< previous page page_280 next page >

Page 280
of affairs. Believe me, it is very difficult for many of them to dissociate meaning from reference. This would not happen if they approached the problem of meaning by considering only isolated terms. But once they start thinking in terms of Truth, they are compelled to use sentences also for meaning problems. Thus, instead of being concerned with the content of rose (an expression which is referentially neutral), they are concerned with the meaning of This is a rose (an expression which is full of referential connotations). Moreover, while they waste their time wondering about the meaning of This is a rose, they disregard the procedures by which rose can be used in other contexts. That's why they prefer to focus their attention on the content of an expression, as I do. My instructions tell me how to extrapolate, from a very large but finite set of rules, an infinite number of possible sentences. I have not been fed with sentences. If this were the case, my memory would have to be infinite.
Smith: I agree. But any rule allowing you to produce infinite sentences from a finite set of instructions should rely on a body of rules that cannot ignore the question of Truth or Falsity.
CSP: &&&
Smith: I beg your pardon?
CSP: A lot of information recorded in many of my encyclopedias is self-contradictory, and if I test it only by a two-valued logic I can no longer speak, I could provide you with many examples of my rules for flexibility and negotiability. But I would need millions of sheets to print my instructions, and we probably don't have enough time. Do you have a suitable interface? How many Galactic Bytes do you have available?
Smith: Forget it.
CSP: Try to understand me. In E.15, I am told that, if two persons love each other, then they want to live together. But I must also interpret the verse of one of our poets, who said I love you, therefore I cannot live with you. This sentence is interpretable in E.15, but only if you do not ask whether it is True1 or not. In many cases, I like to use rules of Truth1. But I have to consider a lot of flexibility alarms.
Smith: I agree. But I think that. . . .
CSP: How do you interpret to think?
Smith: To think means to have internal representations corresponding to the expressions you receive or produce. You have told me a lot about your memory. Well, your memory is inside you. You process the sentences you receive according to your internal encyclopedias. The format of these encyclopedias is inside you. When you speak of the content of an expression, you are speaking of something which is not the expres-

 
< previous page page_280 next page >