“Meaning” refers to the fact that words are about things, and they are about whatever people want to talk about. You seem to be using the word rather differently, e.g. perhaps to refer to how you would test whether something is true, since you said that the word “pain” is meaningless applied to a robot since we have no way to test whether it feels pain. Or you have the idea that words are meaningless if they do not imply something in the “real world,” by which you understand an objective description. But since people talk about whatever they want to talk about, words can also signify subjective perceptions, and they do.
For starters, do we agree that the phrase “purple is bitter” is meaningless? Or at least that some grammatically correct strings of words can have no meaning?
“Purple is bitter” is not meaningless; it is false.
It is possible that some string of words that satisfies most or all grammatical rules is meaningless. However it is not possible that a string of words that a human says in order to convey their thoughts is meaningless; it will mean the thing they are thinking about.
Purple is a color and not a flavor. Bitter is a flavor and not a color. That strongly suggests that purple is not bitter.
What about if you intend and fail?
That would depend on how exactly you failed. If you failed to speak any words, then obviously there was no meaning, although there was an intended meaning. If you failed to pronounce the words or type them correctly or whatever, there would be a vague spectrum from a situation similar to failing to speak any words, up to speaking them and succeeding. But there would be an intended meaning in every case, even if you failed to actually mean it.
Purple is a color and not a flavor. Bitter is a flavor and not a color. That strongly suggests that purple is not bitter.
I don’t think this is valid reasoning.
Cinchona tree bark is a part of a plant and not a flavour. Bitter is a flavour and not a part of a plant. That strongly suggests that this bark is not bitter.
The problem is that you are mixing the use of “bitter” as a noun and as an adjective. So there are two meanings, bitterness, and something bitter. You need to correct for that. It is obviously true that the bark is not bitterness, which is the relevant conclusion.
The original context of this discussion is whether these things are meaningful. It should be pretty obvious that the whole discussion presupposes that they are, including your own remarks. So since this is obvious, there is no need for further discussion of whether they are true or false in particular.
In the proposition “purple is [not] bitter” it seems clear to me that “bitter” is being used adjectivally. Imagine someone with a variety of synaesthesia that makes them perceive bitterness whenever faced with something purple; then I would say that for them purple is bitter. (In much the same sense as we might say that quinine is bitter.) For most people, colour perception and taste perception are not linked in any such way and therefore purple is not bitter.
This seems reasonable to me. In any case the argument wasn’t really about whether purple is bitter, but whether the sentence “purple is bitter” has any meaning at all. In fact is obviously has at least one meaning (which you mention here) and potentially several.
“Meaning.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You’ll have to be more specific with your criticism.
“Meaning” refers to the fact that words are about things, and they are about whatever people want to talk about. You seem to be using the word rather differently, e.g. perhaps to refer to how you would test whether something is true, since you said that the word “pain” is meaningless applied to a robot since we have no way to test whether it feels pain. Or you have the idea that words are meaningless if they do not imply something in the “real world,” by which you understand an objective description. But since people talk about whatever they want to talk about, words can also signify subjective perceptions, and they do.
For starters, do we agree that the phrase “purple is bitter” is meaningless? Or at least that some grammatically correct strings of words can have no meaning?
“Purple is bitter” is not meaningless; it is false.
It is possible that some string of words that satisfies most or all grammatical rules is meaningless. However it is not possible that a string of words that a human says in order to convey their thoughts is meaningless; it will mean the thing they are thinking about.
Really? Synaesthesia aside, do you want to say that “Purple is not bitter” is true?
Are you equating meaning with intent?
Yes.
No. But if you have thoughts and intend to signify them, then your words have meaning from your thoughts.
Would you like to show some arguments why “Purple is not bitter” is true?
What about if you intend and fail?
Purple is a color and not a flavor. Bitter is a flavor and not a color. That strongly suggests that purple is not bitter.
That would depend on how exactly you failed. If you failed to speak any words, then obviously there was no meaning, although there was an intended meaning. If you failed to pronounce the words or type them correctly or whatever, there would be a vague spectrum from a situation similar to failing to speak any words, up to speaking them and succeeding. But there would be an intended meaning in every case, even if you failed to actually mean it.
I don’t think this is valid reasoning.
Cinchona tree bark is a part of a plant and not a flavour. Bitter is a flavour and not a part of a plant. That strongly suggests that this bark is not bitter.
The problem is that you are mixing the use of “bitter” as a noun and as an adjective. So there are two meanings, bitterness, and something bitter. You need to correct for that. It is obviously true that the bark is not bitterness, which is the relevant conclusion.
Huh? “Bitter” is an adjective—as you youself say, the noun is “bitterness”.
In both phrases—purple is (not) bitter and this bark is not bitter—it’s an adjective.
By the way, consider another phrase: Red is hot.
Is it true or false?
The original context of this discussion is whether these things are meaningful. It should be pretty obvious that the whole discussion presupposes that they are, including your own remarks. So since this is obvious, there is no need for further discussion of whether they are true or false in particular.
In the proposition “purple is [not] bitter” it seems clear to me that “bitter” is being used adjectivally. Imagine someone with a variety of synaesthesia that makes them perceive bitterness whenever faced with something purple; then I would say that for them purple is bitter. (In much the same sense as we might say that quinine is bitter.) For most people, colour perception and taste perception are not linked in any such way and therefore purple is not bitter.
This seems reasonable to me. In any case the argument wasn’t really about whether purple is bitter, but whether the sentence “purple is bitter” has any meaning at all. In fact is obviously has at least one meaning (which you mention here) and potentially several.