The question is simple. Is there intrinsic meaning?

Example...

There are dark clouds coming over the horizon, quickly. They are accompanied by howling winds and thunder/lightning.

Another...

A dog is wagging it's tail.

Another...

A cat has it's ears pinned back and is hissing while crouched down in a corner.

--

Is there intrinsic meaning here?

When I think of something intrinsic I think of an innate characteristic of an object, thing, or person.

When I think of meaning I think of expression. What was meant. The intention of a particular communication whether it be oral or otherwise.

So based on these definitions I would say no. That meanings arise out of intentions which are not intrinsic.

Does it make sense to say that the first example does not mean that it is likely that it is about to rain?

These things teeter on the edge of language.

I suppose it be better put...

Is meaning contingent upon language? Doesn't behavior have intrinsic meaning, regardless of whether or not it is animate or inanimate?

Another thought on the matter...

If causality is a property of the universe, and it obeys the physical laws of it, then wouldn't our apprehension of causality be the recognition of intrinsic meaning?

If X then...

The sun plays?

Odd.

The sun comes out? Odd again. Where does it go when it is not coming out to play?

Yes.

Why do you ask?

Because it interests me.



Why do you answer?

1. It might rain if we are lucky. (Colorado)
OR lightening might destroy my computer.
OR a tornado could be on the horizon.
Basically, a storm could be coming.

2. The dog might be friendly.
OR planning something sneaky, like biting you. (I had a dog that did that.)

3. The cat is afraid and ready to fight or run.

In your first example, I would say that the first two answers cannot constitute intrinsic meaning, because they must admit to personal thought/belief about personal considerations(being lucky and damaging a computer) in order for the meaning to exist. The last two may constitute intrinsic meaning regarding the meaning underlying the behavior of the atmospheric conditions; that is, if causality constitutes intrinsic meaning.

In the second example, "being friendly" is meaning attributed to the dog's behavior that requires another thinking subject to make that determination. I wonder is that sets things out right though. I mean, I would suppose that the dog's state of mind underlies it's behavior. So it may be apt to say that the dog's tail-wagging means the dog is content/pleased.

The third, I think suggests much the same. The behavior indicates an underlying state of mind for the cat.

Does it even make sense to suppose that a cat or a dog can have a state of mind capable of being content/discontent? I mean, at what point can we draw a line between behavior which is indicative of intrinsic meaning and that which is not?



It's puzzling. There must be a better way to set it out.

Nothing has meaning except what we give it. That's the bottom line.

I find meaning in the tarot cards. All meaning comes from my own mind.

Others might just see a picture, or they might find a completely different meaning.

If you are looking for anything to have meaning without the human personal thought/belief about personal considerations then I would have to say that nothing has any meaning without that.

That does not sit right.

The storm clouds coming over the horizon certainly means that a storm is coming, regardless of whether or not anyone is there to see them coming.

--

You also completely reversed your original position. First you said "Yes", and now you're saying "No".

Things have meaning to me.

The meaning of storm clouds coming is a moot point if no one is there to see them and apply meaning to them.

No, it's not. The events indicate that something is about to happen, it does not matter if someone takes notice or not. Claiming that meaning is contingent upon an observer is to presuppose the conclusion in the premiss. That is affirming the consequent, begging the question.

It does not take an observer to take notice of the events which precede a volcanic eruption for the event which precede the eruption to mean that it is about to happen.

It is a sticky situation to lay out.

I don't think that I'm doing it right(laying it out, I mean).

An event is meaningless if there is no observer.

Events are things that happen or things moving around interacting with each other.

Things happen within time and space. Spacetime is necessary for events to happen in sequential order.

If such a universe exists where events happen and there are absolutely no observers (if that is even possible) then the whole idea of finding meaning in anything is nonexistent.

Before humans existed on the earth, animals and even insects might be able to sense when a volcano is about to erupt or an earthquake is about to happen by feeling vibrations. So those vibrations may be said to have 'meaning' to them.

Below that what other observers might there be? Tiny one celled animals that can sense something to eat by feeling a vibration. They are observers too.

If everything was dead, (if a dead universe is even possible) and nothing was alive or moving and there were no events... that would probably mean there were no observers either.

That would be meaningless.