Theory of the Soul

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah.  I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's kind of a wanker.

This is generally true of all philosophers.

Except Wittgenstein, who was both wrong and a wanker.

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

Basically, any trait we ascribe to a person, place, or thing. If  someone gives to charity a lot,  we say he's generous. If a house was the scene of a murder we say it's haunted. If we trust someone and they act contrary to that trust, we see it as betrayal. Stuff like that. See also the bit about stories  and how these traits are seen over a lifetime.

So you're defining the word "meaning" as an attribution of a trait?

Is the speed of light an example of "meaning", then? Because the speed of light is a trait attributed to light. Most scientists would disagree with that definition, because a trait is a property inherent to an object or occurrence.

The examples you give are not consistent with that definition, as they are all interpretations of events. That is far more consistent with how most cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists use the term "meaning".

funny thing is, i was all hyped to write up why no, the speed of light wouldnt be , and then i realized holy shit:

the speed of light is 299,792,458 miles/second

"miles" are an arbitrary unit of measure we monkeys made up. they dont exist inherently in the universes. if i wanted to I could decide to measure distance in Q-tips and the only difference is that no one else would agree to measuring things that way.

seconds are a measure of time, which is an illusion of human perception, at least if you go by what the zen buddhists have been going on about.

and "299,792,458" also falls into the category of "squiggles we made up to ascribe meaning to stuff" (example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E)

so yea, i guess it is Nigel.

[minuspace]