Are you a secularist

[PixyMisa]

Oops. Sorry. I read that, but I forgot about it while trying to figure out the consistency of PixyMisa's meaning for "meaning".

I think it would be less confusing if PixyMisa focused on lack of specificity instead of lack of meaning.

Lack of specificity in the term makes for a lack of meaning in the statement (or question).

If X + Y = Z, and you want us to provide the numeric value of Z, you have to provide numeric values for both X and Y. There is no other option.

Does "government" have any meaning in a given statement in which no particular government is made explicit? Of course, it surely conveys information in a similar way "good" conveys information.

Nope. Governments are objective, if varied. Good is subjective.

Is the statement specific enough, in itself, to be amenable to scientific inquiry? No, because it doesn't contain the specific information about which government we're talking about. The fact that some don't define their terms when they talk about morality doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Exactly.

That's why I'm still stratching my head over PixyMixa's definition of "meaning" and his use of it.

Let's say I ask you, Which is pigglichisk, chocolate or vanilla?

How would you answer? And why?

 

[angrysoba]

At all would be a start.


We refined those definitions using the scientific method. But the definitions were always in existence, and objective, if vague.

"We"? "The scientific method"? Were you on the panel that made this decision? And what do you mean "the definitions were always in existence"? I think you will find that the definitions have emerged over time and through mostly colloquial use. In fact, many planets were referred to as stars, until we figured out that they operated differently from the other things we called stars. And we also found out that two stars in particular turned out to be the same object which turned out to be what we call a planet.

Yes. But it's not very good at it.

Yet you use these terms all the time, "objective", "subjective", "meaning", "truth", "valid", "logic". These are concepts which are products of philosophical investigation and I would bet you do not have definitions for any of them resting on ultimate incorrigible foundations. Instead you use definitions which only pose more problems.

Let's see:


"meaningful" is defined as: An internally consistent finite set of symbolic references.

Now you have to define "internally consistent", "finite set" and "symbolic references". Each of these terms are compounds of complicated constructions in themselves. Where does the analysis end? And until you have ended the analysis what you are saying cannot be defined as meaningful according to your very definition.

That's a separate question. What is your goal for that goal?

But the problem is that we can always keep asking that question.

If you don't know what you mean, you can't define it. So don't use words you don't mean.

Just because you cannot define something if you don't know what you mean, it doesn't mean you can't mean something you cannot define.

I might be able to talk about a "game" but be unable to define what a "game" is and still be talking meaningfully.

If you do know what you mean, why should it be impossible to define?

I am not necessarily talking about the impossibility of definition, but rather that the definition is not yet clear, as with the example of planets. But most people do not have ready-to-hand definitions for what they talk about; natural language doesn't always behave in the way you appear to think it does.

 

[PixyMisa]

"We"? "The scientific method"? Were you on the panel that made this decision? And what do you mean "the definitions were always in existence"? I think you will find that the definitions have emerged over time and through mostly colloquial use.

Based on objective observations.

In fact, many planets were referred to as stars, until we figured out that they operated differently from the other things we called stars.

That's precisely my point.

Yet you use these terms all the time, "objective", "subjective", "meaning", "truth", "valid", "logic". These are concepts which are products of philosophical investigation and I would bet you do not have definitions for any of them resting on ultimate incorrigible foundations.

Nor does anyone for anything, outside of pure mathematics. That's no excuse for deliberately posing questions without meaning.

 

[PixyMisa]

But the problem is that we can always keep asking that question.

Not if you switch to asking well-defined questions.

Just because you cannot define something if you don't know what you mean, it doesn't mean you can't mean something you cannot define.

If you can't define it, you can't know that you know what it means, which is effectively the same as not knowing what it means, and it certainly means that no-one else can know what you mean.

I might be able to talk about a "game" but be unable to define what a "game" is and still be talking meaningfully.

No.

I am not necessarily talking about the impossibility of definition, but rather that the definition is not yet clear, as with the example of planets. But most people do not have ready-to-hand definitions for what they talk about; natural language doesn't always behave in the way you appear to think it does.

I'm not saying this is how natural language behaves. I'm saying that given how natural language behaves, certain classes of question are meaningless.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not if you switch to asking well-defined questions.

I take it, that you are not a skeptic, PixyMisa?

 

[Dani]

Lack of specificity in the term makes for a lack of meaning in the statement (or question).

If X + Y = Z, and you want us to provide the numeric value of Z, you have to provide numeric values for both X and Y. There is no other option.

Well, the more restrictive a proposition is, the more informative it becomes, but even if a more lax proposition would be less informative, it doesn't mean it isn't meaningful at all. According to your criteria of specificity, "house" would be meaningless? Your definition doesn't seem to reflect the common usage of "meaningful".

I think we can agree that for example "the Spanish government has legalized gay marriage" is more informative than "the government has legalized gay marriage", and I think it's reasonable to assign different degrees of meaningfulness in accordance to specificity. But not meaningful at all? So "meaningful" is that which is specific enough to be amenable to scientific inquiry? Why don't you make it explicit in your definition? It's confusing.

Nope. Governments are objective, if varied. Good is subjective.

Ok. And what relevance do objective and subjective have in relation to meaning? I don't understand. So if I state something that is subjective, it isn't meaningful? And why does this difference matter to assess whether they belong to "an internally consistent finite set of symbolic references"?

Exactly.

But that precisely implies that normative claims can be meaningful, which contradicts your claim "normative questions have no meaning".

Let's say I ask you, Which is pigglichisk, chocolate or vanilla?

How would you answer? And why?

I would say that "pigglichisk" is an expression, but it's not a concept that I know of unless it's defined. Only then it would become a concept with a meaning with which to evaluate whether it can refer to an object that is chocolate or vanilla.

On the other hand, "good" is already a concept and, by virtue of it, it has meaning. The "degree if meaningfulness", if you will, will vary depending on the context. Like many other words with meaning.

 

[angrysoba]

That's no excuse for deliberately posing questions without meaning.

But the very thing I am disputing is whether your definition of "meaningful" is a useful concept. In particular the case of morality definitely appears to be meaningful to most people. I think there are good pragmatic reasons for this even if we do not always agree on the definition of morality. So, to return to what I said before:

Just because you cannot define something if you don't know what you mean, it doesn't mean you can't mean something you cannot define.

To which you said:

If you can't define it, you can't know that you know what it means, which is effectively the same as not knowing what it means, and it certainly means that no-one else can know what you mean.

I think this is empirically false. It seems to me that you restrict the use of "meaningful" merely to propositions about the world that could admit of truth or falsity (in fact, I don't know that you would consider false propositions to be meaningful, but I assume you do), or questions that can be empirically determined to offer a true or false answer.

Yet this is certainly not the case with say children acquiring language who can make meaningful utterances that are understood by their parents.

The idea that "if you can't define it...[it] is effectively the same as not knowing what it means" suggests that children do not know they want food or that they do not know they want to play with a toy or play a game. Yet, amazingly they can perform meaningful exchanges, which demonstrates that your conclusion - "it certainly means that no-one else can know what you mean" - is false.

In the movie Trees Lounge, an early scene shows a grizzled old bar-fly looking vacantly in front of him and signalling with his hand to have the glass topped up. The barman puts a shot in his glass, then the old man signals again and the barman pus another shot in his glass. In this case there are no words, let alone definitions yet there has certainly been a meaningful exchange.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

Nope. Governments are objective, if varied. Good is subjective.

...

No, governments are not objective; they are inter-subjective. Rather you have to explain, describe and give examples of objective, inter-subjective and subjective e.g. gravity, law, feelings and so on and it seems to be a good idea if you explain how we can communicate the meaning of something objective, inter-subjective or subjective.

Here is an example from biology. In Africa in the jungle you can observe the following, groups of monkeys belonging to different species and using different sounding alarm-calls will still react appropriately to an alarm-call despite it being from a member of a different species.
Now explain how that takes place and again differentiate between objective, inter-subjective and subjective.

With regards

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, the more restrictive a proposition is, the more informative it becomes, but even if a more lax proposition would be less informative, it doesn't mean it isn't meaningful at all. According to your criteria of specificity, "house" would be meaningless?

No.

Try this: Define "house". Now define "should".

 

[PixyMisa]

But the very thing I am disputing is whether your definition of "meaningful" is a useful concept. In particular the case of morality definitely appears to be meaningful to most people.

Then why is it most people can't coherently define what they mean by it?

As I said to Dani, define "house". Then define "should".

 

[PixyMisa]

The idea that "if you can't define it...[it] is effectively the same as not knowing what it means" suggests that children do not know they want food or that they do not know they want to play with a toy or play a game. Yet, amazingly they can perform meaningful exchanges, which demonstrates that your conclusion - "it certainly means that no-one else can know what you mean" - is false.

So moral arguments are pre-verbal?

 

[PixyMisa]

No, governments are not objective; they are inter-subjective.

Any inter-subjective system is objectively observable. This is not a distinction that means anything here.

Now explain how that takes place and again differentiate between objective, inter-subjective and subjective.

Why? All subjective processes are objective processes, just viewed from a different angle. It's the same as asking what colour a red ball is when the light is off.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Any inter-subjective system is objectively observable. This is not a distinction that means anything here.


Why? All subjective processes are objective processes, just viewed from a different angle. It's the same as asking what colour a red ball is when the light is off.

So all different angles are the same, when it comes good as morals/ethics, because you as "we, the scientists, know and you don't", as you decide for everybody. I.e. "This is not a distinction that means anything here" involves meaningful and meaningless, for which you decide subjectively, when objective, inter-subjective and subjective matters.
It appears to me, that you, PixyMisa, can't differentiate in practice between "is subjective" and "is objectively observable". We are back to over-reductive logic in practice. And now I won't help you, you yourself can figure out how it amounts to a contradiction so claim the following in effect - something subjective is objectively observable, therefore that something is in effect objective.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No.

Try this: Define "house". Now define "should".

Explain good, objective, inter-subjective, subjective, has the property of being subjective, is observable, I feel good and so on.

In other words, just because you are an expert in natural science and metaphysics, it doesn't follow that you are an expert in meta-ethics. Can you get into your head, that inside the universe it doesn't matter that everything is matter, because everything is matter. Rather we are dealing with regularities and variations, for which we are trying to determine what meta-ethics is. And you can't take for granted, because then you are not a skeptic, that because science/math/logic/objective work for something, it can be used to do morality/ethics. That is it!

PixyMisa, you can't take for granted, because you are an expert in natural science and metaphysical, that you are an expert in meta-ethics.

With regards

 

[tsig]

No, governments are not objective; they are inter-subjective. Rather you have to explain, describe and give examples of objective, inter-subjective and subjective e.g. gravity, law, feelings and so on and it seems to be a good idea if you explain how we can communicate the meaning of something objective, inter-subjective or subjective.

Here is an example from biology. In Africa in the jungle you can observe the following, groups of monkeys belonging to different species and using different sounding alarm-calls will still react appropriately to an alarm-call despite it being from a member of a different species. Now explain how that takes place and again differentiate between objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
With regards

All monkeys have ears.

 

[angrysoba]

So <snip>?

No.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

All monkeys have ears.

Yes, that is a necessary, but not sufficient part of it. In the jargon of true, false and half-truth, it is a half-truth

 

[tsig]

Yes, that is a necessary, but not sufficient part of it. In the jargon of true, false and half-truth, it is a half-truth

What's the other part?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What's the other part?

You understand reality, right? So even if you don't know it this, you can read the last 20 or so posts relevant to the meaning of signs including words and within methodological naturalism understand it and explain it.
Remember:
Naturalism, no over-reductive logic, empiricism, skepticism and then differentiate between objective, inter-subjective and subjective relevant for the sign, that which it is about and who understands/uses it.

It goes it in part what empiricism is about and how signs function. Forget consciousness and explain what awareness is as an evolutionary/biological process.
I know you can do this, because you understand how reality works.

BTW - How do you know if there is only one other part?

 

[PixyMisa]

No.

Okay, but it was too good to pass up.

And arguably, not that far from the truth.