Lexicon of Arguments

 

I 151
Understanding/Syntax/Millikan: even if I do not understand a word, I have, so to speak, deputy sentences in my inner, with which I maintain the general relation of negation. That is, I know what the negation of a sentence with an unknown word is to me.
E.g. I do not understand the word "monotreme". That is, my inner token is not an intentional icon, because it does not belong to any family and has no direct eigenfunction.
>Terminology/Millikan.
But
N.B.: if it has a derived eigenfunction, there is something on which it should map.
I 152
Meaning: if there is something on which a word should normally map, it has some kind of meaning.
>Meaning.
Use/Understanding/Millikan: there is an instance in me that even knows the use of "monotreme". My consistency tester.
Consistency Tester/Millikan: its mission is to review the programs that repeat the word use and ensure that this is done according to consistent reasons.
>Consistency.
I 304
Understanding/belief/conviction/listening/language/conclusion/Millikan: Believing what someone else is saying is happening directly. There is no inference between. It's like direct perception!
I 305
Also the use of reading devices such as e.g. fuel gauge: is direct perception without interfering inferences. Nevertheless, there is a difference:
E.g. TV: here the subject must know how its relation to the world is what it does not need to know in a "normal situation". But that is not the difference between knowledge with and without conclusion.