(2019-03-04, 06:16 AM)Laird Wrote: "Someone" reporting in for a reply...
Here's what Paul wrote:
Paul, apparently you did not even read the original article, Popper contra computationalism, to which Sci linked, because it addressed this sort of thing in making the distinction between the "expressive function" aka the "natural meaning" of language, the "signaling function" aka the "functional meaning" of language, and then the two functions which formed the basis of its argument, the "descriptive" and "argumentative" functions of language.
It seems that you haven't done your homework...
Indeed, I did not read the article recently. I'm focused primarily on the conversation with you. I'll worry about the meaning of meaning some other day.
(Meanwhile, it sounds like you could answer my questions.
It depends to a great degree on how you define meaning. If a simple organism can detect light, is it fair to say that the light detection apparatus has the meaning "light in that direction"? Or do you require that it be able to somehow state the meaning of X without actually experiencing/doing X? Does the meaning have to be symbolic? If so, let's say that organism also has a simple neural mechanism that can act like a latch: When the light detection apparatus detects light, the latch is set and lasts in that state for 1 minute. Does the latch represent the light symbolically?)
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(This post was last modified: 2019-03-04, 01:01 PM by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos.)
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)