X-Message-Number: 4005
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:58:40 -0500
From: "Bruce Zimov" <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS: Re: Symbols

 
 (Thomas Donaldson) Wrote:
 
>             >give a careful definition of what you mean by "symbol".
 
John K Clark <> replied:
 
>A symbol stands for or represents something else because of a
>convention, in this case the mechanism of the brain, not because
>of a similarity. 
                  
You have stated 3 concepts, convention, the mechanism of the brain,
and similarity, thrown them into the form of a sentence haphazardly.
Do we have to point out that the mechanism of the brain is not a
convention?  If you mean that the symbol is not similar to the
ground of the symbol, but stands for it by convention, then you
have stated this in a very obtuse fashion. Suggestion: Read Harnad.
 
>                  Symbols substitute abstract representations for
>concrete objects and are realized by changing the structure of a
>material object. A symbol must symbolize something, so a
>computer bit or a letter are just a tokens, but words are symbols.
 
These sentences are just as bad if not worse than the first one.
After you just got through hawking convention over similarity, you
tell us that changing the structure of a thing realizes a symbol.
Then, you say that bits or letters are tokens, i.e. syntax, whereas
words are symbols,i.e. semantics. Wrongo. Words are not the carriers
of meaning. Read Quine. The context of the speech act is required.
 
>Symbols in the brain, can communicate among themselves
>in a way not possible at a lower level.
 
Another bad sentence. John, at least you're consistent.  Symbols
communicating! Now, there's a picture!  What, do they use phones?
Your entire "definition" of a symbol is nonsense. Thomas asked you
for a careful definition and you gave him a careless definition.
 
I will repeat my remarks on the subject:
 
Our brains function subjectively independent of semantic representation.
If you had 2 bits, you would have 4 bit patterns, SYNTACTICALLY. 
Functionally, those 2 switches, and their 4 states could be hooked up
to anything, light switches, VCRs...anything. Their function is
determined by extrinsic factors of what they are hooked up to. Likewise,
independent of function, they can represent messages to observers who
would decrypt their states with a key. Any one bit pattern could mean
one thing to one person, and another thing to another person.  Again,
extrinsic criteria determine the semantic meaning of the bit pattern.
 
Any use of extrinsic criteria to attempt to transform bit patterns 
into subjective entities will fail due to the sufficiency requirement
that the bit patterns themselves must be instrinsically complete.
 
A bit is not the same thing as a switch.
 
Bruce Zimov


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4005