The Meaning of Meaning

Language is all about transferring meaningful utterances from one person to another. But what do we mean by “meaning”? How do we understand the meaning of language? In this video, we'll discuss some theories of meaning and how these different views shape our understanding of language and truth.
0:00 - Intro
1:31 - Meaning as truth
2:54 - Compositionality
7:48 - Sense and reference
14:10 - Externalism vs internalism
20:18 - Twin Earth
24:59 - Key concepts
Sources:
Sources:
Gómez-Torrente (2022). Alfred Tarski. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/entries/ta...
Zalta (2022). Gottlob Frege. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/archives/s...
Putnam (1973). Meaning and reference. doi.org/10.2307/2025079
Pietroski (2017). Semantic internalism. books.google.com/books?id=vdo...
Farkas (2006). Semantic internalism and externalism. doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780...

[@aunri]

As you were switching from explaining internalise and externalism I couldn't decide on one and came to a very similar understanding to what your professor eloquently stated. The way I would have tried to explain it is that we are subjective beings (experientially internalists, living in a black box etc.) that attempt to internalise the referent as accurately as possible (not always true) so as to improve understanding/communication/interaction on a functional, or just an exploratory/mapping level. Thank you for your videos. I find them very stimulating. I enjoy soaking up the thoughts of deep thinkers and your thinking is particularly clear and humble.

[@aunri]

Actually how I would differentiate between externalists and internalists would be to say that externalists take an objective "God's eye view" and internalists take a subjective "mind's eye view". So to me both externalism and internalism can be true simultaneously, it is just a matter of perspective, but I would say that humans function as internalists. Meaning comes from within, but truth about the world is out there.

[@RYANRHODES-cogsci]

@@aunri Internalism can be a very pragmatic philosophy. Of course we would like to know and communicate about objects in the world, but all we really have concrete access to is our own mental representations...

[@aleks5097]

"Process of computing a referent" is great, but it sounds a bit too abstract. The act of articulating the word "water" in distinct circumstances on various planets can be approached as purely performative endeavor. Consider the scenario where an individual points to a watercooler and requests a cup of water. In numerous real and hypothetical situations, this simple act could prompt someone else to fulfill the request by engaging with the machine. This process exhibits a self-referential quality, where the notion at hand cannot be neatly categorized as either externalist or internalist. It necessitates the involvement of an individual in making a statement, at the same time the statement itself may lack any corresponding internal contents. All that matters, its articulation consistently makes the job done. Thanks for a very engaging content!

[@deadlock7946]

Great video! You explained the topic in a very clear way

[@Riegle105]

thanks for the interesting lecture. i searched for "the meaning of meaning"

[@bielr]

I think that the same person have different internal agents with different representation for the same word, which allow us to compute different referents in different contexts, and also to communicate with different set of people.

[@BAAAAAAAAAAA]

Wow, Lanas brother really took a different route

[@ilyas_elouchihi]

Yoo man welcome back!

[@MarylnBowan-vg7te]

(FACTS OVA FEELINGS). Eye Tired Of Meeting the Same PPL In Different Bodies

[@nicolasgiaconia8051]

Oof! Finally finished with my exams and ready to finish watching this series! I absolutely love it

[@RYANRHODES-cogsci]

Awesome! Glad you're enjoying it

[@nicolasgiaconia8051]

@@RYANRHODES-cogsci Yes! I found blindsight especially intriguing. I'm a second year medical student so I'm very familiar with neuroanatomy, but somewhat less with neuropathology. However I'm really interested in conciousness and its neurological basis. The thing is: blindsight suggests that V1 (Brodmann 17) is responsible not only for visual processing, but also for integrating vision into conciousnes. Lately however I had been taking a look into the claustrum and other structures resembling it hoping to find a system that integrates all sensory aspects into the concious experience. But if V1 brings visual information into the conscious mind, it can't simply be that each sensory cortical region sends information to associative centers and there it becomes conscious. Do we piece multiple conscious "patches" into one big experience? And if so, we have to tackle the problem of non-locality of conscious states (information flows at non-zero speed through the brain, so how can it be unified, even between 2 neurons). I suggest you take a look into the claustrum if you haven't yet. Also its interaction with LSD and other psychedelics explains at least on principle some of the subjective experiences associated with recreational use. In short: LSD is an agonist to the 5HT-2A receptor for serotonin, which is highly present in the claustrum. Here, transduction of the signal brings an inhibitory effect on the neurons in the claustrum. The more you stimulate the claustrum, the more it "shuts the door" to what cam an can not enter your mental representation of the self. LSD inhibits it so it kicks the door wide open so to speak. That's why, i think, when you're on psychedelics and you feel the grass below your feet, the tactile sensory information isn't filtered by the claustrum, so you think it's, well, you. And by extension everything you perceive becomes you. I'm curious what you think about all of this. There's plenty of systematic reviews on PubMed covering the claustrum, psychedelics, correlations with autism etc.

[@RYANRHODES-cogsci]

@@nicolasgiaconia8051 There's also predictive coding accounts that link perception, binding, and psychedelics, which I find very intriguing! But this type of explanation isn't a competitor to your account - they're just different types of explanations (in the David Marr sense)

[@markwinther4869]

It would interesting to measure meaning as an adaptive network viz. Node (representation, problem, data, circumstances, uncertinatiy) Link (computation, interpretation, process, analysis, classification, transformation) frame (narrative, knowledge structure, ideology, mental model, paradigm, rules, algorithms). Network (state, structure, feeling, attitude, meaning, sense, understanding, concentration). The four concepts are fractals can measure anything like calculus and are nested. Can you please look into cognitive science through networks

[@xario5449]

Are you asking relative to this video or in general?

[@markwinther4869]

@@xario5449 in general