[Wittrs] Re: Following a rule
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:06:54 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "whoooo26505" <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> ... could you give us an example?
LW gives us the examples in PI, 143, 185, and thereabouts.
I'm just revisiting the questions, and trying to understand
the answers.
LW says, "But that is just what is in question:
What, at any stage, does follow from that sentence."
I read this as LW saying, "You see, at any moment, you may not
even know what the rule means, in a certain context, and therefore
we have learned that rules are not WHAT EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS
TAKEN THEM FOR." Now, this is interesting, and valuable, in a
number of ways. But, let's not completely lose track of what's
what. Do we not stop at a red light, because LW has taught us
that rules are not absolute? We do learn rules. We do follow
rules. Nature follows rules, a lot, even such simple parts of
"the rules" of nature that our science has given us. Do we deny
that F = MA because rules must be interpreted? Of course not.
We *do* understand the normative aspects that LW worries so much
about. We *have* surveyed the proofs and applications. We *do*
follow rules and laws, and find rules and laws very useful. I'm
just pointing this out.
AND THEN, we come to computers.
Well, look, any machine is built - to follow rules. In computing,
it's just that the rules and the following are both incomparably
clear. We wouldn't like it if our wristwatch got to 1:59PM and
suddenly had an existential crisis about where to go next, and
refused to move further until an international conference of watches
and clocks, after many learned speakers and intense debate,
had developed a normative consensus about it.
But - a computer! "Here are a couple of million rules, now
please FOLLOW THESE RULES at 2,400,000,000 rules per second for
the next few minutes, and tell me how that works out." is what
we do with them.
I'm just pointing out that, carefully read, even LW does know
that we do follow rules, a lot, but spends most of his time
worrying about the cases where it becomes a problem.
Computation is the opposite, it is a study of what happens when we
*do* the rule following in very large detail and very large volume.
And if you don't think that's interesting, turn off your computer
and donate it to some good cause.
Constructively read, LW is discussing rule-following, all the ways
one may need to proceed, IN ORDER TO follow a rule, and exactly
what one has done, WHEN one HAS FOLLOWED a rule.
Josh
> > ...
> > > It is my impression that Wittgenstein was mainly concerned with
> > > the question if discerning what is the rule, or what "following
> > > the rule" amounts to. That is generally a problem with rule
> > > following in language, in sports such as football or baseball,
> > > and generally in every day activities that we consider to be
> > > rule following.
> >
> > So, LW goes through a lot, to teach us how to see, and not to
> > assume, yada yada. Here's the thing. What if you *do* follow
> > a rule, that everyone can see, then what?
> >
> > Josh
Group Home Page: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
Group Discussion Board: http://seanwilson.org/forum/
Google Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
FreeList Archive: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs
FreeList for September: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
FreeList for August: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/08-2009
Group Creator's Page: http://seanwilson.org/
Today's Messages: http://alturl.com/whcf
Messages From Last 3 Days: http://alturl.com/d9vz
This Week's Messages: http://alturl.com/yeza
Yahoo Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
Other related posts:
