Re: Meaning (was Re: virus: New Virus Page)
Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:01:05 +0000
David writes
>At 06:33 PM 2/26/98 +0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>>`Meaning' is man made. It is not a property of things themselves.
>>
>>Just in case it's not obvious, I'm with Tim
>>and Wade on this one.
>
>The sum total of your arguments so far is an assertion that I'm wrong.
>Sorry, not very convincing.
>
>So let's say you're right, meaning has nothing to do with causality.
>Where do you think it comes from? Take a specific example. What is
>the nature of the meaning of "cat"? Where does it come from? How does
>it work? Is it the same for everyone? If not, why not? What are the
>mechanisms by which "cat" means something to someone?
In general, association between the symbol and what it
symbolises. But look at what you've said here: it "means
something to someone". And that's the point: all
meaning is "to someone", ie is subjective. Sure you
can find regularities between the presentation of
symbols to people, and their behaviour, and talk about
that in terms of causation, but to say that all meaning
involves causation, is not to say that all causation is
meaning. Meaning is just one aspect of a very particular
sort of causation, and it's a subjective aspect.
--
Robin