Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism
pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net
Tue Apr 13 14:21:09 EST 2004
Lester Zick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:59:40 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R at gte.net>
> in comp.ai.philosophy 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
> They most certainly do as anyone who has ever interpreted machine code
> can tell you.
To state the obvious: a bit string has meaning only to a specific
interpreter, it has no intrinsic meaning. I'm good at this easy stuff.
More information about the Neur-sci