tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post4166304816678508468..comments2024-03-25T14:25:25.102+00:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Intentionality can't be intensional- discuss.windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-63137972503985192322010-07-16T22:22:12.198+01:002010-07-16T22:22:12.198+01:00@Waris- thanks for the link.@Waris- thanks for the link.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-89870211845500133412010-07-14T17:46:58.617+01:002010-07-14T17:46:58.617+01:00http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/06/the...http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/06/the_google_way.php<br />Google translator doesn't use intensional definitions. See the link above.Warisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-22659263934054492752010-07-14T17:28:05.182+01:002010-07-14T17:28:05.182+01:00@Sanjay- Thank you for your illuminating comment. ...@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.<br />Does such a program exist? No. Could it? No. Why? Intensional I-languages don't, can't exist.<br />However there are non Chinese speakers who can produce 'good enough' Chinese output in certain contexts, coz they dun got intentionality.<br />Q.E.Dwindwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-84944392173902647942010-07-14T10:20:37.068+01:002010-07-14T10:20:37.068+01:00WTF?WTF?Sanjaynoreply@blogger.com