Talk:Meaning (non-linguistic)

message: "Meaning as Interpretation" could be changed to "Meaning (psychological)".  "Somatic meaning" could be changed to "Meaning (anthropological)".  This has the advantage of refering to where some of the information originates, although the boundaries are blurry.  "Cultural meaning" will be a part of the first category even though it is studied by many social sciences.  Likewise, considerable work in psychology has gone into physiology, "body language", and the associated phenomena.
We might have to wait for someone to sort out all the social sciences, including history.  Maybe the current classification scheme is simple enough to work with some relatively minor explanation.  I worry that some of these distinctions come from us, however recognizable they may be by the general public.
: You bring up an important point. I think it would be fruitful to step back and make sure we're using terms that people in the various disciplines would use. Lucidish 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: "Natural meaning" raises a variation of the question "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?".  In the Himalayas many Buddhists have automated devices (wheels and flags) to recite their prayers for them.  At the time, I kept wondering whether a prayer without a mind's consciousness was valid?  Does it have meaning?  I am inclined to think that meaning does not exist without the mind, but millions of years of evolution may mean that I am wrong.  Survival/persistence has an intrinsic "natural" meaning all its own.  "Tiger, tiger, burning bright, in the forest of the night!"  Fearful is right.  Bob 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way that the word "meaning" is used in the case of non-natural meaning has to do with the interpretations and associations that people form of natural phenomena. So the mind still plays a part. Paul Grice made some hay out of this distinction, if you're interested in learning more. Lucidish 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's one way of looking at it. Maybe it's not the best example. Grice's main example was something akin to, "That smoke means there's a fire". Lucidish 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite right. Done and done. Lucidish 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural Meaning

message: * JA: Strictly speaking, compositional semantics is limited to languages that are context-free and lower in the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy.  Jon Awbrey 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you posted on the wrong page. This page has to do with non-linguistic meaning. Lucidish 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah. The word "compositional" was used in the Fregean sense, not in the Chomskian one. And the subject isn't obviously about semantics or grammar at all, rather it has to do with pragmatics and semiotics. Lucidish 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been taught in philosophy of language courses to understand the principle of compositionality in broader terms. We've used it to discuss certain (mainly semantic) features of natural languages -- or at least (presumably) to discuss those components of natural languages which arise from the contributions of those which sit lower on the heirarchy. It was in that spirit that I used the word, which I hope was not idiosyncratic. In any case, the point seems to be moot, since Bob rewrote the intro. Lucidish 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On compositional semantics

message: The first step in explanation of meaning of the 'meaning' is to note that truth, as something observable, is the duality of a symbol and its meaning. For example the truth smbolised by the word 'book' is such a duality because that which the symbol 'book' means is independent of the symbol 'book'. The same object which in english language is called 'book' has many other symbols in other languages and yet the meaning is in all the cases the same. The symbol 'book' is physicsl in the form of a sound, a written geometrical figure or some other phisical form of communication with another person, using senses. The 'meaning' is independent of the senses and it resides in the mind, i. e. in the immaterial space time.(92.29.122.152 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the 'meaning'. 

message: This reads like an OR-fest, both the article and the talk page. if you think I am wrong about that, you know what to do. 1Z (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meaning (non-linguistic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925004709/http://www.imprint.co.uk/C%26HK/vol7/gudemi.PDF to http://www.imprint.co.uk/C%26HK/vol7/gudemi.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I'm not sure I think the best way to go about is deletion. I don't exactly know how to judge if it deserves a separate article, but ideally there should at least be some section somewhere about it (but right now there's no Semantics (linguistics)-article to put it). But I acknowledge that the lead is incomprehensible and the rest is in a pretty bad state. Maybe draftify it and then I can do something about it? Replayful (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mostly thinking deletion because if the content itself is mostly useless or incomprehensible, and the article name itself is also bad, there's not really anything of value here left to keep. If we're at the position where a whole new draft needs to be started to have something worth keeping, that sort of means that nothing worthwhile is there now. And if there should be a section somewhere about it, that section will probably get written eventually independent of whether or not this article stays up.  - car chasm (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the assessment is not exactly at "mostly useless or incomprehensible", just a very unencyclopedic and bad version of some knowledge that I am otherwise aware of (but some stuff definitely has got to go). I will need the references/authors mentioned in the article in order to work on it; I wasn't thinking about a whole new draft. I mostly know it as pre-linguistic meaning so a better title could probably be worked out. You're very right that mention elsewhere doesn't depend on this article though. Replayful (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of deletion proposal 

message: It is like part of an digestive system Ivadialea (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is Cellular Digestions