The not mechanical and meaning

The not mechanical can be populated, from an established antithesis to an automatic mechanical procedure, specifically a contrast with meaning. Classic, although rather neglected, discussions of models of the theory of computability and models of the computational process have explicitly registered the exclusion of meaning from the models. The logician Kurt Gbdel developed a distinction of mechanical processes from meaning.

in the proofs we make use of insights, into these mental constructs, that spring not from the combinatorial (spatiotemporal) properties of the sign combinations representing the proofs [which are employed in mechanical procedures], but only from their meaning.

(Gbdel, 1958/1990, p. 241) [emphasis in original]

The emphasis - ‘ meaning' - is indicative of the significance attached to meaning as contrasting with the ‘combinatorial (spatiotemporal) properties of the sign’ (Gbdel, 1958/1990, p. 241) fundamental to mechanically conducted proofs. Gbdel reiterates the contrast in a subsequent publication, which refers to and cites the previous paper.

the question of whether there exist finite non-mechanical procedures not equivalent with any algorithm, has nothing whatsoever to do with the adequacy of any definition of‘formal system’ and of‘mechanical procedure’. ... such as those which involve the use of abstract terms on the basis of their meaning.

(Gbdel, 1964/2004, p. 72) [emphasis in original]

A correspondence between non-mechanical procedures and the use of terms on the basis of their meaning is indicated. The emphasis, here given to ⁱnon-mechan-icaP (Gbdel, 1964/2004, p. 72), indicates the intensity of the contrast between the mechanical and meaning. The exclusion of meaning from a mechanical procedure or algorithm, from the automatic computational process, would be generally accepted, if seldom emphasized, by relevant scholarly communities.

The population of the non-mechanical by meaning can be confirmed and reinforced by replacing the classic term, mechanical, with an alternative, and now widely accepted, term, which has a highly similar, if not identical scope, in a computational context, with syntactic.

in the realm of formal systems ... the intuitive notion of ‘effective process’ [can be identified with] with the purely syntactic idea of string processing.

(Rosen, 1994, p. 529)

Syntactic is embedded in a different set of contrasts and its customary' complement or opposite would be semantic, corresponding to Godel’s meaning. Semantic would also normally be contrasted immediately with syntactic, in the sense that an intervening territory or intellectual space is not conceived. The distinction between syntactic and semantic is embedded in ordinary discourse, adding wider diffusion, and the implication of the robustness needed to survive wider diffusion, to Godel’s more deliberate theoretically formulated contrast between mechanical procedures and meaning.

A distinction of syntax from semantics was also made in a well-known and seminal critique of strong artificial intelligence (Searle, 1980). Formal symbol manipulations have a syntax but not a semantics and intelligence could not then be attributed to computers (Searle, 1980). The impact of the critique, as revealed in its subsequent reception, may be partly derived from its resonance with the ordinary discourse distinction of syntax from semantics.

The field of information theory, which has some analogies with the theory of computability, through its modeling of an information technology process, although of signal transmission rather than of computation, also excludes meaning from direct consideration, as a founding assumption.

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning-, that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.

(Shannon, 1948/1993, p. 5) [emphasis in original]

The emphasis given to meaning indicates the significance of its exclusion and ‘meaning’ is directly correlated with ‘semantic’ (Shannon, 1948/1993, p. 5). In a later exposition of information theory' intended for wider public dissemination, the exclusion of meaning is reiterated.

Before we can consider how information is to be measured it is necessary to clarify the precise meaning of ‘information’ from the point of view of the communication engineer ... In any case, meaning is quite irrelevant to the problem of transmitting the information.

(Shannon, 1968/1993, pp. 213-214)

The exclusion of meaning is again introduced as a founding, and preliminary, assumption. The exclusion of meaning from considerations of signal transmission in information theory corresponds to the contrast of mechanical procedures with meaning in computability, supporting the significance and fundamental nature of the distinction.

Meaning also has a specific application to compilations. The fundamental aim for compilations, across a historically and synchronically wide range of compilations, has been conceived as collocating common or related meanings, irrespective of their particular form of expression in the language of discourse. The involvement of meaning then includes a central form of activity for compilations.

The population of the not mechanical by meaning can admit the assimilation of the first interleaved combination for creativity to the major sequence. Activity in the construction of a mechanical procedure has been understood as human activity on meaning (Weizenbaum, 1976/1984). The first interleaved combination, in which creativity is immediately connected with a mechanical procedure but was revealed to have a deeper and substantive connection with non-mechanical activity, then also involves activity on meaning. It can then continue to be assimilated to the major sequence.

In summary and synthesis, then, meaning is understood as contrasting with the mechanical in a number of partly independent, although also interconnected, domains, in the theory of computability, ordinary discourse, a critique of artificial intelligence, and information theory. The contrast of syntax with semantics is conceived as fundamental, significant, and intense, and as immediate, without intervening territory. We therefore have very strong warrant for taking meaning as the immediate population of the not mechanical.