I normally think of meaning in terms of isomorphisms between systems.
That is, if we characterize a subset of domain X as entity Ax with relationships to other entities in X (Bx, Cx, and so forth), and we characterize those relationships in certain ways… inhibitory and excitory linkages of spreading activation, for example, or correlated appearance and disappearance, or identity of certain attributes like color or size, and entity Ay in domain Y has relationships to other entities in Y (By, Cy, and so forth), and there’s a way to characterize Ax’s relationships to Bx, Cx, etc. such that Ay has the same relationships to By, Cy, etc., then it makes sense to talk about Ax, Bx, and Cx having the same meaning as Ay, By, and Cy.
(In and of itself, this is a symmetrical relationship… it suggests that if “rock” means rock, then rock means “rock.” Asymmetry can be introduced via the process that maintains the similar relationships and what direction causality flows through it… for example, if saying “The rock crumbles into dust” causes the rock to crumble into dust, it makes sense to talk about the object meaning the word; if crumbling the rock causes me to make that utterance, it makes sense to talk about the word meaning the object. If neither of those things happens, the isomorphism is broken and it stops making sense to say there’s any meaning involved at all. But I digress.)
The relationship between the string “2” in a calculator and the number of FOOs in a pile of FOOs (or, to state that more generally, between “2″ and the number 2) is different for A and B, so “2” means different things in A and B.
But it’s worth noting that isomorphisms can be discovered by adopting new ways of characterizing relationships and entities within domains. That is, the full meaning of “2” isn’t necessarily obvious, even if I’ve been using the calculator for a while. I might suddenly discover a way of characterizing the relationships in A and B such that “2″ in A and B are isomorphic… that is, I might discover that “2” really does mean the same thing in A and B after all!
This might or might not be a useful discovery, depending on how useful that new way of characterizing relationships is.
As lukeprog notes, all of this is pretty standard philosophy of language.
So, if asked what “right” means to me, I’m ultimately inclined to look at what relationship “right” has to other things in my head, and what kinds of systems in the world have isomorphic patterns of relationships, and what entities in those systems correspond to “right”, and whether other people’s behavior is consistent with their having similar relationships in their head.
I mostly conclude based on this exercise that to describe an action as being “right” is to imply that a legitimate (though unspecified) authority endorses that action. I find that increasingly distasteful, and prefer to talk about endorsing the action myself.
I normally think of meaning in terms of isomorphisms between systems.
That is, if we characterize a subset of domain X as entity Ax with relationships to other entities in X (Bx, Cx, and so forth), and we characterize those relationships in certain ways… inhibitory and excitory linkages of spreading activation, for example, or correlated appearance and disappearance, or identity of certain attributes like color or size, and entity Ay in domain Y has relationships to other entities in Y (By, Cy, and so forth), and there’s a way to characterize Ax’s relationships to Bx, Cx, etc. such that Ay has the same relationships to By, Cy, etc., then it makes sense to talk about Ax, Bx, and Cx having the same meaning as Ay, By, and Cy.
(In and of itself, this is a symmetrical relationship… it suggests that if “rock” means rock, then rock means “rock.” Asymmetry can be introduced via the process that maintains the similar relationships and what direction causality flows through it… for example, if saying “The rock crumbles into dust” causes the rock to crumble into dust, it makes sense to talk about the object meaning the word; if crumbling the rock causes me to make that utterance, it makes sense to talk about the word meaning the object. If neither of those things happens, the isomorphism is broken and it stops making sense to say there’s any meaning involved at all. But I digress.)
The relationship between the string “2” in a calculator and the number of FOOs in a pile of FOOs (or, to state that more generally, between “2″ and the number 2) is different for A and B, so “2” means different things in A and B.
But it’s worth noting that isomorphisms can be discovered by adopting new ways of characterizing relationships and entities within domains. That is, the full meaning of “2” isn’t necessarily obvious, even if I’ve been using the calculator for a while. I might suddenly discover a way of characterizing the relationships in A and B such that “2″ in A and B are isomorphic… that is, I might discover that “2” really does mean the same thing in A and B after all!
This might or might not be a useful discovery, depending on how useful that new way of characterizing relationships is.
As lukeprog notes, all of this is pretty standard philosophy of language.
So, if asked what “right” means to me, I’m ultimately inclined to look at what relationship “right” has to other things in my head, and what kinds of systems in the world have isomorphic patterns of relationships, and what entities in those systems correspond to “right”, and whether other people’s behavior is consistent with their having similar relationships in their head.
I mostly conclude based on this exercise that to describe an action as being “right” is to imply that a legitimate (though unspecified) authority endorses that action. I find that increasingly distasteful, and prefer to talk about endorsing the action myself.