In some sense, the signalling theory only allows for reasoning by association rather than structured logical reasoning, because the meaning of any particular thing is just its probabilistic associations.
ES: Uncertain.
To properly assess the probabilistic associations that a certain set of symbols has, we humans need to first unpack the set to its literal/usual meaning. So when I say “A → B; Not B.”, this first gets parsed and its logical meaning extracted, then this meaning plus the symbols themselves get used to find the probabilistic meaning.
Of course, this process doesn’t happen neatly, and some people might use more heuristical methods and skip parsing the symbols partially (i.e., they pattern-match on the current uttering and previous utterances, and directly use the nearest cached Bayesian meaning available). This seems to be pretty common among normal people, and a constant source of friction with intellectuals.
ES: Uncertain.
To properly assess the probabilistic associations that a certain set of symbols has, we humans need to first unpack the set to its literal/usual meaning. So when I say “A → B; Not B.”, this first gets parsed and its logical meaning extracted, then this meaning plus the symbols themselves get used to find the probabilistic meaning.
Of course, this process doesn’t happen neatly, and some people might use more heuristical methods and skip parsing the symbols partially (i.e., they pattern-match on the current uttering and previous utterances, and directly use the nearest cached Bayesian meaning available). This seems to be pretty common among normal people, and a constant source of friction with intellectuals.