= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
listic comments on Open Thread, January 4-10, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (430)
How does one call a philosophical position that images have intrinsic meanining, rather than assigned one by the external observer?
What can be said about a person giving voice to such position? (with the purpose of understanding their position and how to best one could converse with them, if at all)
I am asking because I encountered such a person in a social network discussion about computer vision. They are saying that pattern recognition is not yet a knowledge of their meaning and yes, meaning is intrinsic to image.
All that comes to my mind is: I am not versed in philosophy, but it looks to me that science is based on the opposite premise and further discussion is meaningless.
To me it sounds like semantic externalism, i.e. the view that meaning doesn't exist in your head but in physical reality.
Are you sure? I can imagine a dualist who consider that meaning to be mental reality but physical reality?