No -- unless, of course, you extend the concept of
a symbol to anything that anyone might find
meaningful.
How about this: the meaning of something, for any
particular observer, is the effect of that thing on
them. For the "transmitter", in the case of human
(or other sentient) communications, it's the intended
effect. Given the facts of social interaction,
observers are also interested in the intension, and
transmitters are interested in the actual effects of
their communications. But meaning is always "to
someone" -- otherwise, there's causality, but no
meaning. I think one of the typical problems of
religions is seeking meaning where there is none --
or certainly none of the sort sought. Ultimately,
you could say the whole universe is meaningful (to
those who can find meaning in it), but that doesn't
mean there's an old man with a beard who designed it
that way. We have to accept that meaning is
subjective, and take responsibility for finding it
ourselves. Sure, some meanings that can be found
are more useful than others, but ultimately, that
usefulness is "to someone" too.
-- Robin