Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

patty pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net
Tue Apr 13 13:16:15 EST 2004


JXStern wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:32:10 GMT, lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
> (Lester Zick) wrote:
> 
>>>>A computer program is a specification for how to build a machine.  It is
>>>>"exactly" like the blueprint for a car.
>>>
>>>There is a fundamental difference between blueprints and programs. Given 
>>>a blueprint, if you don't know how to build car, the blueprint is merely 
>>>a pretty picture. Given a program, then if you can follow the 
>>>instructions, you can build the car even if you don't know what car is.
>>>
>>
>>In this analogy ". . . if you don't know how to build car . . ." means
>>exactly the same as the expression ". . . if you can follow the 
>>instructions . . ." except that the language of each is different. It
>>is true that the latter in turing mechanics is more general than the
>>former in blueprint mechanics. But each represents a compilation of
>>instructions which if you know how to follow you can build a car.
> 
> 
> What he said.
> 
> In *any* linguistic setup, the language text is one thing, the
> interpretation another.  Ones and zeros have no intrinsic meaning as a
> program.  Feed a binary file from a Wintel machine to your Mac and see
> what I mean (or vice-versa, depending on what emulators you may have
> available!)  Even lines of source code (eg Java) don't have intrinsic
> meaning, especially for people who do not know the Roman alphabet and
> the many linguistic conventions and formal definitions involved in any
> programming language.

Yep according to Charles Sanders Peirce there are three things wherever 
we have a sign ... above you mention two of them.

See: http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/peirce/ontometa.htm
especially the diagram:
http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/peirce/yojo.gif

patty



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list