Intrinsic meaning is not a real thing.

I’m sorry, haven’t you gotten that far in your philosophy courses?

Meaning is only intrinsic so far as it is intuitive to our interpretation of the universe.

There are infinitely many possible interpretations of the universe that are ‘correct’. The only incorrect ones are the inconsistent ones. There are no ‘non-sensical’ ones that are internally consistent, because they internally make sense. There are ones which our interpreters would view as non-sensical, but that is relative to a part in the system, not the system itself.

(Analogy: In math, I could consider number theory, and graph theory. Both are internally consistent. Using number theory on a node graph, however, would not be consistent, and in fact, non-sensical. It is possible to extend areas of number theory onto graph theory using mappings, however. So an area of math containing both graph theory and number theory with no corrective mapping would be an incorrect interpretation. But as far as the larger system is concerned, both graph theory and number theory themselves are correct,)

In other words, we can only sensibly perceive interpretations that are consistent with our existing interpreters.

(Indirectly: Goedel’s Incompleteness theorem comes into play here)

Our mind, our programming, contains an interpreter. A semi-arbitrary one. Over our lives, this becomes modified to understand the world in somewhat the same way as people around us. (We are able to communicate with other people, (at least, we think we do)).

So how can there be any intrinsic meaning, unless you are judging relative to a particular interpreter/family of interpreters/etc.? There is no universal intrinsic meaning. To anything.

But for some family of interpreters, (to answer your question), the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, is intrinsicly part of the period. I’d wager, without proof, that no interpretation we would recognise as consistent would inherently or intrinsicly contain the meaning of life, the universe and everything n that period.

Also, you did not use the word intrinsic before Log in to see images!

You used the word “inherent”

Inherent: built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic;

Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature;

Bureaucracy can have an inherent evil side, but have an intrinsic goodness.

(Bureaucracy is meant to organise and make easier the tasks of working together with other people in a large system, but it also enables the inpersonal loss and mis-management of data and whatnot.)

However, bureaucracy is not intrinsicly evil, (one can imagine a corrected bureaucracy that runs perfectly without abuse or accident, bumuming you have infallible clerks), although it is inherently good.

In either case, it stands that there exists no inherent/intrinsic interpretation of anything unless you are speaking relative to a particular interpreter/family of interpreters. Unless you wish to say that the inherent meaning of [anything] is [everything].

By the definition of a thought as a part of a state of a turing machine (Bit incorrect of you to call it that,since a turing machine is a machine that operates on an infinite piece of tape, but I know that you meant anything that can emulate, or is equivalent to, a turing machine), then the piece of paper will carry the same thought, (the same changes in existing state, relative to the system), but the interpreter will interpret it differently for different people.

(They all receive the same input, it means different things to them).

But then, the interpreter itself is also a state of the turing machine; It is also a thought. Existing thoughts in a mind would modify the interpretation of incoming thoughts.

Also I disagree, ANYTHING can be represent a turing machine. Anything. Even abstract concepts. To define a computational device, is merely to define the abstract mapping of the state of something. (To define the methods by which you interpret it).

And also, artificial neuronal networks are exactly as good as real neurons. The methods by which individual neurons work, and the ways they work with their neighbours, are very, very well known.

What we’re missing, is the programming.