Hacker News Reader

I understand "meaning" here to signify reference, as in, "What is the object that Oscar and his twin refer to when they talk about 'water'?" The twins are psychologically identical, but it turns out that they refer to different objects by virtue of their environments. So meaning can't just be a matter of psychology.

I guess you might think that "meaning" is best understood as something other than reference. But that seems to be a starting point for Putnam.

View on HN

> So meaning can't just be a matter of psychology.

I disagree.

When the two Oscars talk about "water," they refer to the same object -- an abstract notion of a blueish liquid essential to the existence of life as we (they) know it. They can point to physical objects and tell you that they match their idea of water ("this is water"), but this idea has no relation to the underlying physical and chemical properties of the substance.

The idea was born out of limited human cognition, its meaning cannot transcend that limitation.

i disagree with that idea too, but i think GP is describing Putnam's position, not necessarily their own. so it's Putnam we're disagreeing with :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com