You really seem to be conflating a lot of different things.
I understand you want to make this personal, making unfounded assertion about my training and background, but that's quite weak and also incorrect I think we should expect better of ourselves in discourse.
You seem to confuse semantic and structure with synthetic. Where do respected scientists in the field agree to draw the line between synthetic and meaning? Cite a non woo paper? These are clearly orthogonal concepts.
Barbour is a telling appeal. I don't want to be uncharitable to a new throw away green account but I think you fundementally don't understand what is being said.
You cite these fields as your base but even as fields they are downstream. You seem to be working backwards.
I'd like to see your definition of meaning. You seem to reject semantic meaning as a true form of meaning. So far your definition sounds very fuzzy and possibly confused.
DNA is not synthetic nor posthoc.
I'd really like to see you say something that actually says anything, the non applicable appeals to authority make it seem like you're unable to directly engage with the issue.
Personally I don't think you have shown any evidence of being a neuroscientist which is likely why you are posting on a green account.
Also, it's very common for people who are in a downstream field to view everything through their fields lens and miss the larger picture, a kind of anthropocentric and vocational blindness.
I speculate that you have very strong, poorly defined, metaphysical biases and I'd love to see some counter evidence.
Scientists hacking engineers who pretend meaning is in fermions is one of the great experiences here. Don't sell it short, engineer. Science is coming to overtake binary. And if you ever get to sign a paper for a presidential session at a top-level conference, you'll know what it's like to practice science and not debate ideas merely in social media.
I understand you want to make this personal, making unfounded assertion about my training and background, but that's quite weak and also incorrect I think we should expect better of ourselves in discourse.
You seem to confuse semantic and structure with synthetic. Where do respected scientists in the field agree to draw the line between synthetic and meaning? Cite a non woo paper? These are clearly orthogonal concepts.
Barbour is a telling appeal. I don't want to be uncharitable to a new throw away green account but I think you fundementally don't understand what is being said.
You cite these fields as your base but even as fields they are downstream. You seem to be working backwards.
I'd like to see your definition of meaning. You seem to reject semantic meaning as a true form of meaning. So far your definition sounds very fuzzy and possibly confused.
DNA is not synthetic nor posthoc.
I'd really like to see you say something that actually says anything, the non applicable appeals to authority make it seem like you're unable to directly engage with the issue.
Personally I don't think you have shown any evidence of being a neuroscientist which is likely why you are posting on a green account.
Also, it's very common for people who are in a downstream field to view everything through their fields lens and miss the larger picture, a kind of anthropocentric and vocational blindness.
I speculate that you have very strong, poorly defined, metaphysical biases and I'd love to see some counter evidence.