🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <74170@hydra.gatech.EDU>, cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
|> In article <BxB855.7Mq@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU| 
sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:


|> |It seems pretty clear to me that the concept of meaning that you espouse is 
|> |itself meaningless under your own definition (meaning does not, after all, 
|> |refer to anything observable), and is in fact a philosophical rather than 
|> |a scientific statement.  
|> 
|> Au contraire:  I defined "meaning" in an earlier post.  It most certainly
|> refers to something real.
|> 

	I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you showed that the 
concept of meaning was empirically verifiable (I believe that was one of your 
requirements for meaning).  Could you run that part by me again?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.