From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon May 25 14:06:37 EDT 1992
Article 5786 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Comments on Searle - What could causal powers be?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992May13.001033.14320@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992May14.164117.25016@psych.toronto.edu> <6885@pkmab.se>
Message-ID: <1992May20.204424.21125@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 20:44:24 GMT

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:
>>In article <1992May13.001033.14320@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>In article <1992May11.163332.27781@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. ... The symbols that I use to communciate in
>>the world have inherent meaning - I know, since *I* am the one using
>>them. 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).  
>
>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, the choice
of the word "inherent" was a poor one on my part.  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.

Does this clear things upo?

- michael
 



