From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!z Sun May 31 19:04:44 EDT 1992
Article 5971 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!z
rz.tu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Comments on Searle - What could causal powers be?
Message-ID: <6923@pkmab.se>
Date: 28 May 92 13:15:31 GMT
References: <1992May14.164117.25016@psych.toronto.edu> <6885@pkmab.se> <1992May20.204424.21125@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 64

In article <1992May20.204424.21125@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <6885@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>>In article <1992May14.164117.25016@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>>
>>>I can know what properties my mind has, without knowing how these
>>>properties are produced. ...
>>
>>Ah, *inherent* meaning!
>>
>>You say that you yourself, but not necessarily anyone else, would still
>>be able to interprete symbols without inherent meaning (presumably
>>since it would be you that assigned them some arbitrary meaning). Are you
>>implying that the situation is otherwise for symbols *with* inherent
>>meaning, i.e. that anyone could understand those symbols? Would you
>>please show me one of them?
>
>Sorry, Kristoffer!  As I noted in a few more recent postings,

News moves slowly over here...

> The notion I am trying to convey is that the symbols that *I* use have
>meaning *for me*.  I *know* they have meaning, since I am the one who
>assigns it.

Ok.

With the new situation, how would you reformulate the part about symbols
having no meaning? I wouldn't expect you to drop it completely. I quote
it here:

>>> However, symbols in and of themselves *have* no inherent meaning - 
>>>they are just "marks".  If you shuffle these marks around based
>>>*solely* on their formal properties, then these marks *still*
>>>do not acquire *inherent* meaning (*I* be able to interpret them,
>>>but that is a different matter).  

Note that as it stands, it still talks about "no inherent" meaning. What
kind of meaning shall you look for now, in stead?

You finnished off by noting that *you* would be able to interpret them
(the shuffled marks), but that that was a different matter. However, now
that matter seems to be the only one that is left. As you said above, you
are (now) trying to convey that "the symbols that *I* use have meaning
*for me*".

So, given that all that is needed, is that the symbols *you* use, have
meaning to *you*, perhaps there is still room for marks with just some
formal properties, to give you that much? 

I would expect that your brain and your senses, provide a hardware link
that relates internally maintained marks to properties of the world
around you (and perhaps inside you, too), directly and indirectly, in
such a way, that we can say that the marks "mean" to *you* and your
harware various properties of that world. Of course, you never experience
the marks as marks (memory proteins or whatever they might consist of)
yourself, you just manipulate them the way your brain is designed to
let you manipulate them. And as you can not escape from the system, it
will appear to you that you are thinking of the meanings of the marks,
not the marks themselves.

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


