Yes. Facts and fiction intersect in this way
Discussion
No of course words aren't facts. They're a means of communication, (partial?) data-carriers.
Words create facts. Communication is a pattern of co-resonance. There is no such thing as "data carriers" because data doesn't represent reality. It's a subset of reality itself. Therefore, it represents reality only to the extent that we agree that it is an indication. That agreement requires co-resonance, which requires sharing a habitat to experience many of the same things. The problem is that people confuse the label of a thing, the pointer, with the actual thing, the actual resonance pattern. That's why words create reality. People act on a fiction and create facts: the state and other religions, the concept of "I am", fiat money,... you name it.
I don't see your point. If people confuse data for reality, it doesn't become reality, is simply misleads people. There is a difference between data and facts. The difference between "data" and "information" is made explicit for the benefit of highlighting and emphasizing that meaning, interpretation and understanding are relevant.
Now you claim that just arbitrary data becomes reality, even if it can be proved incorrect. That's not true. What you're actually saying is that people can be misled.
Let's go back to your original argument: "words are data carriers".
What data is being carried? Where is it stored? How does this constitute meaning?
You can't answer these questions without ending up making my argument: data is reality, but it doesn't represent reality until it's negotiated.
Words are lies *exactly* because people think they carry meaning, as you said.
Those lies create facts *exactly* for the same reason: because people believe them and act on them, thus partially creating the reality that was previously fiction.
Btw from this perspective, the distinction between data and information is secondary
I think we're on track. I use "data" and "data-carrier" to indicate that it is about "data" before meaning and understanding is established, with "information" being data that has meaning established. (Unfortunately not guaranteed correct, just any meaning.)
"Facts" being data that is also established to be truthful, often corresponding to past events, such that you can point to them and if your interpretation is correct, it shows that the facts are truthful and possibly they themselves provide information. (If you point to a rock and say it's a rock, then your data is fact but it doesn't give you much information, it doesn't tell you much without any accompanying information or context.)
Now if you tell people things, those words carry data, but not necessarily truthful or correct or sensible. People who try to find meaning may succeed or fail, but that doesn't make the meaning they found reality. Similarly, that would mean reality is conflicting according to different people, i.e. different people's deviating interpretation.
You can mislead people to believe data is a particular facts or expresses particular information, but that doesn't make it true. It just makes you fool a person, and this person is fooled to believe it is true.
Okay, so let's discuss your questions.
"What data is being carried?" — whatever the idea/topic/concept is about. "Data" is the general term what it is that the sounds represent.
”Where is it stored?” — it is in the sounds of what is spoken, created in the mind of the speaker, possibly referencing memories or other sources directly or indirectly.
"How does this constitute meaning?" — that's the point: it doesn't. "Data" does not represent meaning. The listener needs to derive meaning, hopefully the correct meaning if sufficient context — prly common knowledge/ground — is provided. This is why there can be data without fact or truth. E.g. when I point to a horse and say to you "That is a unicorn.", I transmit through sounds this sentence as data. You can interpret it and know what I am saying, yet you also know it to be false.
In Stargate, in one episode, they discuss a truly universal language between aliens from vastly different races. The language is based off the abstract representation of atoms, as these are the only truly common ground/knowledge available for communication.
None of your response is wrong. However, it doesn't fully address, let alone refute, my original point.
To use your phrase, words are a composite of data and attributes of meaning.
You're right that data is objective truth. Not a lie.
But ascribed meaning is not objective. It's intersubjective at best.
The second people perceive a word as objective truth, while neglecting the fact that it's also a subjective interpretation of reality, the word becomes a lie.
That's the first part of my original argument. Here is the second part: this lie, however, creates reality.
The word "God" has objective elements. The sounds it makes, the letters it's written in. But that is trivial.
What people have fought over for thousands of years is the subjective interpretation it evokes and the power it has to shape intersubjective, or let's say societal, perceptions.
That's because these perceptions guide behaviors like burning witches, or sacrificing one's life for others, or flagellating oneself, or giving money to the church, etc.
The intersubjective truth of a word interpreted as an expression of objective truth, ignoring the fact that it has subjective elements in the first place: that's a lie that creates facts.
Ps I enjoy the discussion, although I don't have much time to engage at the moment.
Okay. Here's where our understanding diverges. In my understanding:
1. Data is neither truth, nor objective. (Maybe "objective" in a very abstract definition, but I'm sure that isn't what you meant. That's why I call it a data-carrier.)
2. Meaning is not ascribed. It has to be derived. In the case of words, i.e. speaking - communication, by the receiver. The best we can do is for the speaker to choose the right words where a common understanding is able to express the correct intention/meaning precisely (as possible).
3. I understand why you say "[..] the lie creates reality [..]". But the thing is, it's only a *perceived reality* for the receiver only, because he is (accidentally or on purpose) misled. It is not universal reality because anyone not receiving does not have this awareness. That's why I pointed out that this creates contradictions. For example, let's say I convince you of something that's false. You believe it for a bit but then you find out it was bad information. For a while you perceived it as truth until you learned otherwise.
Now imagine you walk close to a large tower and someone in that tower drops an anvil that's going to land on top of you. There are no amount or selection of words that I can use, that change the effect that anvil crushing you will have. Reality is that the anvil will crush you. If I manage to convince you that this isn't the case, then you might expect something else, but only until reality sets in. You might not be afraid, because my words calmed you, but the anvil is just as heavy.
You might have mentioned other points, but I'll leave it at these first three for now.
1. “"Facts" being data that is also established to be truthful”
2. Meaning is ascribed by the receiver. Ascribed or derived is pure semantics at this point and doesn't make much difference here.
3. If you get burned alive because someone's perceived reality caused them to burn you, then that is your absolute reality. Communication is not just communication. That's why it's so powerful.
1. Agreed, with the condition that this is subject to interpretation. That's not to say that sometimes the fact isn't truthful, but rather that sometimes people will derive the wrong truth from the fact. I.e. overreaching or overeager or biased in their conclusions. (This would include measuring badly or wrongly, in case of science.)
2. Sure. I get that. Then we seem to agree on that. I think they key point is that the receiver is the origin.
3. Notice that you're leaving out an intermediate step here: the original statement that was false remains false. The fool was still fooled. That reality is still only perceived. Now, that the fool (i.e. the one that was fooled, not intended as insult) takes (bad) actions because of incorrect information is real. Of course. I do not dispute that. But his action is still motivated by a perceived reality that is in fact false.