From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!ira.uka.de!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Thu Feb 20 15:21:40 EST 1992
Article 3824 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3824 sci.philosophy.tech:2155
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!ira.uka.de!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Meaning by correspondence (was: <none>)
Keywords: consciousness,functionalism,meaning
Message-ID: <6579@pkmab.se>
Date: 15 Feb 92 04:36:51 GMT
References: <1992Feb7.232150.8611@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb12.040025.14716@cs.yale.edu> <1992Feb13.125625.8790@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 51

In article <1992Feb13.125625.8790@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Feb12.040025.14716@cs.yale.edu> 
>mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>
>DMD:
>>  >>However, I acknowledge that the theory does depend on a
>>  >>"correlationist" theory of reference and meaning.  That is (as we've
>>  >>hashed out before), it depends on meaning being objectively given by
>>  >>correlations between model and thing modeled, and not being dependent
>>  >>on "original intentionality" or the like.

>DMD:
>>I guess I'd like to say the meanings *are* the correlations.
>
>In virtue of what do they correlate?

I thought "correlation" was a statistical term that expresses the degree
to which two different measured variables behave the same (in a certain
sense) in the same situations. For instance, one variable could be the
amount of cigarette smoking for each person in a study, and the other
variable could be the incidence of lung cancer in the same persons (some-
what simplified). If high cigarette consumtion coincides with a high
cancer rate, and vice versa, then you have a strong correlation (which
might or might not lead to some kind of conclusion).

Any two variables may correlate or not correlate. If you measure the size
of your neighbourg's noses, and compare them to their incomes, you might
find a correlation. Thus they correlate. Nothing more is required for them
to correlate, than the fact that they satisfy this statistical property.
A correlation is an objective fact. No further levels of explanation of
what constitutes the correlation are needed, if that is what you're asking
about. (And that's why I find the question somewhat curious.)

What may be a problem in using correlations as the basis for meaning, is
rather the fact that the same variable (in this case, a symbol in the
brain?) may correlate to many different other variables (outside the brain)
at the same instant. Perhaps that can be solved by saying that the meaning
then is the least common denominator between them. Some limitation on how
contrived the real-world variables that are eligable for consideration are
allowed to be may help too. Also, another problem is that correlation is
not really a binary proposition, but rather a matter of degree.

And lastly, even if one does subscribe to this view, one can still, out of
curiousity, pose the question of *how* these correspondences are maintained,
if indeed they do not occur by random chance alone. But that is another
question.

-- 
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


