Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Intentionality can't be intensional- discuss.
The Will is beyond or before Words, just as the urge to fuck up my computer is prior and posterior to the apprehension of the tools that make it inviting to tinker to that end.
Tool usage can be parsed intensionally- generating an I-language, so to speak- and there are good didactic or organizational reasons for such behavior to evolve- however, Meaning is not in that use if individuals can have self generated intentionality and language is ultimately about individual interchange.
Update- click here for, Google brain-box, Norvig's takedown of Chomsky
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
@Sanjay- Thank you for your illuminating comment. Let me put this as simply as possible- think of Searle's Chinese room. If you've got a program that has full Chinese synatax, presumably it has it by virtue of intensional rather than extensional definitions- otherwise it never halts. Then Searle, in the Chinese room, produces a 'Chinese' output without 'knowing' that language in an intentional sense.
Does such a program exist? No. Could it? No. Why? Intensional I-languages don't, can't exist.
However there are non Chinese speakers who can produce 'good enough' Chinese output in certain contexts, coz they dun got intentionality.
Google translator doesn't use intensional definitions. See the link above.
@Waris- thanks for the link.
Post a Comment