Relational Cuts — Paradox as a Lens on Meaning, Mind, and Reality: 8 The Symbol Grounding Problem: Construal Before Symbol

The Symbol Grounding Problem, famously articulated by Harnad, asks:

How can symbols acquire meaning, rather than merely being manipulated syntactically?

Traditional treatments assume a representational hierarchy: symbols exist independently, and “grounding” them in the world is necessary for true semantic content. This leads to puzzles in AI, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind: how can a purely formal system ever understand or meaningfully relate to its domain?

Relational ontology reframes the problem entirely: symbols never exist prior to construal. Meaning is first-order, and symbols are realised, not foundational.

---

1. Classical Assumptions and the Representational Trap

The classical problem presupposes:

1. Symbols are discrete, autonomous entities.

2. Grounding requires linking symbols to objects, properties, or events in the world.

3. Lack of grounding leads to emptiness or non-understanding.

These assumptions embed the representational fallacy: treating symbols as “things” to which meaning must be attached, rather than as resources for relational construal.

---

2. System, Instance, and Construal in Symbolic Meaning

From the relational perspective:

• System: the structured potential of symbolic resources (lexical, grammatical, diagrammatic, computational).

• Instance: the particular usage of symbols in context — the actualisation of symbolic potential.

• Construal: the first-order phenomenon, the lived experience or interpretation that gives the symbol significance.

Symbols acquire meaning not by being “grounded” externally but by participating in relational cuts that enact construal. The symbol exists because it is actualised relationally, not the other way around.

---

3. Dissolving the Problem

Under relational ontology:

• There is no “pre-symbolic” reality to attach meaning to.

• Meaning is enacted in the instance-construal relation.

• Symbols are vehicles for actualising systemic potential, not independent objects requiring anchoring.

In other words, the Symbol Grounding Problem arises only under representational assumptions. Remove those assumptions, and the problem vanishes.

---

4. Implications for AI and Cognition

This relational view reshapes debates in artificial intelligence:

• AI systems do not need symbols to “point at” objects in a world-first sense.

• Their symbolic operations can be meaningful through relational engagement with structured potential.

• Understanding emerges not from grounding but from the dynamic actualisation of potential in context.

The lesson is clear: symbols are meaningful because they participate in construal, not because they attach to an independently existing reality.

---

5. Construal in Practice

Consider a computer or a child learning a new term:

• System: all possible uses, relations, and semantic potentials of the term.

• Instance: the term as used in a particular sentence, diagram, or interaction.

• Construal: the interpretation or experience of that usage.

Meaning emerges in the relational enactment of the symbol, not in the symbol itself.

---

6. Conclusion

The Symbol Grounding Problem is dissolved, not solved:

• Symbols are not objects awaiting attachment to meaning.

• Meaning is first-order, relational, and perspectival.

• Symbols are realisations of systemic potential, actualised in context through construal.

Once we adopt this framework, both human and machine semiotic activity can be understood without invoking external anchors, because meaning always precedes symbols.