11
Definition-6 The meaning of a previously encountered Sc, for the human H, at time t
is the prevailed Np of Np.
Some terminology and a couple of remarks are in order here. Np is that
subsystem of Nm that has been relatively permanently developed by the time t. Of
course, Np is a proper subsystem of Nm. It is only natural to identify Np with H’s
long-term memory. ‘Prevailed’ means the particular neural formation, Np that is
eventually selected among its family members Np. Now, the strength of Np to Sc does
not necessarily determine whether a neural formation will eventually prevail or not.
The term is used to indicate the potential complexity involved in the struggle for
selection (e.g., unconscious vs. conscious processes). Needless to stress that both
external (e.g., Pavlovian or operant conditioning) and internal (e.g., emotions,
understanding) processes are usually involved. Second, the proposed definition does
not require of H to be aware of the previous occurrence of Sc. In other words, it allows
the possibility of subliminal stimuli recording.
So far we have introduced the notion of meaningful neural formations and the
meaning of external (either perceptual or linguistic) stimuli. When the external
stimulus is linguistic, its associated meaning usually comes under the heading of
linguistic meaning. When the external stimulus is perceptual, its associated meaning
has usually been considered under Grice’s notion of natural (or non-linguistic)
meaning (see Table 1). To complete the range of senses that ‘meaning’ does cover we
need to move into the partly uncharted waters of thought expression. Warning:
thought expression is not the same as language production.
To date, structured utterances or written expressions, l , are taken to convey a
person’s idea(s) beliefs, desire, emotions, motivations, etc. To refer to any -or any
combination of- such mental states, I will use the words ‘skepsis’ or ‘skepseis’ for the
singular or plural cases respectively in the following technical sense:
Definition-7. Skepseis are structures of neural formations that may or may not
involve Nm, although normally they do.
Now the traditional scientific view holds that:
(1) M (skepsis) = M (l).
I hold that (1) can be mistaken and that it usually is especially when a skepsis is
unusual, unconventional, half-baked, vague, novel etc. In all such cases:
(2) M (skepsis) ≈ M (l).
The symbol ≈ stands for ‘not necessarily equal’.16
Barring abnormal circumstances, their divergence is due to the creative aspect of
thinking and the constraining character of language. Neural formations have a history
of at least half a billion years. Genetically, a good number of Homo sapiens sapiens
Ns may well be identical with neural formations that existed hundreds of millions
years ago. Evolution is a near infinite well that modern humans are capable of
drawing upon. And this is a key contributor to the expression of new skepseis (i.e.,
novelty). Language will never become able to exhaust nervous systems evolution.
Our current models, framed by assumption (1), essentially address the structure
and constraining character of human language. I think it is time to adopt a more
comprehensive approach: Relation (2) should replace assumption (1) as framework
hypothesis for realistic models of skepseis. Any serious neuroscientific account of
meanings and thinking should not push under the carpet the huge complexity
involved in the creation of utterances or expressions out of skepseis. It has to be
realised that language is a substructure of thought.17