Article View: sci.cognitive
Article #332Re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym
From: R o d Johnson
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:36
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:36
16 lines
1251 bytes
1251 bytes
In article <erwin.722217539@trwacs> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>Unfortunately, the brain doesn't operate that way. Two statements are
>considered equivalent if their processing generates the same activation in
>the cerebral cortex (or a subset thereof).
"Are considered" by who? Says who? Suppose I were to say "two
statements are considered equivalent if they hold in exactly the same
possible worlds." Why is my claim any less definitional than yours?
(Note: this isn't about which one is *correct*; this isn't an
empirical question.)
--
Rod Johnson * rcj@caen.engin.umich.edu * (313) 764-3103
"What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse"
--Jim Dickinson
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MxG=!XC@engin.umich.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!rcjReferences:
<1992Nov16.000040.19912@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Nov16.120727.17500@husc3.harvard.edu> <erwin.722217539@trwacs>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!rcj From: rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) Subject: Re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym Message-ID: <MxG=!XC@engin.umich.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:36:32 EST Organization: Lost Tribes of Gazebo References: <1992Nov16.000040.19912@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Nov16.120727.17500@husc3.harvard.edu> <erwin.722217539@trwacs> Nntp-Posting-Host: scottie.engin.umich.edu Lines: 16