undefined | Better HN

0 pointshackinthebochs9y ago0 comments

You seem to be defining meaning just as what conscious entities endow something with, and so our abstract notion of Go necessarily receives its meaning from us. I don't agree with this.

At its most basic, meaning just is the set of concepts and behaviors that allow correct manipulation as judged by some standard. So in this case the rules of the game have meaning within the context of a game of Go as they allow for correct manipulation of the game state. That what constitutes valid board states was derived from conscious entities isn't relevant here. The rules of Go have meaning (allow for proper manipulation) within the context of the system of valid board states and transitions between them.

(you can reply to comments by clicking on the timestamp)

0 comments

goatlover9y ago

Concepts are something minds create to make sense of the world. Correct manipulation as judged by standard is also a mental judgement. The rules of Go are rules because human beings defined them. That there is a context for valid board states is because we created a game that had a context.

hackinthebochsOP9y ago

>The rules of Go are rules because human beings defined them.

But this says nothing about meaning within this framework. "Concepts"/entities/units within the framework have meaning precisely because of the relations inherent between the entities and states within the framework. The ultimate source of the framework is not relevant.

The entities in the system do not "get" meaning because of a conscious observer, they get meaning because of the relational properties between the entities. If every person in the universe suddenly died, those meaningful relationships would still be valid. After all, the relationships entailed by math is true regardless if anyone is there to recognize them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse