[Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein and "Brain Scripts"
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
... well, I'm so sure I am on board with this:
" .. what you have in mind (proving ... that we CAN have things in mind
independent of the precise locutions we choose to express them)."
My project doesn't do that. What you have "in mind" is not independent of what
you utter -- it is, in fact, terribly interconnected. It's just that the
meaning of what you have uttered is only what cognitive function or task is
being carried out when you do the uttering. If you use "motion" as a
lexicographic idea, you have in mind that sort of operation. But if you later
use it as an ostensive category, the cognitive operation is different. In each
case, there is not any sort of disconnect or duality. We would never say "I
intend my words to mean" as we say "but I intend my meaning to mean" -- at
least not unless we have misspoken (which is like tripping). So long as no
error has occurred, we DO mean what we say; it's just that what we say is a
function of what the brain is doing with the idea.
That's the point: the only thing one can say is what one is doing with the mark
or noise. There are never two things in the head.
Always ask, what is the brain doing with X, never what is X?
So for your idea of "mind," we ask not what Stuart thinks of it -- which would
be akin to asking for an ideology -- but rather what is said when Stuart
deploys the word in the language game. When we see it deployed, we can write a
script for it. (And if we can't -- one would assume there is a confusion some
place). Very often, what we have to do is translate the use so that we can
obtain a brain script. We might, as they say, conjugate the grammar. This is
why philosophy can only be done with examples. We don't want to see theories of
mind, we want to see actual statements on the ground (in play). So much is
wasted on theories -- its behaviorism; its cognitivism; its nominalism; its
idealism; its this, that. So much is waisted on these confusions.
One simply wants to say: be quiet and play the expression. Throw it on the
table. Only when it is bantered about does what it is appear.
Philosophers, if they would do their job correctly, should be nothing but
script doctors. Their first task is to say what is scripted. Their second task
is to show this to the two people in an apparent disagreement. The end result
should be peace, not truth.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg
New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
Other related posts:
