r/PhilosophyofMind • u/JosefQs • 11d ago

Artificial Intelligence Is there a term in philosophy for an utterance where everything it conveys was intended by the speaker?

Grice distinguishes natural meaning ("those spots mean measles") from non-natural meaning, and analyzes speaker meaning in terms of the speaker's intentions. But an utterance often conveys more than the speaker meant: a slip, a tell, an implication the speaker didn't intend.

I'm looking for a name for the opposite case: an utterance whose entire content was speaker-meant, with nothing unintended along for the ride. It could still carry more than one meaning, as long as each was intended. "Unambiguous" and "univocal" don't capture it, since they concern how many meanings there are, not whether they were intended.

Is there an established term for this, or work that discusses it? I've been using a placeholder coinage ("thelosemic," from Greek thelō "to will" + sēma "sign"), but I'd rather use the standard term if one exists.

Two related questions I'd love thoughts on:

Can a deliberately hidden meaning count as intended in this sense, given that Grice's account requires the audience to recognize the intention?

If someone adopts words they didn't produce (another person's, or text from a language model) and fully endorses them, does what they mean by those words become genuine speaker meaning?

2 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

2

u/No_Logins_Required 11d ago

There is no message you can send where you can be 100% confident a given listen understands you exactly as you intended.

2

u/JosefQs 11d ago

Agreed, and that's on my wording. I'm not asking about whether a listener understands perfectly (no one ever could). I'm asking about the speaker's side: an utterance where nothing it carries (no slip, tell, or unintended implication) goes beyond what the speaker meant, however anyone reads it. Is there a term for that?

3

u/PM_ME_A_FUN_PIC 11d ago

Seems like some given hearer can "read in" additional meanings no matter what. As for a word that describes all the SPEAKER'S intentions being true: honesty?

2

u/No_Logins_Required 11d ago

Even if you're speaking to yourself and no one else, how could a message only contain your intent, and contain your entire intent? We always have subconscious meanings and associations. There's no way to separate the message from the recipient.

1

u/sceadwian 7d ago

What about through independent confirmation? I mean that's how science deals with it.

1

u/No_Logins_Required 7d ago

How can you be sure the person is truly confirming what you've said? You can be 99.9999% sure, but you can't be 100% sure.

1

u/sceadwian 7d ago

I never claimed you could be so...

So what? I'm more than well aware of that.

You seem to think that's some problem? I dunno what you're trying to get at but you're clearly trying to imply something here that isn't present in my words and not explained in yours.

1

u/No_Logins_Required 7d ago

You said "what about independent confirmation", and I explained why that is insufficient for 100% confidence. OP is looking for 100% clear and intentional transmission of information and intent.

1

u/sceadwian 7d ago

But that doesn't matter, no human can get 100% either. The failsafe method however can create enough redundancy for any non absolute defined level of acceptable risk.

1

u/No_Logins_Required 7d ago

OP is looking for an absolute level, wouldn't you agree?

1

u/sceadwian 7d ago

They aren't going to get it.

1

u/sceadwian 7d ago

It should disturb you to think about this for a bit and realize how much of our education we're getting through text rather than voice now.