= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on The Useful Idea of Truth - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (513)
Suppose I have two different non-meaningful statements, A and B. Is it possible to tell them apart? On what basis? On what basis could we recognize non-meaningful statements as tokens of language at all?
Why would you want to?
See this.
Not sure how this is relevant, feel free to elaborate.
What an odd thing to say. I can tell the difference between untestable sentences, and that's all I need to refute the LP verification principle. Stipulating a defintion of "meaning" that goes beyond linguistic tractability doens't solve anything , and stipulating that people shouldn't want to understand sentences about invisible gorillas doens't either.
Seems like we are not on the same page re the definition of meaningful. I expect "invisible gorillas" to be a perfectly meaningful term in some contexts.
I don't follow that, because it is not clear whether you are using the vanilla, linguistic notion of "meaning" or the stipulated LPish version,
I am not a philosopher and not a linguist, to me meaning of a word or a sentence is the information that can be extracted from it by the recipient, which can be a person or a group of people, or a computer, maybe even an AI. Thus it is not something absolute. I suppose it is closest to an internal interpretation. What is your definition?
I am specifically trying not to put forward an idiosyncratic definition.