to think that where you can't find meaning there is none. It's even more challenging when the meaning is incomprehensible--it means you're not only failing to find meaning but can't find it even if it's right in front of you.
                        What does hubris mean? :lol: Nah, kidding. Excessive pride or self-confidence reminds me of the saying: The bigger they are the harder they fall. What you are saying in the above quote is kind of like being in constant denial of reality from my point of view.

                        Until next time . . . may the thinking be with you.
                        - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                        gib
                        New User
                        New User
                        Posts: 7
                        Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:29 pm

                        Re: Where does meaning come from?

                        Post by gib » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:18 am

                        encode_decode wrote:At a later date you might also be interested in a method I have devised that derives meaning from analogy - if you are, I will happily PM this method to you.
                        Yes, please do.
                        encode_decode wrote:As meaning is the foundation for things to exist . . . It is the intention to communicate something that is not directly expressed as the underlying basis or principle for any object that one need not give a specific name and has objective reality or being. It can be communicated to any person by way of each individuals senses - and becomes internalized as a subjective copy to be integrated into that which we call consciousness. Meaning then has a special relationship with consciousness and is connected to the fundamental, driving forces of life itself, expressed as direction, from energy to matter, from the past to the future, from the unknown to the known et cetera.
                        Yes, and that's only the start. I'm particularly captured by your use of the phrase "subjective copy". Every played telephone? Is the final message received at the end of the line ever like the initial message?
                        encode_decode wrote:To make meaning comprehensible is to differentiate between patterns by way of our conscious mind and has to do with some kind of fundamental ambiguity of things. It is the difference between these patterns that we turn into meaning - from enigma to transparency . . . from paradox to harmony.
                        So do you mean the way we take phenomena that we don't understand and come up with some kind of explanation for them? And that makes them meaningful?
                        encode_decode wrote:We do this through vicinity and analogy. The closer something is to us the more meaning it is going to have whether the meaning is consciously expressed or subconsciously expressed. The expression itself is by virtue an analogy - it is a comparison between one thing and another - a comparison of the objective version of the thing and the subjective version of the thing - a correspondence that is trying to reach harmony. Conversely to distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning still requires us to be in the vicinity of the objective element - if it exists then we can be in vicinity of it and therefore it has meaning - the meaning remains incomprehensible until enough correspondence is made to determine meaning.
                        Here's where the nihilist might object: getting close to the phenomenon to be understood brings us no closer to meaning. If we found no rhyme or reason, no grand purpose, when we stepped back and looked at the universe from a holistic point of view, what greater reason/purpose would we find by getting acquainted with the details? Or perhaps this is not what you meant to say.

                        Of course, I can see what you mean. If you take photosynthesis, for example, we can say that getting a better understanding of the biochemical process of photosynthesis (being in the vicinity, creating a subjective representation of the objective process) generates meaning for us: now, when we see sun light resulting in the growth of the plant, we know what that means: it means the process of photosynthesis is at work. <-- But I don't think this would satisfy the nihilist.

                        My interest, on the other hand, lays in this question: what is the experience of the plant like? What does it feel like to undergo the process of photosynthesis, to be the process of photosynthesis? Capture that and you will get a little sample of incomprehensible meaning.
                        encode_decode wrote:With any luck gib, my post is not analogous to random meaningless babble for you - if it is, my apologies that you drew close to it's vicinity.
                        I was able to make sense of it. Though you might have to confirm whether I got it right.
                        encode_decode wrote:I have been told a few times that I am very structured - I know a couple of those times were not compliments - but my civilized exchanges with you online tells me something different - it tells me that you have taken notice of something about me - remember that time I said to you that I like your friendly nature? Well, it reminds me of that because I was taking notice of our interaction - I was aware that you were being genuinely friendly.
                        Well, it certainly wasn't meant as an insult--not even criticism--more like a quirk. Everyone's got their quirks, and that's what I like about people. It's what makes us all different. I'd encourage people to keep their quirks. Anyone who brings them up as criticisms simply doesn't appreciate the diversity of quirky people we are.
                        encode_decode wrote:I also think that our sensations are directional and contained within a feedback loop - our higher senses are able to build meta-information from those sensations. Essentially information about information. They tell us there is matter and because of their directional nature and their containment within the mentioned feedback loop they lead to us knowing information about that matter.
                        Yes, and I'd even say "matter" itself is already derived at a higher level of sensory processing. What's derived at the really fundamental level of our senses are very simple geometric data (they say that the first layer of neural networks our optic nerves hit at the occipital lobe are "line detectors"--so our world is essentially made of lines before anything else). But once "matter" as such is derived (or maybe objects), it seems to be at that level that the rest of our mind (our thoughts at least) say: that's what I'm looking at.
                        encode_decode wrote:I think the term is introspection when you speak one one appealing to one's subjective experiences
                        Well, I'm trying to get at what the world looks like without the effect of abstract preconceptions of what the world "really" consists of or how it "really" works. For example, when you look at an object, you might think: a network of molecules. When you look at the Sun (don't actually do that), you think: a burning ball of gas. But what would primitive man have thought? I don't think primitive man would have thought anything more than: it's an object (the sun might have been different, but you get my point). I'm saying the view of the world held by primitive man would have been: just a bunch of objects. Of course, primitive man probably would have had his own religion to taint the way he saw his surroundings, but I'm trying to get at the way we would look at the world if we somehow were able to brush away the tainting influence of what we've been taught (whether that be science, religion, our upbringing, our own crazy thoughts, etc.)
                        “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
                        - Rick Sanchez

                        Tender lumplings everywhere
                        Life's no fun without a good scare
                        That's our job, but we're not mean
                        In our town of Halloween

                        - The Pumpkin song, The Nightmare Before Christmas

                        encode_decode
                        Software Engineer
                        Software Engineer
                        Posts: 109
                        Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm

                        Re: Where does meaning come from?

                        Post by encode_decode » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:13 pm

                          gib

                          I prefer to stay away from conversations referring to nihilists, so I wont go there for the time being. You do not appear to be a nihilist - correct me if I am wrong - if I am wrong about this then I would be happy to include nihilistic themes in our interaction.
                          gib wrote:So do you mean the way we take phenomena that we don't understand and come up with some kind of explanation for them? And that makes them meaningful?
                          Hmm, it could be interpreted that way. The brain works with patterns, so even without language it is able to derive meaning. I guess this is something that one is entitled to not agree with but it is something that I have found many examples of correlation that show meaning is not necessarily related to language. Communication and information are definitely key players in meaning but language is not a mandatory component.
                          gib wrote:My interest, on the other hand, lays in this question: what is the experience of the plant like? What does it feel like to undergo the process of photosynthesis, to be the process of photosynthesis? Capture that and you will get a little sample of incomprehensible meaning
                          This sounds interesting . . . what is the experience of the plant like? I think you are onto something here. This gives rise to much thought.
                          gib wrote:Well, it certainly wasn't meant as an insult--not even criticism--more like a quirk. Everyone's got their quirks, and that's what I like about people. It's what makes us all different. I'd encourage people to keep their quirks. Anyone who brings them up as criticisms simply doesn't appreciate the diversity of quirky people we are.
                          I know it was not meant as an insult. I agree with the rest of what you say here. I for one do appreciate the diversity - we are on the same wavelength there.
                          gib wrote:Yes, and I'd even say "matter" itself is already derived at a higher level of sensory processing. What's derived at the really fundamental level of our senses are very simple geometric data (they say that the first layer of neural networks our optic nerves hit at the occipital lobe are "line detectors"--so our world is essentially made of lines before anything else). But once "matter" as such is derived (or maybe objects), it seems to be at that level that the rest of our mind (our thoughts at least) say: that's what I'm looking at.
                          This appears to be very similar to many lines of thought that I follow. I would be very interested in knowing more and what might stem from this.
                          gib wrote:Well, I'm trying to get at what the world looks like without the effect of abstract preconceptions of what the world "really" consists of or how it "really" works. For example, when you look at an object, you might think: a network of molecules. When you look at the Sun (don't actually do that), you think: a burning ball of gas. But what would primitive man have thought? I don't think primitive man would have thought anything more than: it's an object (the sun might have been different, but you get my point). I'm saying the view of the world held by primitive man would have been: just a bunch of objects. Of course, primitive man probably would have had his own religion to taint the way he saw his surroundings, but I'm trying to get at the way we would look at the world if we somehow were able to brush away the tainting influence of what we've been taught (whether that be science, religion, our upbringing, our own crazy thoughts, etc.)
                          This is really awesome gib - I wonder if primitive man and babies have much in common when it comes to the way they approach objects - I never really considered primitive man often, what inspired you to take this approach?

                          I have put quite a lot of thought into what you have posted - I do have some things to add but for now I am more interested in what you have to say on different things - I find your line of thought follows a divergent and semi parallel path to my own. It seems that we are independently discovering different things and at times converging on very similar items.
                          - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                          Post Reply