> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:10:20 GMT
> "Intrinsic" referred to the meaning embedded in a symbol system.
> Extrinsic would be the meaning embedded in the invariant properties of
> the object ( ie., those which are generally sufficient to identify one
> object from another.
But there is no meaning "embedded" in a symbol system any more than
there is meaning embedded in a book. The book consists of inert symbols
that can be INTERPRETED as meaning something. But THAT meaning in a book
is clearly not intrisic to the book: It is only in the heads of the
readers of the book.
And why would the redness of an apple be "extrinsic" meaning. Isn't it
just that: the redness of an apple.
Now the redness in your HEAD when you see or think of an apple is
intrinsic -- but intrinsic to you head, not to the apple.
> My proposition is that the invariant properties of description (ie
> those which extrinsically are sufficient generally to visually identify
> one object from another - by shadows or angles for example) are one
> aspect of the structure of the mind which interacts with the symbol
That sounds ok.
> Stevan, on this last point are you saying that SOME objects
> are not linked as you describe or that some symbols are not?
No, when I say the mind cannot be JUST the implementation of a symbol
system I just mean that it's not just symbols/rules.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:51 GMT