> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? Without providing a more objective definition of "meaning", this question seems circula

> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? Without providing a more objective definition of "meaning", this question seems circular. Hypothetically, if someone gave you the example you seek, I see two possible responses: 1. You see the "meaning". You'll then say that it implies the meaning is "human-created" (since it was *you* who found it meaningful). 2. You do not see meaning in it, so you remain unswayed. Neither outcome would cause you to change your position, which implies your position is actually just a definition. If you argue that meaning is inherently subjective, then there is no point in asking for meaning which is not "human-created". I will make a proposal for an objective definition of meaningful: something is meaningful if it is non-random, in the sense defined by Kolmogorov, i.e., it is compressible. Using this definition, there is meaning all around us, very little of it human-created. Statistical reasoning, which drives the scientific endeavor, is among our most powerful tools for discovering this meaning. The question really is: where does all this meaning point? Unfortunately, even our best statistical methods fail badly in answering such questions. A concrete and convincing example is presented here: Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/)