Basic Semiotics

[Magnus Anderson]

I’ve noticed that many people struggle to understand what definitions are. This issue comes up in discussions on all kinds of topics, so rather than repeating explanations in every thread, I decided to create this thread to clarify these concepts once and for all.

This will be a series of posts each identified by a number and a title. You're free to comment at any point, but note that, until declared finished, this is a work in progress.

Table of contents

1. Symbols and concepts
2. Symbol-concept associations
3. Formal, physical and intended words

[Magnus Anderson]

1. SYMBOLS AND CONCEPTS

A symbol is an aspect of reality that is intended to be used to represent some other aspect of reality.

A symbol can be meaningful or meaningless. It is meaningful insofar a meaning is assigned to it. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

A meaningless symbol cannot represent anything. Thus, in order to be able to use a symbol to accurately represent an aspect of reality, that symbol must be meaningful.

The meaning of a symbol is the same thing as its concept. The concept is that which specifies what kind of things can be represented by the symbol.

Every concept has the following 3 properties:

Intension: the set of all conditions that a thing must meet so that the symbol can be used to represent it.

Possible extension: the set of all possible things that can be represented by the symbol. The emphasis is on the word "possible". These things do not have to exist. The only requirement is that they are logically possible, i.e. that a being with an unlimited power of imagination can imagine them.

Actual extension: the set of all existent things -- past, present and future -- that can be represented by the symbol.

The possible extension is a property that is fully derived from the intension. If you know the intension, you can also know the possible extension.

The actual extension is a property that is derived from the intension of the concept as well as based on what existed, what exists and what will exist.

That makes the intension the defining property of the concept.

If the possible extension is an empty set, the concept is considered effectively missing and the symbol it is attached to is considered effectively meaningless. This happens, for example, when the intension is missing ( "empty concept" ) or when the intension specifies two mutually exclusive conditions ( "self-contradicting concept", "real oxymoron". )

It's important to note the subtle distinction between "meaningless" and "effectively meaningless". The word "meaningless" denotes that the symbol has no concept attached to it. The term "effectively meaningless" denotes that the attached concept has an empty possible extension. The two types of meaninglessness are similar in that they both denote a symbol that can't be used to represent anything at all ( existent or non-existent. )

Concepts can also be non-instantiated provided that their actual extension is empty. An example would be the concept of unicorn. We can imagine all kinds of unicorns ( indicating that the possible extension isn't empty ) but we can't find one in reality ( indicating that the actual extension is empty. )

If the possible extension and the actual extension are singletons, i.e. sets containing exactly one member, then we're speaking of a referential concept. A referential concept attached to a symbol gives that symbol a referent -- the actual thing the symbol points to in reality. For example, the word 'dog' has no single referent, because it can refer to any dog, past, present, or future. A proper name, like 'Fido', does have a specific referent: the individual dog named Fido.

[Magnus Anderson]

2. SYMBOL-CONCEPT ASSOCIATIONS

An aspect of reality X becomes a symbol S the moment someone decides to use it to represent some aspect of reality Y. Actual use is not required; simply deciding to use it, at a specified or unspecified point in the future, is sufficient.

Before a symbol can be used, a concept must be attached -- a set of rules establishing what kinds of things the symbol can represent. Once a concept is attached, we have a symbol–concept association. Such associations are neither true nor false, for only propositions have truth value, and symbol-concept associations are not propositions but tools. Speaking of the truth value of a symbol–concept association would be a category error, analogous to asking whether a hammer is true.

The user is therefore not obliged to attach the "true" concept, for such a concept does not exist. Instead, he's free to assign literally any concept he wants, so as long the resulting association is useful. He is free to attach a concept that is rarely, if ever, assigned to that symbol ( "the idiosyncratic meaning". ) He is free to attach a concept prescribed for that symbol by someone else ( "the normative meaning". ) He is free to attach the commonly attached concept ( "the common meaning". ) And so on. The only limit is utility. Some associations are more useful than others. This is, in general, governed by the language that the target audience understands.

For example, the spoken sound "tree" is just a vibration in the air until someone decides to use it as a means of communication. At that point, it becomes a symbol. Once a concept such as "tall plants with trunks, roots and branches" is attached to it, it becomes a meaningful symbol -- in this case, a meaningful symbol for trees. But nothing forces this association. If we wanted, we could attach "tree" to the concept of cars, the number five, or even the feeling of sadness. The sound itself is neutral; what gives it meaning is the concept the user chooses to attach to it. And that choice is entirely guided by utility.

In principle, anything can function as a symbol. For interpersonal communication, however, people most commonly choose words -- sequences of letters, spoken or written. A word is thus a type of symbol, a compound symbol built from simpler symbols -- letters. Most letters are meaningless individually, but when combined into words, they can form meaningful symbols.

The subsequent posts will focus specifically on words and their definitions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Distinctions are the underlying degree by which all things occur, the change of distinctions into other distinctions is but the distinction of "meaning".


Thoughts?



As to what you wrote, I agree with what I read of your stance, I am of the same, or similar mindset.

[Age]

I’ve noticed that many people struggle to understand what definitions are.

Which makes one wonder what sort of people you believe that you are actually conversing with, exactly.

This issue comes up in discussions on all kinds of topics, so rather than repeating explanations in every thread, I decided to create this thread to clarify these concepts once and for all.

Why?

Do you believe that your own personal and subjective views and beliefs hold the one and only true, right, accurate, and correct concepts?

This will be a series of posts each identified by a number and a title. You're free to comment at any point, but note that, until declared finished, this is a work in progress.

Okay.

But, can your own personal concepts be changed during this 'work in progress'? Or, is it only 'the others' who have to follow and abide by your own understand and explanations of what 'definitions' are, and until 'they' do agree with and accept your personal understanding, then 'they' will remain, well according to you, to 'struggle to understand what definitions are'?

[Age]

1. SYMBOLS AND CONCEPTS

A symbol is an aspect of reality that is intended to be used to represent some other aspect of reality.

But, until 'you' define, and explain, what your own personal understanding of what the word, 'reality', means and/or is in relation to, exactly, then the rest of 'us' can only and will have to just 'assume' what you are talking about and meaning, here, exactly.

If a 'symbol' is an aspect of 'reality', which is what you believe, and claim, here, then what is 'reality', itself, exactly?

Now, if you do not want to answer and clarify 'this question', then why not?

Are you afraid of some thing, here?

If no, then why is 'it' stopping and preventing you, here, from just being open, honest, and transparent, here?

A symbol can be meaningful or meaningless.

you appear to have forgotten that to some people every thing is meaningless, as well as forgotten that what you consider meaningful another might not, and vice versa, what you consider what is meaningless another might.

It is meaningful insofar a meaning is assigned to it. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Great, so there is, really, no way of determining what symbols are actually meaningful from which ones are not, right?

A meaningless symbol cannot represent anything. Thus, in order to be able to use a symbol to accurately represent an aspect of reality, that symbol must be meaningful.

Will you provide any examples, here?

If no, then, again, why not?

The meaning of a symbol is the same thing as its concept. The concept is that which specifies what kind of things can be represented by the symbol.

Every concept has the following 3 properties:

Intension: the set of all conditions that a thing must meet so that the symbol can be used to represent it.

Possible extension: the set of all possible things that can be represented by the symbol. The emphasis is on the word "possible".

So, why did you not just emphasise the word 'possible' when you wrote and used 'that word' in 'your sentence'?

These things do not have to exist. The only requirement is that they are logically possible, i.e. that a being with an unlimited power of imagination can imagine them.

Actual extension: the set of all existent things -- past, present and future -- that can be represented by the symbol.

But, absolutely every thing is already represented by a symbol or symbols, anyway.

And, for proof of this one just has to realize that there is not a single thing that can not be represented by symbols.

But, if any one wants to believe otherwise, then explain to 'us' what things are not represented by a symbol or by symbols.

And, until 'this' can be shown and proved possible, then the fact would be that all symbols are meaningful. Well according to "magnus anderson's" own logic and claim above, here.

The possible extension is a property that is fully derived from the intension. If you know the intension, you can also know the possible extension.

The actual extension is a property that is derived from the intension of the concept as well as based on what existed, what exists and what will exist.

That makes the intension the defining property of the concept.

If the possible extension is an empty set, the concept is considered effectively missing and the symbol it is attached to is considered effectively meaningless. This happens, for example, when the intension is missing ( "empty concept" ) or when the intension specifies two mutually exclusive conditions ( "self-contradicting concept", "real oxymoron". )

What even is 'intension', to you, exactly?

It's important to note the subtle distinction between "meaningless" and "effectively meaningless". The word "meaningless" denotes that the symbol has no concept attached to it. The term "effectively meaningless" denotes that the attached concept has an empty possible extension. The two types of meaninglessness are similar in that they both denote a symbol that can't be used to represent anything at all ( existent or non-existent. )

Creating and/or presenting symbols that do not and can not represent any thing at all, besides being obviously meaningless, is just absolutely useless anyway. Which, by the way, I could not see absolutely any one of you human beings doing, anyway, nor even in any way.

So, what can also be said and argued, here, is that even just bringing 'this' up and talking about 'it' is also, really, rather meaningless as well as absolutely useless, also.

But, 'each to their own', as some say.

Concepts can also be non-instantiated provided that their actual extension is empty. An example would be the concept of unicorn. We can imagine all kinds of unicorns ( indicating that the possible extension isn't empty ) but we can't find one in reality ( indicating that the actual extension is empty. )

What do you even mean by, 'reality', itself?

And, how do you know that some 'we' can not find one in some 'reality', for ever more, (or for as long as that 'we' lives for anyway)?

If the possible extension and the actual extension are singletons, i.e. sets containing exactly one member, then we're speaking of a referential concept. A referential concept attached to a symbol gives that symbol a referent -- the actual thing the symbol points to in reality. For example, the word 'dog' has no single referent, because it can refer to any dog, past, present, or future. A proper name, like 'Fido', does have a specific referent: the individual dog named Fido.

But, that name can also refer to any dog with the label 'fido' as well. Just like the word, 'dog' has no single referent. Unless, of course, there is only one single referent dog with the name 'fido'. But, is there only one single referent, which goes by the name 'fido'?

Also, and by the way, here, is another prime example of how and when these adult human beings would 'try' their very hardest to come across as though they were smart and/or intelligent, but in the actual process would just complicate 'that', which is, really, just pure simple, and actually simplicity in and of itself.

'These people', back when this was being written, had obtained beliefs and presumptions, which they dearly loved to hold onto, and in order to hold onto those beliefs and assumptions they would 'try to' find words, which they hoped would back up and support their beliefs and assumptions in some possible way.

[Magnus Anderson]

But, until 'you' define, and explain, what your own personal understanding of what the word, 'reality', means and/or is in relation to, exactly, then the rest of 'us' can only and will have to just 'assume' what you are talking about and meaning, here, exactly.

I believe we all agree on the meaning of the word "reality", so there is no need to define it.

The term "aspect of reality", however, might need some clarification.

If you still insist on the definition of the word "reality", here's the Google definition. You can also check any other dictionary if you want. They all say the same thing.

reality
/riˈalɪti/
noun
1.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"

[Age]

2. SYMBOL-CONCEPT ASSOCIATIONS

An aspect of reality X becomes a symbol S the moment someone decides to use it to represent some aspect of reality Y. Actual use is not required; simply deciding to use it, at a specified or unspecified point in the future, is sufficient.

Hopefully you provided examples for your previous post, which I responded to, after I asked if you would. But, even if you did or did not, then will you provide examples of what you just claimed, here?

If no, then, again, why not?

Before a symbol can be used, a concept must be attached -- a set of rules establishing what kinds of things the symbol can represent. Once a concept is attached, we have a symbol–concept association.

So, what all human beings just do naturally, from about the very first moment babies utter words like 'mum ma', for example, you think you need to explain, here, to people in a philosophy forum, right?

Such associations are neither true nor false, for only propositions have truth value, and symbol-concept associations are not propositions but tools.

So, did you just present a 'proposition' or just another 'symbol-concept association', exactly?

Speaking of the truth value of a symbol–concept association would be a category error, analogous to asking whether a hammer is true.

But, no one, here, would ask a question like, 'Is a hammer true?' correct?

The user is therefore not obliged to attach the "true" concept, for such a concept does not exist.

Well, obviously, if some thing does not exist, then a so-called 'user' could not even attach 'it', let alone be so-called 'obliged to attach 'it'.

Instead, he's free to assign literally any concept he wants, so as long the resulting association is useful.

1. Why are 'you' referencing only 'hes', here, exactly?

2. "he" is also absolutely free to assign literally any concept "he" wants, even if the resulting association is not useful, in any way whatsoever.

3. But, if you continue to want to believe that "he" is only free to assign any concept as long as the resulting association is useful, then why, exactly, and by whose rule and/or law, exactly? Also, who is going to 'enforce' 'this must'?

4. Is your claim, here, a 'proposition', or just another one of your 'symbol-concept association', because if 'it' is a 'proposition', then what is any 'truth value' based upon, exactly? But, if 'it' is just another one of your own personal 'symbol-concept association', then 'it' is neither true nor false, anyway.

He is free to attach a concept that is rarely, if ever, assigned to that symbol ( "the idiosyncratic meaning". )

you speak as though you are some 'guardian' over what is 'allowed' and 'not allowed' in speech and writings.

Now, why is this so-called only "he" free to attach a concept that is 'rarely' assigned to 'that symbol', but is, apparently, not allowed to attach a concept that has 'never' before assigned to 'that symbol'?

And, who, besides 'you', is allowed to rule supreme in 'this belief and claim' of 'yours', here?

He is free to attach a concept prescribed for that symbol by someone else ( "the normative meaning". )

I will suggest that any one is free to attach absolutely any concept for whatever symbol one chooses. And, who of you is going to 'try to' refute 'this'?

He is free to attach the commonly attached concept ( "the common meaning". ) And so on. The only limit is utility. Some associations are more useful than others. This is, in general, governed by the language that the target audience understands.

Well, considering the irrefutable Fact that you adult human beings, in the day and age when this is being written, are, still, in conflict and confusion over what the actual concepts, meanings, or definitions are for words, and what words are even referring to what things, exactly, then what you are prescribing, here, is just what has been done, which is obviously not working out that well for you human beings. So, I suggest that a completely new and far more absolutely simplistic overhaul and system might just work in favor for you human beings in language and communication style, which, in turn, produces actual miscommunication, and actual understanding, itself. Thus, which is what leads to no confusion and no conflict at all.

For example, the spoken sound "tree" is just a vibration in the air until someone decides to use it as a means of communication. At that point, it becomes a symbol. Once a concept such as "tall plants with trunks, roots and branches" is attached to it, it becomes a meaningful symbol -- in this case, a meaningful symbol for trees.

But, and let 'us' not forget that absolutely any 'concept' at all could have been, and thus, still, could be, 'attached' to 'that spoken sound or written word'.

And, also let 'us' not forget that it might well just be the case that absolutely every symbol spoken and/or written has always be attached to some thing anyway. Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

And, just because 'another' might not have a clue nor idea about what any spoken or written symbol is being attached to, yet, 'this' in no way means that that symbol does not yet have a meaningful concept attached to 'it'.

But nothing forces this association. If we wanted, we could attach "tree" to the concept of cars, the number five, or even the feeling of sadness. The sound itself is neutral; what gives it meaning is the concept the user chooses to attach to it. And that choice is entirely guided by utility.

Again, you speak as though no one, here, did not already know this.

Or, were you already aware that some or every one, here, already knew this?

In principle, anything can function as a symbol. For interpersonal communication, however, people most commonly choose words -- sequences of letters, spoken or written. A word is thus a type of symbol, a compound symbol built from simpler symbols -- letters. Most letters are meaningless individually, but when combined into words, they can form meaningful symbols.

And, some words like, 'I', and, 'a', can have or provide far more meaning than whole words, sentences, paragraphs, and even whole books.

For example, when 'you' human beings also come to know who 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will learn, and understand, how 'I' have and hold far more meaning, then all of 'you' ever did.

Also, and by the way, the most common chosen words/symbols, and/or their most common chosen definitions, or meanings, will never, by in and of itself, lead you human beings closer to finding and uncovering more of what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

In fact the actual Truth of things, in Life, never has to necessarily align with any of human beings past symbols, concepts, meanings, nor definitions. And, obviously, of course.

Using so-called 'common meanings and definitions' might work in causing less confusion among a group of people, but 'commonly used meanings and definitions' never necessarily lead you human beings on the Right TRACK, in Life, which leads you human beings in the Right direction, in Life.

As the last few millennia have shown and proved, absolutely.

The subsequent posts will focus specifically on words and their definitions.

Great. 'I' 'look forward', to them.

[Age]

Distinctions are the underlying degree by which all things occur,

But, and once more, that the very 'Thing', by which all things occur, is not 'distinction', itself. As it could be said and argued that all of the things that had occurred, occurred before 'distinction' came in to play. As 'distinction' is done only by the very thing, known as you human beings, which obviously came to occur 'after' all of the other occurring things.

the change of distinctions into other distinctions is but the distinction of "meaning".

Which, again, is done only by you human beings.

Thoughts?

Yes, 'you', the one known, here, as "eodnhoj7", is absolutely closed, some times.

As to what you wrote, I agree with what I read of your stance, I am of the same, or similar mindset.

So, what is actually different, exactly, which is 'similar' and 'not the same'.

[Magnus Anderson]

But, that name can also refer to any dog with the label 'fido' as well. Just like the word, 'dog' has no single referent. Unless, of course, there is only one single referent dog with the name 'fido'. But, is there only one single referent, which goes by the name 'fido'?

The statement "Fido is a good dog" does not mean "Every dog named Fido is a good dog". It means that a specific dog called Fido that the speaker has in mind is a good dog.

Two different instances of the same word can have different -- even completely different -- meanings.

For example, the word "tren" means "train" in Spanish but "moment" in Serbian.

Similarly, the word "Fido" can mean John's dog but it can also mean Terry's dog.

[Magnus Anderson]

Also, and by the way, here, is another prime example of how and when these adult human beings would 'try' their very hardest to come across as though they were smart and/or intelligent, but in the actual process would just complicate 'that', which is, really, just pure simple, and actually simplicity in and of itself.

'These people', back when this was being written, had obtained beliefs and presumptions, which they dearly loved to hold onto, and in order to hold onto those beliefs and assumptions they would 'try to' find words, which they hoped would back up and support their beliefs and assumptions in some possible way.

And here we have a prime example of an arrogant forum member employing an indirect ad hominem.

[Age]

But, until 'you' define, and explain, what your own personal understanding of what the word, 'reality', means and/or is in relation to, exactly, then the rest of 'us' can only and will have to just 'assume' what you are talking about and meaning, here, exactly.

I believe we all agree on the meaning of the word "reality", so there is no need to define it.

And, here, 'it' is. The prime example of why 'these human beings', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', HERE.

'they' actually 'believed', not just 'thought', that absolutely every agrees on the exact same 'meanings' for words. And, laughingly 'this one' even used the 'reality' word, for, the example.

And, then, laughingly, 'this one' even 'tries to' use 'the excuse' that there is absolutely 'no need', at all, to define words, in the days when this was being written. Which, explains, exactly, why there was so much misunderstanding, confusion, and conflict in 'that world'.

The term "aspect of reality", however, might need some clarification.

Once again, because your own personal beliefs are preventing and stopping you from 'hearing' and 'learning', until you provide 'the definition' that you are, personally, using, here, for the 'reality' word, which you use, here, then everyone else, here, is, literally, only 'pre-assuming' what 'you' are actually meaning, here.

So, before the term, 'aspect of reality' needs clarification, itself, and not just 'some' clarification, the word, 'reality', itself, needs to be clarified, exactly, itself, first.

If you still insist on the definition of the word "reality", here's the Google definition.

What do you mean 'insist'?

If you are too weak and/or just too scared to present the actual definition/s, which you are using, then do no whinge, whine, nor complain when others just keep not understanding you, here.

you complained and complained that absolutely no one was agreeing with you in one of your other threads. I explained to you why others were not agreeing with you, but, again, because of your incessant beliefs you could not hear, and comprehend, and so instead just kept on whinging.

So, if you want to use that one definition', if there is only one there, then so be it. Why did you just not write it down, previously, instead of again going on how you have been, here?

You can also check any other dictionary if you want. They all say the same thing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is another prime example of 'confirmation bias'. 'This one' only 'sees' and 'hears' what it already believes is absolutely true.

If 'this one', really, believes, absolutely, that absolutely every dictionary and absolutely every definition for the word, 'reality', all say the exact same thing, then 'this one' has, once again, just proved, irrefutably, just how absolutely closed 'these human beings', could and were, back when this was being written, and thus how absolutely blind and deaf they really were.

LOL Every dictionary ALL say the same thing in regards to the 'meaning' of the word, 'reality'. LOL

The so-called 'experts', that is, the "scientists" do not even agree on things like what 'reality' is. And, LOL 'they' are meant to be 'the ones' who 'look at' and 'study' 'reality', itself.

reality
/riˈalɪti/
noun
1.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"

Great. 'we', finally, 'got here'.

Now, and as always, if absolutely any one would like to have a Truly open and honest discussion about actual definitions/meanings of words, which 'fit in', perfectly, with G.U.T.O.E., which is also what no one could refute, and thus could not logically disagree with, then let 'us' begin.

But, obviously, (well to me anyway), using 'the provided definition', here, for the 'reality' word is why 'these human beings' took so, so long to finally 'catch up' to what the actual Truth of things, in Life, are exactly.

[Magnus Anderson]

But, can your own personal concepts be changed during this 'work in progress'? Or, is it only 'the others' who have to follow and abide by your own understand and explanations of what 'definitions' are, and until 'they' do agree with and accept your personal understanding, then 'they' will remain, well according to you, to 'struggle to understand what definitions are'?

I am open to correction, if that's what you're asking.

[Magnus Anderson]

Therefore, every symbol has always been meaningful.

What meaning did I assign to the word "xlkhowieur"?

None. Therefore, it's meaningless.

The fact that I can now take that word and assign it a meaning won't make the above instance of that word meaningful. That instance of the word, written at that point in time, is forever meaningless.

[Age]

But, that name can also refer to any dog with the label 'fido' as well. Just like the word, 'dog' has no single referent. Unless, of course, there is only one single referent dog with the name 'fido'. But, is there only one single referent, which goes by the name 'fido'?

The statement "Fido is a good dog" does not mean "Every dog named Fido is a good dog".

And, the statement, 'Dogs are a good animal', does not mean, 'Every dog is a good dog', as well. But, so what?

you were not even talking about 'a good nor bad dog', before. And, I was, obviously, responding to only the 'actual words', which you had previously presented.

It means that a specific dog called Fido that the speaker has in mind is a good dog.

Which, once again, and depending on the 'exact example', might 'have to' another time when 'another assumption' 'has to' be made.

And, as 'we' all, here, know, each and every assumption could be Wrong, or partly wrong. And, without seeking out and obtaining 'actual clarification' 'we' will never know, for sure.

Two different instances of the same word can have different -- even completely different -- meanings.

For example, the word "tren" means "train" in Spanish but "moment" in Serbian.

Similarly, the word "Fido" can mean John's dog but it can also mean Terry's dog.

So, why 'you' have been, continuously, 'trying to' dismiss what 'I' have been highlighting and pointing out, here, which is the 'very point' you just made, here, really makes some wonder.

Also, please do not forget that some words have completely opposing meanings. So, once again, 'I' will suggest that instead of assuming or believing absolutely any thing 'you' all just seeking out, obtain, and gain 'actual clarity, first, then that way 'you' stop being so Wrong, so often.

For example, if words like, 'reality', do have different - even completely different - meanings, and you are not yet 100% absolutely sure what the writer or speaker is meaning, exactly, then seek out clarification, before you even begin to assume any thing. If, and when, you do, then 'doing this' will reduce some much confusion, misunderstanding, and conflict within 'the world'.