 Good morning, so today we're moving on with Dretschke's spin on the causal theory of representation and There's a really big gap in the way. We've discussed the causal theory so far. We've looked at How different types of causal chain might be important for reference, but we haven't really got to Why those causal chains should be setting standards of right and wrong for our representations? And that's where Dretschke's account comes in but before we go on to the Dretschke I want to add a couple of footnotes to the stuff we were discussing last time One reason is that five minutes After the lecture last time. I suddenly thought of a much better way of putting the thing about the skeptic strikes back And so I want to spend just a couple of minutes Doing that and the other thing is that In office hours someone raised a question about that I Thought put things in a very helpful way. It hadn't occurred to me to put them in that way So I want to just work over this way. I mean someone in office hours said to me So someone said to me look what's so puzzling about this class is Knowing what's inside the mind and what's outside the mind so you start out thinking well here You have your mind with all its thoughts Out there is the world with all the objects causing things to happen inside your mind And then you think well, okay That seems like the sensible picture. So what's in your mind includes all the thoughts you're having? Yeah, that's all right to it. And then the stuff out there is causing you to have those thoughts and Then you think well, I have a causal theory of reference So that means that which objects are thinking about So it is part of my thoughts. It's which objects are causing my thoughts that makes them the thoughts they are Right, they wouldn't be the same thoughts if it was different objects. The objects have really become constituents of the thoughts Follow me very closely here This is I think this is probably a way to put the most confusing thing about the single Tell me if I'm right about this. There might be lots more confusing things, but then you think well So that's not really the right picture here The what happens is that the thoughts? Encompass the causal chain from object to term So the objects are really there as constituents of your thoughts the objects are literally in your mind And that's where these puzzles about How you have knowledge of your own mind how you know whether you're thinking These come up once you have this kind of picture So what's happened is that you start out thinking of the mind as confined to the head the mind is over here And then you realize that once you've got a causal account of representation The mind is stretching out to encompass Various aspects of the world So you start out thinking my mind is your mind is over here with your brain right, but then you think no I'm looking at that projector say and so my mind Reaches out to and encompasses the projector the projector is a constituent of my mind yes, and Because you're fallible about whether the projectors there or you might make a mistake about whether it's the same projector twice You get that kind of uncertainty about the contents of your own mind now Putting it like this might make it sound like idealism Because it makes it sound like the objects that you started out thinking of as regular tables and chairs concrete objects Independent of you. They're actually just constituents of your mind, but that's not the picture It's rather that look as you can see if you take the mind away The objects are still there Right as I demonstrated that right so The objects aren't sensations or something like that the objects are just the regular Concrete tables and chairs and so on so you start out thinking The objects are out there external to my mind causing thoughts, and then you think well What is it for a thought to be the thought it is well that depends on? Which objects are causally affecting my use of terms And so my mind now when you look at a star when you are thinking about Sirius be Your mind has stretched all the way to Sirius be has looped in and is encompassing it So one thing that is so puzzling about the the class so far I think is partly it's partly just that picture that The world has a stretched out to encompass objects where your natural picture as well It's just confined to your head, but of course that talk about the spatial boundaries of the mind It doesn't make much sense anyhow But if you but if you do think in terms of the spatial boundaries of the mind You have to think over a stretching out to encompass the environment Which is not to say the environments Depends on you might as I say it was someone in office hours who raised this question and I Think part of what's still puzzling if you've got this picture If you get to this picture is look that What's going on is that there's this stuff in your mind and then the object causes stuff The external object causes stuff to happen in your mind and now the external object is a constituent of your mind How did that happen? Just having a causal connect you get something in your mind over here Something causes you something in your mind and that's what actually gets into your mind But that seems a bit a bit sudden a bit intimate Just an account of a causal connection You see what I mean? And I think something like that is Is that so let me just ask you When this was raised I thought that that actually is probably what is confusing about where we have got to That the question how can something just being causally connected to what's inside your mind a term or an image or something How can that be enough to bring the object itself inside your mind? It might be a bit too early for this, but Kind of just ask does that have resonance for any of you does that catch It's something that you find puzzling about the class Yes Yes, right Right That's right Right, but that's a thing that is that is that I think that is the natural picture There's something out there that caused a change in your mind, right? But the thing is you couldn't have the thoughts you're having Unless those objects were causing You to have those to use the terms or have the images that you are having yep They wouldn't you wouldn't be having the same thoughts if it wasn't the same objects The same water the same people the same goodle or whatever it is. Yeah, you couldn't be having those thoughts without the objects So the objects themselves are part of what's making your mind have the psychological states in it that it does So that your mind actually depends on the existence of the objects That's where these dramatic conclusions like we you don't know whether you're thinking or You don't know whether you're having the same thoughts again. That's what makes these dramatic conclusions possible Yeah And the puzzling so I think that's in itself a little bit to take on board But I think the key thing that's puzzling is just how can something merely been causally connected to what's in your mind? Bring that thing into your mind So there isn't an answer at the back of the book for this GSIs I think this is where current discussion of these topics really is I mean something like this is so if you're finding it puzzling That's fine. There are literally thousands of philosophers at the moment to find this puzzling. Yeah Because the arguments that lead us to this position seem individually very compelling But it is a difficult situation to understand and what I was saying What I was suggesting last time is that suppose you think Not just of causation, but of consciousness Suppose you think not just of the object acting on you, but you experiencing the object So to be seeing the table The table has to be causally acting on you all right, but your experience of say the color purple the There's more to it than just the causation Or it is a very special kind of position and if you think of thought as Depending not just on a causal link, but on your experience of the object will experience of the object See if you think of it as a relation You can that helps it seems to me to see how experience could be something that really does Bring the object inside your mind for you to think about it but If you're puzzled about this, that's fine. This is genuinely puzzling if you see what I mean It's not that you're not understanding. It's that it really is difficult But it's hard for me to do it's probably hard for you to to make the distinction between finding it puzzling because it in itself Is puzzling and finding it puzzling because you haven't really understood what's going on I Sorry, can you do that louder? You find it hard to understand. Yeah, yeah sunburn. Yeah, it's not right Yes Right The Sun's not there in the bottom, but it wouldn't be sunburn unless the Sun had caused it. Yeah You could say that the thing is with sunburn you have this distinction between the way the thing is intrinsically You know, you can see this pattern of burn on your skin. I just think well, I'm not sure of that sunburn or not Yeah So there's something there's the intrinsic what's happened intrinsically to all the cells Yeah, and then there's a cause and you can know about the nature of the damage to your skin Without knowing its cause Yeah, the thing about your thoughts is You know, if you think of your thoughts as like Sunburn, yeah, so whether it's a thought about Google Well, you know what it isn't intrinsically, right? You look inside your mind you think well, I'm having a thought here and if the sunburn analogy is correct You'd be looking at this damaged the analog of your dad this damage to your skin Yeah, so you say well look at the damage to my skin and I say well there's damage to my skin All right, I wonder if it's sunburn. I wonder if the Sun caused that so you look inside your mind And you see a thought and you see I've got a thought here. I wonder who it's about Maybe it's about good. Oh You see what I mean The trouble is to see what the analog is of the intrinsic damage to the skin because when you look at your thoughts Well, you just seem to get the whole thing You see what I mean If you get anything you could be mistaken about whether you're having a thought Yes, that's right. You could be you could be I'm sorry. I think I'm not hearing quite right You could be disturbed. You could be puzzled about whether it's actually a thought about good or someone else Yeah, I actually had this at a party the other night. I was talking to someone after a bit I had to say to him. You're not thinking of me. You're thinking of Simon Yeah, you so yeah You think you're thinking about one person, but actually you think that can happen But it's it's kind of a special case and it's not really the analog of sunburn is a thing There's not something it's hard to know what's the invariant thing is like the intrinsic nature of the sunburn Right, that's true That's true. Yeah Okay, I See that I see the idea. Yeah Anything else? This was trying to catch what I thought you guys might be finding puzzling So I should just kind of put your hand up if that catches something you found puzzling. I'd really be curious three Okay, can you put your hand up if that seems fairly straightforward what I just said? Okay, okay five Can you put your hand up if you none of this stuff ever occurred to you, but it is extremely puzzling that Okay, six, okay, there's a large volume of abstentions here Okay, you can plead the fifth amendment Okay, so let me tell you the way I thought of putting the revenge of the skeptic last time Which was Normal if the world is the way we think it is then There's the underlying physical reality and the medium-sized world is kind of sitting on top of that in some way It's Jenna all that all that medium-sized world out there is Generated by the underlying physics and then we come along and we encounter this medium-sized world in experience And and the puzzle of the brain in the vat is It could be as we think it is that there's a physical reality out there that supports a medium-sized world And that's what's generating our thoughts and we're thinking about that medium-sized reality or it could be As it is in the brain in a vat scenario where there's the physics of the vat tending machinery But in a way, that's really a basic physics is not actually supporting Anything like the medium-sized world that we ordinarily think in terms of so in both cases We've got a causal story here in both case in one case That causal story is enabling us to think about a medium-sized world and we know what it's like in the other case The thoughts are simply enabling you to think about an alien world where you have no conception of what it's like And the skeptics point is you can't tell just by inner reflection as Dylan just said you can't tell just by inner reflection Which scenario you're in So that's a skeptic striking back At the time, I thought this is a much better way of putting it than I had last week, but um, that's not So the picture I'm suggesting I mean I Think this helps with the puzzles here just to try and draw this together is to say that your thoughts Depend on experience of that medium-sized reality that experience tells you what the world out there is like if you're in the good case then all that medium-sized stuff out there is causing you to have the thoughts that you do all That's happening inside your mind The skeptics point is You might be wrong. You might you could make a mistake about what kind of world you're in but it's Experience of the stuff out there that brings the medium-sized world into your mind so that's how I think we can sort it out, but I'm This is a very confusing set of issues and each must find his own path Okay, I seem to be ending every topic in a kind of whittle of confusion Let's let's move on Okay Unless there are any questions in that okay Dreschke's idea is that we can amp up the causal theory a bit by thinking about As models of most primitive kinds of representation the kind of representation that you find in meters and gauges These aren't usually taken these aren't what would first occur to you as models for the most primitive kinds of representation They seem a little bit fancy You know they seem like complex products that we generate rather than the most primitive kinds of representation But Dreschke has a wonderful idea as to How you might use them as a model for all representation? So remember what the general problem was that we started the class with the problem was how do we say what a language is? How do we characterize what's distinctive of language and I said well? it's something that a sentence is in its think the sentences that are capable of being true or false and So you've got Sentences made up out of bits and pieces that can be recombined with each other and lots of different ways But always so as to generate things that are capable of truth or falsity And the meaning of a statement is the way the world has to be for that statement to be true Now the thing about that is the puzzling thing about that is most of the physical world isn't governed by standards of correctness out there in the physical world you have the movements of the planets you have Electrons are whirling around atom in atoms You have the world governed by all these laws you have lots of causation in the physical world independent of the mind Mercury can be pulled from its orbit by other planets, but if Mercury pulls away from its planets Nobody says oh look Mercury made a mistake There goes Mercury again wobbling off its path Right, I mean you've got a system of causal relations here, but you don't have right and wrong So what's happening with humans is that we ourselves are just made up of lots of atoms governed by general laws There's lots of causation here We are causally affected by each other by the by the external objects around us and so on But no amount of simply being causally affected by other things It's of itself Generates standards of right and wrong So that's a really fundamental problem for the causal theory the causal theory just says look here's a whole stack of causal connections that humans stand into you've got causation that's that you the dominant source or You're differentially sensitive to the various characteristics of the object all these different aspects of causation that we talked about But how can any amount of that stuff stack up to us getting things right or wrong? And once you take it for granted that we do have a language Then you can understand how to set up standards of right and wrong Once you have a language you can set up laws you can set up the rules of games You can set up parking regulations You can it's very easy once you've got a language to set up for the regulations the ceremony What's going to count as right or wrong? But how does it happen in the first place that you get your primitive language? In which their standards are right and wrong the causal theory says well, it's causation that's doing it But how can it be causation that's doing it most of the physical world is governed by causation without having standards of right and wrong So if you take it for granted that you're capable of thinking then you can do that You could say well language depends on thinking but then the basic question is how are there standards are right and wrong for thinking? I said I think I said ages ago Anybody's first thought when they think about how language works is whether it's human psychology that makes it work It's us. It's our minds that breathe life into language But the trouble with that is then you just push all the questions back into how is it that we are capable of thinking in the first place Thinking itself involves having standards of right and wrong apply to you And how does it come about that you stand that your thought is governed by standards of right and wrong not because of some Conventional system that you laid down, but that just presupposes you're already capable of thinking so Anyway, you might say I think ordinary thinking certainly any kind of Complex human thinking usually presupposes an understanding of right and wrong and anyhow the question How could there be standards of right and wrong for thinking is just as puzzling as the question about language So the general problem is how could we explain the original source of the standards of rightness and wrongness for representation? And that's the how does it come about that's the rich kid's title. How does it come about that? There's such a thing as misrepresentation And we haven't really properly addressed that yet all these weeks in we have not squarely addressed this Yeah, I mean, I hope that everything we've said so far has seemed plausible and occasionally illuminating but It hasn't actually been a head-on attack on this Okay, okay, so Gretzka's first pass idea is Let's think about these gauges and meters and so on He says there's a kind of meaning that attaches to systems or components of systems For which there are identifiable functions If you know what it's for if you know what its point is Then you can talk about standards of rightness and wrong Because if it's meant to be doing something you can say if it's doing that thing correctly or not The position of a fuel gauge represents how much fuel there is in the tank So you can talk about a fuel gauge as representing If the needle is over to the right that means that the tank is full Yes That's all right. So you get representation there. So how does that happen? How does that work? What How did it come about that after all you've just got a dumb petrol gauge here? How did that get to I mean if it's puzzling how you or I got to represent then How did the petrol gauge manage to do it? It is but a humble petrol gauge Right, what's going on? How come it's managing to represent? And here's drusk's definition D's being g means Functionally that w is f the needles being over to the right means that the petrol tank is full Yeah if The needles function is to indicate the petrol tank's condition And it does this in part by indicating that w that the petrol tank is full by being over to the right So there are two key notions there function and indicate and indicate is the causal bit indicate is the bit where it is indicate Indicate indicate is The needle being over to the right is caused by the tank being full If the needle is over to the right that will typically be caused by the tank being full Okay, so indicates is the causal notion Indicate is what rich get is in quite a light way basically taking over the whole causal theory Yep, does that make sense? That notion of indication is where the causation comes in Let me put it like this if you say smoke indicates fire The smoke indicate the presence of fire Yes, of course it does Yeah, why because they're not typically causes the smoke? Hello Take it from me that fire typically causes smoke, right? So if you see a whole bunch of smoke, you know, there's a fire somewhere there. Yes So you can take the smoke as a sign of fire Smoke indicates fire in that sense Yeah, if you go to the doctor and you say look at these spots are covered in these spots What's going on and the doctor says that means you've got measles Right the spots mean measles Yes, in that they indicate the presence of measles. They are reliably caused by measles measles Yes So indicate there is a causal notion you could say that um, I don't know maybe uh, um Maybe whenever bill walks past I say bill I'm really good at detecting the presence of bill so you could take a cry for hi bill from me as indicating the presence of bill Yes Okay So if I tell you if you ask me what time it is and I say well it's 10 past three or whatever Then you could take my speech as indicating what time it is because the fact it was the fact that it is that time That caused me to say that Right, so that's indicating So indicating is a causal notion Yeah The needle indicates that the tank is full by being over to the right um, and uh Dretschke's definition is r indicates c means if there's an r then c and uh, that will typically be because c's are what cause r's Yeah, so you're going from the effect to the cause If you get the effect then you get the cause How about that that's all right for indicates If I'm telling you all about napoleon Then my remarks are indicators in that sense of how things are with napoleon because I'm really good at this Every time I do this class I have to read up about napoleon Yeah, so it's what napoleon did that is causing my speech Yeah The biter the writer napoleon No I meant napoleon. I meant the um, what was it the uh, the french emperor Yeah, okay Anything else? Okay, so the function of the fuel gauge is to indicate how much fuel is in the tank And we assign that function to the gauge Right, that's up to us We decide what the gauge is I mean you could have decided that you want to measure how high the fuel is in the tank That might be important, but um And I might have the very same design Uh, if it was just even though what his task was now to monitor the height of petrol But what we want it for is to um Determine how much fuel is in the tank Okay, so that's all right for function It's up to us who make a measuring instrument to decide what function it's going to have Yeah So if you ask what's the if you're looking at a whole batch of gauges and you're saying what's the point of all that then um What you need to know is how they were designed what the person was thinking who designed them why they're in the car in the first place So here's the definition of meaning D is being G the petrol the the needles being over to the right Means that the tank is full Uh is the same as The needles function As um imposed on by the designer the needle's function is to indicate the condition of the Petrol of the petrol tank and it performs this function in part by indicating that the petrol tank is full By being over to the right Yeah, so it's the reason you built it is that it's a good indicator of The condition of the petrol tank. That's why you built the petrol gauge um and uh Then it just represents those states that it is its function to indicate We're all on board with it Now the only trouble with this is that if the only functions we can find here are assigned functions And everything depends here on the intentions of the designer of the gauge um If the only uh, this is drichke if the only functions are assigned functions Then this talk about functional meaning is tainted with the purposes intentions And beliefs of those who assign the function from which meaning derives is misrepresentational powers So we haven't really got to the that that's drichke. That's a quote from drichke So we haven't really got to the basic problem here Yeah, because we're appealing we're taking for granted the purposes intentions and beliefs Of a of the designer This is drichke We shall not have tracked meaning in so far as this involves the power of misrepresentation To its original source We shall merely have walked our way back Somewhat indirectly to our own mysterious capacity for representation Yeah, so you see the problem Yep, sure Just getting it wrong. The needle indicates that the tank is a fool, but it's not full Yeah, you have a you can have a faulty gauge. Yeah, you can have a faulty gauge. Yeah, or it just gets stuck a little bit You know that can happen The tank is wrong Your gauge is wrong. That's right. Yeah, it gave me a wrong reading. Yeah, uh, that's what you'd say Yeah And so we are explaining a notion of representation here and misrepresentation But um, it's not fundamental. Yeah It's clear that's clear. It's clear why it's an interesting idea, but it's not really getting at the basic problem Yeah Then the basic problem was explain where it comes from in the first place the original source Are the standards of right and wrong for representations Okay I mean if god had made us all nearly as gauges Then it might work uh, we'd still have the problem of explaining how god can think but um Assuming that that's not Assuming that we wouldn't get away with that is not going to work this Okay, but yes I'm sorry. It's quite noisy. Can you How how it doesn't solve the original issue? Okay, the original issue is how come we have thoughts and uh Speech for which there are standards of right and wrong in the first place um, and this talk about uh functions I mean it's really critical here that you know what the function is of the petrol gauge because otherwise you could be saying If you just have it indicate then the gauge is indicating lots of things It indicates the height of the petrol in the tank. It indicates the volume of petrol in the tank Yeah, yeah So we need to know what the functions are is with the function that you get right and wrong um But then you ask, well, what's the function? Well, the function has to do with the purposes intentions and beliefs of the person who made the gauge and the people who use the gauge Um, and we still haven't explained how it is that those thoughts the thoughts involved in those purposes intentions and beliefs How it is that there are standards of rightness and wrongness for them I mean do they have a function Well, that would just mean that as I said by the god thing that um, there were some other set of purposes Intentions and beliefs lying behind that. Yeah, we've got to stop somewhere and say How does what where does the standards of rightness and wrongness come from in the first place? Yeah, okay Okay, so Gretzky's idea now is let's keep that definition of functional meaning But let's look at some really primitive cases um of representation He gives the example of our old friend the magnetosome um marine bacteria as as is pretty generally known Um need oxygen free water to survive Right, if you're a marine bacterium if you were a marine bacterium Um, your main goal your first goal in life would be to find oxygen free water Yes Take it from me Don't say you don't learn anything in this class Now they have These marine bacteria have internal gadgets that allow them to find oxygen free water They are little magnets that allow them to move towards magnetic north Magnetic north is where the deeper is where the deeper oxygen free water is Right the water at the top is all getting roused around an oxygen bubbled into it um So it moving towards magnetic north into the deeper water is what you want to do if you're a marine bacterium So um here is um here is the kind of thing This is a magnetosome and the red bit there Sorry, there's the whole thing is the bacterium and um the red thing there is the magnetosome Right, so that points you towards magnetic north um Okay So the function what's the function of that of the magnetosome? It does have a function I mean any zoologist looking at this thing is going to say what's that for Yes, just as you say about the organs of the body if you ask about the heart you can ask what's that for Yeah, so there's a notion of function here that doesn't have to do with intention and purpose When harvey said the function of the heart is to pump blood He's not saying that's why He's not saying that's why I made it You see what I mean? It's not like a petrol gauge, but it does have a function with a magnetosome And this thing does have a function But in a different basis than the petrol gauges and so on have a function The function is to indicate the presence of water so um Given that that magnetosome has a function However, that happened um, we can say That the function is to indicate the direction of oxygen free water and then we can just take over gritsky's definition here um, the magnetosomes are pointing To uh, three o'clock Means that the oxygen free water is at three o'clock Yeah, it's just like the petrol gauge means that the oxygen free water is at three o'clock And and that that just has the same definition the magnetosomes function is to indicate Where the location of the oxygen free water? And it does this in part by indicating that the oxygen free water is at three o'clock By itself pointing to three o'clock You see what I mean? Okay, so since there's this more primitive notion of function that we use in biology the whole time You can just take over the definition of meaning that we were using for the petrol gauges And that notion of function Isn't explained in terms of purposes beliefs and intentions This notion of function is explained in terms of the role of the system in meeting the biological needs of the organism When someone says the function of the heart is to pump blood What they mean is this is what good it does you having a heart This is what it does in the biological system. This is its place in keeping the biological system going This is why you need a heart to keep the full blood pumping That's what why you would damage you not to have a heart. Yep That's right. It does it. So first of all, this doesn't presuppose anything about intentions or plans or purposes, right? Because It is but a humble bacterium, right? It doesn't have intentions and plans and purposes. Yeah But it does have needs Yeah, so this is really anchored to needs the biological needs of the organism But that's all right talking about biology. I mean unless you're um How should I say seriously theistic? The talk about needs here doesn't really have anything especially to do with anyone's needs or purposes Sorry with anyone's With anyone's beliefs or purposes Yeah, it is a teleological explanation. That's right Biology is full of teleological explanations I mean the thing wouldn't have evolved Unless it pointed you to the oxygen free water Its point is to point you to the oxygen free water. That doesn't count as a purpose. That's right There are a lot. Okay. So there are lots of complex questions in this area that we are going to come to. Yeah, um, but um Um, the basic idea is that uh, when we talk about functions here We are talking about needs and you can understand needs. Well, you can understand needs just in terms of What keeps the thing alive? And what keeps the thing alive is not a matter of anyone's purposes Yeah, this is the basic fact about it. Yeah, and you can say what the the function of this is What it brings to keeping the thing alive? Yeah I mean, I should say there is an american use of need. There is um, not really quite the notion we have here I was I I first noticed this when I was in a bar. I'm sorry to say and someone said to me. Do you need nuts with that? um That's not the notion of need we have here Right the notion of need we have here has to do with um the survival Yeah, uh the needs of an organism and drink water and so on Food does it need to be alive? That's right. It's a bad function. Yeah Yeah, the These are important questions, right? But let me just give you the the official answer to do this um, which is that uh that the talk about needs and functions here um It is if you're just trying to understand it will first of all it has to do with why the thing is out in the first place If you believe that things evolved Yeah on the evolutionary hypothesis. Yeah, then um The the question is what's the explanation of the existence of the magnetosome? And the explanation of the existence of the magnetosome is that it does this thing for the organism that allows The gene pool to proliferate Something like that. Um, so it has to do with why it's there in the first place So if you say does it need to do that? Well, um Its function is to do that And you explain what its function is because the reason it's the reason it exists in the first place Is that it is serving this need of the organism And a need of the organism is itself a biological notion something without which the organism wouldn't flourish I mean if you're looking if you're going to keep chickens Yeah, a friend of mine just started keeping chickens. So this is fresh in my head. Um that um Then you need to get some kind of instruction on What chickens need Right, and that is not um, that is just a matter of how should I say basic animal husbandry Yeah, I mean if someone said but these chickens need to be alive. Well Yes That that is that is what the needs of the chickens are right there what they need to keep them alive and healthy Yeah, and these are just facts biological facts So what we're doing here is we are rooting meaning in this kind of biological fact Yeah, yeah Right, okay. That's a nice example. Um, so uh, the level of the seed Indicate will indicate the the um, the uh, health of the bird the well-fedness of the bird, right? So you've got indication there. Yes, but intuitively you don't have representation It doesn't represent the condition of the bird Yeah, and in this analysis the reason is that it's not the function of the bird seed to indicate The um, the well-fedness of the bird the level Yeah There's a difference here between the the way the magnetosome is functioning the the magnetosome is functioning to um Direct the behavior of the bacterium. It makes the bacterium go one way rather than the other Yeah, the level of the bird seed is not functioning as an indicator of the well-fedness of the chicken In the sense that it's something I use to then do something else It's not something that's going to direct my activity by tipping me off as to um, what the condition of the bird is And actually just as I speak it occurs to me the causal connection is round the wrong way here anyhow Uh, because it's the level of the bird seed is causing No, wait a minute Actually, I wish to cancel what I was just about to say because um, it does indicate in Dretschke's sense Uh, where's the definition it does indicate in Dretschke's sense If the bird seed is high then it's well fed so it does meet that definition of indication. Okay, but it's not um It's not representation because that's not its function Yeah, it's not there because it indicates the level of well-fedness That's right for representation. You need both indication and that the function is to indicate Yeah, there's someone else Okay Here we're explaining function in a way that doesn't presuppose anything about intentions or plans or purposes So the upshot here is if the experimenter takes a magnet To the top of the water Um Indicating to the hapless bacterium That the oxygen free water is upwards Yep Then the hapless bacteria with the experimenter holding the magnet over the top will be lured to their deaths And the experimenter there then is in a position to say Filled you You misrepresented You thought The oxygen free water was up at the top And you got it wrong Isn't that great Okay, but now we've explained how there can be misrepresentation Yeah, we've got right and wrong from the causal connection plus the idea of function And now the question is can we just take that and run that through everything? Human thought human language the whole lot on that note We'll pick up with that on uh um Monday, okay. Good. Thanks