creativesoul

The frame - if proper - outlines the language use. The resolution is the complexity of use. Pictures built upon descriptions of that which exists prio...

Re-read the thread... If the language is still being used it is not meaningless. The notion of material effect is out of place. It is not necessary.

I can't make much sense of the idea of performing meaning. Does the burn victim need an audience?

I'm not familiar with Fodor. I would readily agree that some mental acts are structured by language. I would also say that some mental acts are prior ...

Are the language users all dead?

Are you offering support for my argument? :wink:

The use. Language use determines meaning. It needs argued for because just saying that ancient text is meaningful presupposes precisely what's in cont...

Means? As in present tense... still means something? Do we know that? That is exactly what my argument refutes. We cannot know it is meaningful if it ...

An ancient text from a long dead people does not have what it takes to be meaningful. We have the signs, marks, symbols... that's it. The referents ma...

That's a good start. What is symbolism existentially dependent upon?

Well that didn't take long... The Rosetta Stone was written in language that is still in use, and was when found. Thus, it is not an example of what I...

Fix your links... Nevermind. It was on my end... My apologies. Reading the Rosetta Stone link now...

You point to different kinds of meaning. That's no problem. Good to note it actually. Knowing what they all have in common, which makes them all meani...

That's an interesting charge given the position I argue for. I agree. That is precisely what needs argued for. Do you have an argument for that claim?...

Red herring. Try again. Quote me and address my word use. We're discussing an ancient text. Ancient texts are examples of language use. It is impossib...

Offering Ayn Rand as an example of an admirable women is... well... ummm... errrr... :yikes:

Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language. Thus, not all meaning involves reference. That said, I'm not sure what Purple Pond is saying ...

Indeed.

Here's a question... Upon what ground does one claim to have deciphered an ancient language into our own? Furthermore, even if one can convince others...

There are innumerable people throughout written history who claim to have deciphered some ancient text or another. I'm not denying that many people, m...

Some things are obvious to some people. Others, not so much. What you seemed to have missed is that by virtue of agreeing with me, you've arrived at s...

Continuing on... There's a little gleaned by looking at how meaning changes in current languages. Language users can change the meaning of well known ...

Impossible. How can an ancient text from a long dead people be of great interest depending upon the time or author, when in order to know what the tim...

Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowi...

This presupposes already understanding the language the ancient text is written in. We must first know what subject they are talking about prior to be...

People using the language the text is written in. Reading presupposes understanding. Understanding presupposes use. One cannot possibly understand the...

Definition of noun : any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject o...

Seems you may be missing the issue. Rather, I'm questioning whether or not it is even able to be deciphered. Moreover, what that would take. I'm consi...

I agree that a coherent answer will follow from one's notion of "meaning". Can one's notion of "meaning" be false, wrong, incomplete, and/or somehow o...

Please explain this charge.

What needs to be definitively determined is what it takes for the meaning of this text in this language to persist through time. What is it that is pe...

The debate offer extends to you as well...

It is a fact that if you cannot determine whether or not it has been correctly deciphered, then you cannot know whether or not it even has meaning, fo...

Don't like answering questions about the position you hold? :worry: I'm just trying to understand it, and making a well-fitted noose at the same time....

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

So, the pattern itself is all it takes after it is made?

Fair enough. I've not been reading everything you write to everyone.

Set it out. What all would have to also be the case in order for us to decipher the meaning of an ancient text?

You're right. That's not what is at issue at all. The fact that you do not have a clear cut criterion for what all meaning consists of is at issue.

Logical possibilities are not facts.

Editing...

This is precisely what's at issue. How do you determine whether or not a text has meaning? What standard do you use as a means for comparison/contrast...

Logical possibilities are not facts.

Certainly, we can say - with great likelihood - that the ancient text was meaningful to the language users. Upon what ground do you conclude that it r...

I tell ya what Sapientia... If you'd like to, I'd love to... There has yet to have been a formal debate on this forum. I think that our discussion has...

Anyone who is willing to assert that a correlation between different things does not always require, include, and depend upon a creature capable of dr...

Open them... look for yourself. The meaningfulness of the word "tree" does not embody the tree nor the utterer of the word. It would need to if what y...

No. It's not. There are no examples of a correlation being drawn between language use and something else that do not include a creature drawing the me...

p1.All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature ...