Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism
JXSternChangeX2R at gte.net
Tue Apr 13 18:15:12 EST 2004
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:20:16 GMT, lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) wrote:
>>Frankly, I'm not sure that I mentioned any of these three. I want to
>>agree with Peirce, but I'm a bit leary of "signs" as requiring more
>>intentionality than I want to admit. That is, I want to derive
>>intentionality, not assume it. I think that is the modern challenge.
>>OTOH, with the proper revisionist interpretations, there is a lot to
>>learn from the last 2500 years' work in semiotics. Maybe.
>I haven't read the website yet but if we take the approach you suggest
>the only way to derive the signs is through analysis of the agent and
>the mechanics associated with that agent.
I'm not saying it's easy, or even that I can outline the entire
process, only that something like that has to be the case.
> You can only derive the
>intentionality, if I understand the term correctly, from properties
>characteristic of agency in general. Which I take to represent
>differences and differences between differences.
Mmmm, not so much like this. Actually, the "intentionality" I would
derive might look a lot like some neo-verificationism, or something
along those lines.
Causality, it's all about causal analysis and systems.
(see continuation on this topic under a new thread title,
"computational semiotics", on c.a.p. and s.c.)
More information about the Neur-sci