The question was 'How do we interpret wrongly?'

Data without interpretation is meaningless. 'Sense perception' without interpretation is to speak of environmental detection, which is significantly different than perception in the psychological sense - as in worldview. Wouldn't you agree? Therefore, in the context of our applying meaning to the universe and it's contents, when we get our interpretations wrong, we attribute meaning where none belongs, or don't pick up on it when it's there due to our belief filters blocking the view.



Yes.



The incompleteness of the data perception/environmental detection that we base our decisions to act upon is a given. That which may exist in the unknown realm is meaningless. It is, afterall, completely unknown data. It is the decisions to act that are based upon false belief that I care about, especially the decisions that effect/affect others. Omniscience isn't required to act upon false belief, nor to understand that a mistake is a truth-shaped breach between thought and reality.



It came from the necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence in your thought/belief about the way things are.

Yes, I agree





Our belief filters always distort.

If an individual's belief filters block the view that assumes that there was a view to be blocked. Or in this case meaning was blocked...or said another way meaning was there but the individual missed it due to their inability to see it.

Is that your position?






What is an example of a false belief? Was it false at the time you believed it to be true? Or did additional/different data change the belief that was once true to false.



Artgurl


Creative


In that moment.

Given the same circumstances today, it likely wouldn't have any meaning for me at all. So again...meaning didn't come from the ladybug ... it came from me. Hence ... not intrinsic to the thing.

Running late, so I haven't read ALL the responsed, but I will. If the point I'm going to make has already been suggested or argued, just ignore it, I'll figure it out when I get back to read the rest of the thread.


Creative wrote:


What causes the sky to look "ominous"?

What causes a person to have brown hair?

What causes a Sun to emit heat?

Are the answers due to 'intrinsic meaning'?


There is no universal meaning, there is only causation which is usually the effect of physical interaction. The interaction causes a reaction based on the internal or 'intrinsic' values that each object holds. These values include material construct of object, not just human 'values'.

Meaning is no more than a definition of symbolic representations used for communication.

(these are not beliefs rather, this is what Artgurl calls, thinking out loud).

If meaning is interpretation, we could not get meaning wrong. It is by virtue of our knowing that we can and sometimes do get it wrong, that we know meaning is not equal to interpretation.



This implies an inherent inability to interpret stuff correctly. It does not follow from the fact that our interpretation is incomplete that it is distorted as well. It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things, that we've been wrong about everything. Our worldview is comprised of personal experience that has been filtered through belief about the way things are. Empirical knowledge is accrued, as is belief.



Indeed it does, and our knowing that we've been wrong coupled with the ability to correct the wrongness confirms this.



Not exactly my position, but rather my understanding of the way this is being set out in sense data terms.



Dark clouds/skies coming quickly over the horizon do not signify a weather storm.



A belief is either true or false, it cannot be both. It either corresponds to fact/reality or it doesn't. That is a matter of logic, specifically, the law of non-contradiction. Some states of affairs change with time, so belief that corresponds to fact/reality corresponds to the states of affairs at that time.



Of course. Truth/reality based non-the-less.



Agreed. The meaning was ascribed by yourself, it was not intrinsic to the ladybug. The point being made here is that meaning is necessarily based upon the presupposition of truth within thought/belief about the way things are and/or were. Thought/belief is intrinsic to ascribed meaning. Truth presupposition is a property of the universe and/or it's content because it is an irrevocable element required for thought/belief formation.

I believe X means I believe X is true... without exception.

A sense of dread within subject whose looking.



Genetic predisposition if I were to guess



Nuclear fusion.



The answers are comprised of natural language, which presupposes truth/reality correspondence. The connection being set forth is one of ascribed meaning to truth presupposition.



I call those objective properties, and the behavior following universal laws.



That is to deny that dark clouds signify a coming weather storm, independently of the observing subject, independently of the language being used to communicate this mental apprehension of that significance. I find no good reason to subordinate the intrinsic significance of the successive events to our interpretation of it.

Sorry, in my haste I did not make my points very clear. Let me try again.

Intrinsic meaning:
If you find meaning in the sight of dark clouds, is it due to intrinsic (your own) application of meaning or extrinsic meaning (your interpretation of the particular property of the clouds themselves? )

Since you are discussing intrinsic meaning, it would seem that dark clouds themselves can be misinterpreted by our intrinsic application of what dark clouds mean. Not all dark clouds culminate in a storm; so is the intrinsic application of meaning a belief developed in the mind or due to an intrinsic biological function such as instinct?



BY THE WAY - HI ARTGURL, wonderful to see you again "nice shoes", but I'll just keep going for that 'comfy' look not that I'm trying to fit any particular stereotype.

That's what I'm attempting to set out here Di. I mean, we have very good reason to suggest that meaning is directly tied to truth/reality. I would think that it is a little of both. Somehow.

If we get it right, then our ascribed meaning matches up. If we get it wrong, then it does not.



Indeed. Not all do. However, they do all signify a change in weather patterns, a change in the way things are/will be.



The application of meaning, I would presume, is putting prior belief about similar situations to current use. I think the intriguing thing here, is that we can get it right, and that we can get it wrong.

Our getting it wrong tells us that there is more to meaning than just our interpretation of the way things are.

HI Di - nice to see you Nothing wrong with comfy ... I just have a soft spot for skirts and great heels so I have a lot more of those!