What is the meaning of meaning?

No, it just means you're not very skillful with words.

wtf i hate unwound now

Pls elaborate.

>It propels movement.
So in other words meaning actuates the change of physical location?

if you're not very skillful with words you don't understand it well enough

You see it is all about representation. You have the actual objects and phenomenon (which are difficult to manipulate but is actually useful in themselves) and then you have the representations (very easy to manipulate but don't have much value by themselves) such as pictures, descriptions, language, symbols. "Meaning" is the translation of the representation into something useful.
For example you have an area of land and it's representation a map. A traveler derive meaning from the map by taking the symbols and using them to direct movement and navigate the land. DNA is a representation of proteins. The meaning of a gene sequence is when it is converted to the actual protein that is put into use.
Philosophy is the study of language. It is all perform using language. Language is a representation. Therefore philosophy is the study of representation.

Meaning influences your mind which in turn influences your actions.

But isn't that linguistics user

What is ethics representative of in nature

and "truth"?

What else influences my mind

What influences it the most

>isn't that linguistics
Yes linguistics is a major study in philosophy but there is also the act of creating accurate representations. i.e. Models and theory in science. So philosophy answers questions about representations. How accurate is a representation? How is this representation created? What are the rules? Are there ambiguity in that two different result are derived within the same representation using the same rules? What does this token in this specific representation "mean"?
>ethics representative of in nature
Surviving as a social group. Don't look at human beings directly since you'll have a lot of bias but if you look at the behavior of bonobos, wolves, dogs, baboons, and so on you'll find a lot of cooperation, emotions, and "ethical" behavior. From stealing to sharing.

"Truth" is the phenomena itself. Things simply exists. True and false refers to a representation and whether the representation is accurate or not.

My mind influences you the most right now

>Language is a representation.
I think this is confused. Language presents; "language" represents.

Moreover, what is denoted by "language"?

I was listening to 2pac at the same time tho

The word "truth" is the phenomena one refers to? Absurd

Language is the set of symbols and sounds used to communicate between agents.

>communicate
youtube.com/watch?v=gAm8ee_fooI

>Surviving as a social group.
The world isn't my social group egalitarian swine

"Truth" can mean a lot of things.
"Truth" can mean always true meaning a representation is accurate 100%.
"Truth" can refer to something that is beyond representation that is neither true or false.

>Language is the set of symbols and sounds used to communicate between agents.
In that case it is inconsistent with the claim that "Language is a representation.". For a language to have a representation function you need, among other things, a semantics, not just a set of symbols.

Also,
>used to communicate between agents.
I can invent a brand new language on the spot and never utter a word to anyone, even to myself, using its symbols. Why would it not qualify as a language?

>implying you can quantify meaning
>implying that by reducing everything in the universe to its constituent parts you can expect to find just a pool of "meaning"
>implying the meaning of a musical theme is tones of sound

scribd.com/doc/48789581/Hilary-Putnam-The-Meaning-of-Meaning

>The logical picture of facts is the thought
>In the proposition the thought is expressed perceptibly through the senses

Nigga forgets everyday use of language. I tell you its going to rain. I tell you there's a bear in my backyard. I'm using language to communicate.

Talking to yourself is the same thing as communicating to another agent except the other agent is yourself. For example writing a diary that you read later on in order to remember.

What chomsky is confusing is the calculations and simulation aspect of representations. Language can be used to run simulations and calculation in the same manner that the military uses map to run simulations on army movement and calculate enemy positions.

>In that case it is inconsistent with the claim that "Language is a representation."
That is covered in the word "communication" that I use. In order to communicate means the agents must share the symbols and sound and be able to parse them into actions or whatever is needed.

>Why would it not qualify as a language?
It does. You're communicating to yourself. You are the other agent. For example you write a diary to communicate with your future self, such as writing down a password.

The meaning of "meaning of life" can only lie in universal purpose.

Otherwise we would speak of my meaning of life and your meaning of life and user's meaning of life.

But we ourselves have petitioned against universal purpose.

So "meaning of life" should be meaningless to us.

And yet we still demand it.

Like we are saying "make me take the collectivism pill already"

Help me make sense of this

>implying you can quantify meaning
You can. The cardinality of the meaning of meaning is aleph_0.

>implying the meaning of a musical theme is tones of sound
Not necessarily. Certain patterns and tones of sound can signify something in particular (emotion, say) given that there is a consensus and some standard reference about these kind of things. If not, then anything goes: it boils down to arbitrary interpretations.

>>implying that by reducing everything in the universe to its constituent parts you can expect to find just a pool of "meaning"
Ok, it's pretty evident that you don't know what is meant by "meaning" at all.

Tractatus is too cryptic to be taken seriously; outdated, too.

>The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him.
And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him,
imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man.

>Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world,
refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own
idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the
unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all.

What analytic chronic do I have to smoke to talk like you

English please

>That is covered in the word "communication" that I use
"Communication" doesn't necessarily mean or connote that it is done with a 100% success rate. It is perfectly sensible to use the word in a sentence such as "They were communicating, though they talked past one another", which excludes the notion of semantics and understanding.

> parse them into actions or whatever is needed.
But that's a highly vague and cryptic description for somebody that professes to know what language is and what defines it. I have yet to hear something about semantics from you.

>You can. The cardinality of the meaning of meaning is aleph_0.
you've specified Meaning's cardinality how? why is it aleph-null? what did you read that told you this? you've provided zero defns, or elucidations

>Ok, it's pretty evident that you don't know what is meant by "meaning" at all.
because nothing is yet, you have yet to define it, and anyone would struggle to come up with a term that has more varied use than meaning

>Tractatus is too cryptic to be taken seriously; outdated, too.
lmao? the tractatus is perfectly comprehensible

next post, don't bother unless the first thing you do is provide a sound definition of "meaning"

>"They were communicating, though they talked past one another"
So they weren't really communicating? OF course it's not 100% if it was there wouldn't be different languages. Languages wouldn't evolve.
> I have yet to hear something about semantics from you.
The agents must share the same sounds, token, and actions those tokens generate. It doesn't matter what those actions are only that they are the same among the agents using that language i.e. regular.
For example using coded messages.
If we look at the waggle dance of a bee we will also find "semantics" in that every bee must be able to parse a dance into flight direction. i.e. recognize the pattern of the dance.

in English:
an idea espoused by many philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche): the nearer one draws to reality/truth, the more one's actions are restricted. Is everyones reality the same at the most fundamental level? Do we then all approach the same action corresponding to that level? (There is a little Dante here, in that heaven/hell appear as stratified states of mind)

>The truth is a trap: you can not get it without it getting you; you cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by its capturing you. (Soren Kierkegaard)

original passage from:
online-literature.com/tolstoy/2737/

short story on the nature of God

...

>For example using coded messages.
>If we look at the waggle dance of a bee we will also find "semantics" in that every bee must be able to parse a dance into flight direction. i.e. recognize the pattern of the dance.
That doesn't mean anything yet. Can you explicitly specify the semantics of bees' waggle dance so that we can project it onto the multitude of formally worked-out human semantics and see whether there is one system of semantics that coincides with the semantics of waggle dance? At this point you're just pointing out some vague similarities between your idea of how the human language functions and the phenomena found in other corners of the animal kingdom. Anybody can do that since there is an abundance of a various kinds of similarities. For this to work you need a formal, logico-mathematical theory of human language, a same kind of theory of bee language, and then prove that both are functionally isomorphic.

Human language and Bee Language exists in the same physical reality, are govern by the same set of physical laws. Both are use to communicate between agents as such there will be some regularities between the two and more. The technique I use is pattern drawing through examples. i.e. I gathered multiple examples and phenomena and try to find the patterns between them. I then use the patterns as axioms in a theory.
Yes, I can choose a set of phenomenon and try my luck but the specific requirement that I used to define my set is "the communication between agents."
Human languge, bee waggle dance, emotion displays of baboons, pheromones used by ants, even genetics, all fall under this category and so I use them generalize representation.

>explicitly specify the semantics of bees' waggle dance.
The specific semantics is patterns. i.e. the sharing of tokens and actions generated by those tokens between members of the language. What those tokens are and what actions generated is arbitrary. I only require that they are regular among agents.

And yes, you're right I do need to formalize this in a general theory of representation but that's a thesis work of 4 and more years. I actually did write something but it was self published dogshit on amazon that nobody read.

You've got it wrong. Time and space are both aspects of change and movement is a type of change.

It's all change.

What other types of change are there?

autism

sage

"what" "is" "the" "meaning" "of" "meaning" "?"

change of form and quantitative change