NationStates Jolt Archive

You seem very opposed to the suggestion that a message is ideas expressed, so I will stop using the word "idea" and use "message" instead.

The message causes the comprehension though. It is the external cause. If it did not exist then the effect would not have happened. Unlike the author. If the author had not existed, then another author could have written the words. Only if no author exists would the effect be impossible. If the words were different the effect would be different. If the author were different the effect would be the same (presuming the same words).
The message is in the meaning that the symbols of words represent. The message came from an intelligence, and to an intelligence is it directed. Ultimately, the cause is the intelligence who created the symbols.

I don't dispute that comprehension (understanding) follows the perception of the symbols. However, it is the message that the symbols represent that is what has an effect when that message is comprehended. An emotional effect certainly happens as a cause of comprehension, "welling up from the depths of the soul" as it were.

The symbolism stands in place of an author, but of any author, not of me. It does not matter that I wrote the words, what matters is the words themselves. If Snub Nose 38 or Independent Homesteads had written them, they would stil have the same effect.
The symbolism does not stand in place of me. I am, to me, more than the words I use, The words I use do not stand for me. To you, in this circumstance, I just am the words that I use, they do not stand for me, they are me.
Right, I worded that badly. The symbolism stands in place of the message, whomever's it is. The symbols do not stand in place of all of you, just the message you are sending. Given the media, though, "you" are little more than messages to me. ;)

One aspect of meaning is context, I have always accepted that the meaning of a phrase is made up of the explicit meaning of the words, the implicit meaning of the phrase and the context of its use. No one of these parts is sufficient on its own
Well said. Explicit, implicit --I must remember that. A phrase read literally, then, would be explicit. But context is provided by the words and sentences that surround a word, hence it involves use (where to place it to convey the desired effect/meaning).

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I do not deny that meaning requires a person as an agent, it does not, however, require two.
I agree; as I said earlier, the meaning of a message read from the symbols falls to the reader to assign, using the explicit conventional meanings of words he has memorized, and applying interpretation to recognize the implicit message.

Ah! Now, this touches on the difference between a communication and a sign. A communication requires that there be a meaningful message sent, and a meaningful message received. A sign (such as a tea leaf reading) requires only that there be someone to "read" the message. Although in the parlance we say we "read" what tea leaves "say", there is no author for the symbols; the reader is actually applying interpretation to the conventions of symbols that he/she "recognized" in natural patterns.

However the author is not present. He or she can not be a cause of your emotions as the words do not depend upon that author. The cause of your emotions is your interation with the words, not with the author.
I am the cause of my emotions. They are my own. This is true in any circumstances. A "stimulus" received through perception (say, someone beating up another) that may provoke an emotional response, that happens within me, because of me, not directly because of the thing I perceive. It happens because of my comprehension of the situation. It could be a mugging, in which case I'd be angry; or it could be just two fellas rough-housing, in which case I'd be amused. The cause of my emotion is my interpretation of the situation, what meaning it has to me.

That doesn't, however, prevent me from attributing the emotion to an author or some other external source, or accrediting if you like. That's human nature.

There are no ideas "behind" my words. There are ideas that they casue in you, and there are ideas that caused me to write them, but there are no ideas in the words. I thought something, I had an idea. I selected the words that have the meanings that I want. (I do not imbue the words with these meanings, the meanings are there independent of me. ) You read these words, and they cause an idea in you due to the meaning (idependent of me) that these words have. At your end of the comunication I do not exist, only your idea of me exists. It is the words that irritate, not the absent author.

Ideas can not be put down in writing, they are the authors private thoughts. Ideas can be expressed, through the meanings that words, images, sounds etc. have, no more than that. This expression is the choice of meaningful tokens to communicate with, they are chosen with the intent of causing an idea, not to be an idea.
As I said above, I'll use "message" instead of "ideas" as you seem to appreciate precision.

I’ll try to answer both at the same time.

Initially, we “agree” to accept the meaning of words that we hear as infants to be those imparted to us by those speaking. A Mom holds a ball up to her little baby and says something like, “Ball? Do you want the ball? Baby want the ball? Look at the pretty ball? Ball?” Or, a Dad holds his baby and dances around the room, softly singing to the baby, “Dancing. Dancing round the room. Dancing. Dancing with my baby.” And, it works.
This is explicit indication. I have no problem with this aspect of language learning.

Even ideas (Mommy loves little sweetums) can be learned this way.
Here is where I don't see how it works. Mommy can not point to "love" can not demonstrate the activity of "love"


We learn both denotations and connotations this way as well. If every time Mom shows baby a dog, or a picture of a dog, there is a little hint of fear in Mom’s voice (because Mom’s afraid of dogs), baby learns that dogs are something to be afraid of. And so we learn both the literal (denotative) meaning and the emotional (connotative) meaning of words initially at the same time. As we go along in life, both or either may change, depending on our continued experience of how that word is used by others and the life experiences we begin to associate with the word.
So we learn connotative terms by assuming a similar reaction in the other to the one we have ourself. Either that or we instinctively recognise some non formal signals (fear in the voice) that are universal. This can work for speech and for direct, unmediated communication.

So, we are taught from the very start to accept the meaning of words as others understand those meanings by demonstration. Later, we will learn the accepted meanings of other words by reading them in dictionaries – and everything in between a straight demonstration and a literal reading.

Dictionaries are always circular. (They have to be). I see how we can define the common meaning of terms like ball and fear. Terms which denote something that it is possible to perceive. How about terms like exist, cause, idea etc. These are the terms that we end up discussing the meaning of, and it appears that we have some sort of common understanding, just from their contextual use I guess, but, over and over there is dispute as to what they actually denote. This is the point I was trying to get to, and this is why I often ask posters to explain what they understand by such terms.

On the rest. Language variation has scales ranging from a slight accent difference through to complete dialects. The "street English of Watts in Los Angeles California and . . . the street language of Soho in London England" are I would guess dialects to each other, in that they are (probably) not mutually understandable. Language is a living changing tool. This does not prevent the words of the language from having meanings, even if these meanings change with time and place. Communication is also more than just words, which is one reason why it takes much longer to explain something here, on line, that it does in real life. Non verbal communication is important, but it does not affect the meaning of the words used, it only affects the interpretation of those words.

Here is where I don't see how it works. Mommy can not point to "love" can not demonstrate the activity of "love"
But Mommy can demonstrate "love", and baby can understand it. Mommy talks about "love" to baby while Mommy performs loving acts, such as hugging baby or taking care of baby in some way. It is, granted, much more difficult to demonstrate, as it is more diffcult to assimilate, idea words such as "love" than objects such as "ball" or qualities such as "green". But it can be done.

Here is a sad little demonstration - and with a cat, no less. In college two friends of mine shared an apartment. One had a cat named "Montague". The other had an abidding dislike of cats. Friend number two used to pick up Montague, out of sight of friend one but in ear-shot, and say in loving tones, "Nice Montague. Nice Montague" - while smacking Montague's head into the wall. Montague soon learned exactly what friend two meant by "Nice", and if friend two approached Montague saying, "Nice Montague" in loving tones, Montague would beat a hasty retreat. Friend 2 had demonstrated the meaning of an idea ("Nice" - or actually, it's exact opposite) to Montague.

(Montague eventually found new lodgings for himself, and never wrote...)

You seem very opposed to the suggestion that a message is ideas expressed, so I will stop using the word "idea" and use "message" instead. No problem with expressed, just a problem with contained or transmitted or such like. Idea is simply something private.


The message is in the meaning that the symbols of words represent. The message came from an intelligence, and to an intelligence is it directed. Ultimately, the cause is the intelligence who created the symbols.
If you start down the chain of causes, you eventually end up at the Big Bang or God (depending on your beliefs). There is no reason to suppose that the message came from the intelligence and not from the biochemical activity in the brain, etc. It is a slippery slope with no point to stop the slide. So I don't go onto the slope. The message is just that the message. It's origin is irrelevant to its meaning, unless its origin is significant as a contextual piece of information. In this case the origin is part of the message, and has to be known for the message to be understood.

I don't dispute that comprehension (understanding) follows the perception of the symbols. However, it is the message that the symbols represent that is what has an effect when that message is comprehended. An emotional effect certainly happens as a cause of comprehension, "welling up from the depths of the soul" as it were.
Fine, we agree. Except that the representation is of meaning, this being included in the symbol, and not of the idea of a non present author.


Right, I worded that badly. The symbolism stands in place of the message, whomever's it is. The symbols do not stand in place of all of you, just the message you are sending. Given the media, though, "you" are little more than messages to me. ;)
True I am just messages, to you.


Well said. Explicit, implicit --I must remember that. A phrase read literally, then, would be explicit. But context is provided by the words and sentences that surround a word, hence it involves use (where to place it to convey the desired effect/meaning).

"Well done!", said to someone who just passed an exam has a different meaning than "Well done!" said to someone who just dropped a packet of eggs. The words mean the same, but the implication is different.


I agree; as I said earlier, the meaning of a message read from the symbols falls to the reader to assign, using the explicit conventional meanings of words he has memorized, and applying interpretation to recognize the implicit message.

Ah! Now, this touches on the difference between a communication and a sign. A communication requires that there be a meaningful message sent, and a meaningful message received. A sign (such as a tea leaf reading) requires only that there be someone to "read" the message. Although in the parlance we say we "read" what tea leaves "say", there is no author for the symbols; the reader is actually applying interpretation to the conventions of symbols that he/she "recognized" in natural patterns.

Communication requires more than that a meaningful message is sent and a meaningful message is received. It requires that we have some way of confirming that the meaning sent is at least similar to the one received. This, unfortunately, is very difficult to do. And is why so many "misunderstandings" happen.


I am the cause of my emotions. They are my own. This is true in any circumstances. A "stimulus" received through perception (say, someone beating up another) that may provoke an emotional response that happens within me, because of me, not because of the thing I perceive. It happens because of my comprehension of the situation. It could be a mugging, in which case I'd be angry; or it could be just two fellas rough-housing, in which case I'd be amused. The cause of my emotion is my interpretation of the situation, what meaning it has to me.

That doesn't, however, prevent me from attributing the emotion to an author or some other external source, or accrediting if you like. That's human nature.
Fine attribute it where you want, but recognise that this is just your attribution, it is not the source or cause. The emotional response that you have to a text is caused by the text. You can attribute this to an author, but the cause is still the text.


As I said above, I'll use "message" instead of "ideas" as you seem to appreciate precision.

It is just that an idea is not a message. A message is an attempt to convey an idea to another mind, or a source for an idea in a mind. The message can not be an idea, otherwise we could transfer ideas from one person to another, and there would be no "getting the wrong idea".

But Mommy can demonstrate "love", and baby can understand it. Mommy talks about "love" to baby while Mommy performs loving acts, such as hugging baby or taking care of baby in some way. It is, granted, much more difficult to demonstrate, as it is more diffcult to assimilate, idea words such as "love" than objects such as "ball" or qualities such as "green". But it can be done.

Here is a sad little demonstration - and with a cat, no less. In college two friends of mine shared an apartment. One had a cat named "Montague". The other had an abidding dislike of cats. Friend number two used to pick up Montague, out of sight of friend one but in ear-shot, and say in loving tones, "Nice Montague. Nice Montague" - while smacking Montague's head into the wall. Montague soon learned exactly what friend two meant by "Nice", and if friend two approached Montague saying, "Nice Montague" in loving tones, Montague would beat a hasty retreat. Friend 2 had demonstrated the meaning of an idea ("Nice" - or actually, it's exact opposite) to Montague.

(Montague eventually found new lodgings for himself, and never wrote...)


Montague learnt that "nice" meant a demonstrable action (hit head against wall). This example does not show that we can learn non demonstrable actions this way.

The term to love, is too vague to be demonstrable. The baby could learn the terms to hug, to kiss, to cuddle, to smile, to tickle, to sing etc. But how does a parent demonstrate "to love"?

No problem with expressed, just a problem with contained or transmitted or such like. Idea is simply something private.
Alright.

If you start down the chain of causes, you eventually end up at the Big Bang or God (depending on your beliefs). There is no reason to suppose that the message came from the intelligence and not from the biochemical activity in the brain, etc. It is a slippery slope with no point to stop the slide. So I don't go onto the slope. The message is just that the message. It's origin is irrelevant to its meaning, unless its origin is significant as a contextual piece of information. In this case the origin is part of the message, and has to be known for the message to be understood.
As I am not informed on the subject of biochemical activity, and I do accept that most conscious beings possess at least a bit of intelligence, I think I'll stick to my original idea there.

I agree that it's origin is not really relevent to its meaning, unless some knowledge of the author gave the message new meaning for its reader.

Fine, we agree. Except that the representation is of meaning, this being included in the symbol, and not of the idea of a non present author.
A symbol, done well, stands precisely in place of the thing it represents, so that there is no significant difference between the two.

"Well done!", said to someone who just passed an exam has a different meaning than "Well done!" said to someone who just dropped a packet of eggs. The words mean the same, but the implication is different.
As is the visual context you've supplied. ;)

Communication requires more than that a meaningful message is sent and a meaningful message is received. It requires that we have some way of confirming that the meaning sent is at least similar to the one received. This, unfortunately, is very difficult to do. And is why so many "misunderstandings" happen.

Fine attribute it where you want, but recognise that this is just your attribution, it is not the source or cause. The emotional response that you have to a text is caused by the text. You can attribute this to an author, but the cause is still the text.

It is just that an idea is not a message. A message is an attempt to convey an idea to another mind, or a source for an idea in a mind. The message can not be an idea, otherwise we could transfer ideas from one person to another, and there would be no "getting the wrong idea".
I think we're done, here.. now I just have to try to understand the "noumenal"...