Messages In This Digest (9
Messages)
Messages
- 1.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:57 am (PST)
4.063 An analogy to illustrate the concept of truth: imagine a black spot on white paper: you can describe the shape of the spot by saying, for each point on the sheet, whether it is black or white. To the fact that a point is black there corresponds a positive fact, and to the fact that a point is white (not black), a negative fact. If I designate a point on the sheet (a truth-value according to Frege), then this corresponds to the supposition that is put forward for judgement, etc. etc. But in order to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know when a point is called black, and when white: in order to be able to say,'"p" is true (or false)', I must have determined in what circumstances I call 'p' true, and in so doing I determine the sense of the proposition. Now the point where the simile breaks down is this: we can indicate a point on the paper even if we do not know what black and white are, but if a proposition has no sense, nothing corresponds to it, since it does not designate a thing (a truth-value) which might have properties called 'false' or 'true'. The verb of a proposition is not 'is true' or 'is false', as Frege thought: rather, that which 'is true' must already contain the verb.
4.1121 Psychology is no more closely related to philosophy than any other natural science. Theory of knowledge is the philosophy of psychology. Does not my study of sign-language correspond to the study of thought-processes, which philosophers used to consider so essential to the philosophy of logic? Only in most cases they got entangled in unessential psychological investigations, and with my method too there is an analogous risk.
extracted from
Project GUTENBERG
Sankara of adwaitha philosophy could derive word maya thus.
SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and _expression_ of these words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be wise.
PANINI (Creator of Sanskrit grammar) warned to check phonetics to understand the cause of difference in time. Sound is traveling in the human body in the shape of symbol. Totality of A to Z is self and its practices.
POORVA MEEMAMSA said every symbol is a picture and its experience is SEER. Entire linguistic pattern is only indicative. So the index and indicated are images. Combinations of several meanings of words are the meaning of a paragraph.
VIDYARANYA (panchadasi) Because of verbal sounds we get pictures of existing objects and a doubt. This happens even when there is no object.
PATANJALI YOGA describes that two different feelings like pain and pleasure never occur simultaneously. Inference we derive out of a paragraph is only feeling.
K LANGER said that language is only means of articulating thought. Essential act of thought is symbolization. World of humans made of symbol and its meaning.
thank you
sekhar
- 2.1.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:00 am (PST)
SWM wrote:
> "BruceD" wrote:
>> The molecules of food cause taste in the thalamus? But it isn't the
>> thalamus that tastes. We do. And our brain, the thalamus specifically
>> "allows us to attend." This is not a causal account. Rather it is an
>> intentional account of how we do something with our brain.
>> The account is "top-down" rather than "bottom-up."
>
> But the issue is where do we get the "we" kimosabe! What is the "we"
> or the "I"? Cayuse says it has no application but that is patently false
> as we use the term intelligibly everyday.
SWM, master of the straw-man argument as ever. I won't bother to correct the
above comment since that would just be an invitation to give us yet another
demonstration of his talent for straw-man arguments, and possibly to indulge
in his favorite game of "who's on next". Suffice it to say that his claim
above is utter claptrap, and then leave him to squirm about posting his
misleading out-of-context quotes. Take it away SWM!
============ ========= ========= ========= ===
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 2.2.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:43 am (PST)
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
> > "BruceD" wrote:
> >> The molecules of food cause taste in the thalamus? But it isn't the
> >> thalamus that tastes. We do. And our brain, the thalamus specifically
> >> "allows us to attend." This is not a causal account. Rather it is an
> >> intentional account of how we do something with our brain.
> >> The account is "top-down" rather than "bottom-up."
> >
> > But the issue is where do we get the "we" kimosabe! What is the "we"
> > or the "I"? Cayuse says it has no application but that is patently false
> > as we use the term intelligibly everyday.
>
> SWM, master of the straw-man argument as ever. I won't bother to correct the
> above comment since that would just be an invitation to give us yet another
> demonstration of his talent for straw-man arguments, and possibly to indulge
> in his favorite game of "who's on next". Suffice it to say that his claim
> above is utter claptrap, and then leave him to squirm about posting his
> misleading out-of-context quotes. Take it away SWM!
>
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ===
>
Not worth it Cayuse. How many times have you intoned the mantra that "it has no application" here? I don't need to rehash your own words to that effect even if you, wisely, wish to disown them now, but anyone who's read your comments cannot here, I'm sure, cannot help but recall the endless "no application" refrain. -- SWM
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 2.3.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:19 am (PST)
SWM wrote:
> "Cayuse" wrote:
>> SWM wrote:
>>> But the issue is where do we get the "we" kimosabe! What is the "we"
>>> or the "I"? Cayuse says it has no application but that is patently
>>> false as we use the term intelligibly everyday.
>
>> SWM, master of the straw-man argument as ever. I won't bother to
>> correct the above comment since that would just be an invitation to
>> give us yet another demonstration of his talent for straw-man
>> arguments, and possibly to indulge in his favorite game of "who's on
>> next". Suffice it to say that his claim above is utter claptrap, and
>> then leave him to squirm about posting his misleading out-of-context
>> quotes. Take it away SWM!
>
> Not worth it Cayuse.
<snip the garbage>
David Kastle indirectly led me to a paper by Anscombe that echoed
my argument. She writes:
"The (deeply rooted) grammatical illusion of a subject is what
generates all the errors which we have been considering. "
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/01-02/270/pwd01F270/anscombe.html
Now show us all what you're really made of maestro,
and criticize THAT (or walk away shamefaced).
============ ========= ========= ========= ===
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 2.4.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:15 am (PST)
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
> > "Cayuse" wrote:
> >> SWM wrote:
> >>> But the issue is where do we get the "we" kimosabe! What is the "we"
> >>> or the "I"? Cayuse says it has no application but that is patently
> >>> false as we use the term intelligibly everyday.
> >
> >> SWM, master of the straw-man argument as ever. I won't bother to
> >> correct the above comment since that would just be an invitation to
> >> give us yet another demonstration of his talent for straw-man
> >> arguments, and possibly to indulge in his favorite game of "who's on
> >> next". Suffice it to say that his claim above is utter claptrap, and
> >> then leave him to squirm about posting his misleading out-of-context
> >> quotes. Take it away SWM!
> >
> > Not worth it Cayuse.
> <snip the garbage>
>
> David Kastle indirectly led me to a paper by Anscombe that echoed
> my argument. She writes:
>
> "The (deeply rooted) grammatical illusion of a subject is what
> generates all the errors which we have been considering. "
> http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/01-02/270/pwd01F270/anscombe.html
>
> Now show us all what you're really made of maestro,
> and criticize THAT (or walk away shamefaced).
What has that to do with your mantra of "it has no application" when speaking of the "I"? Did you not say it innumerable times in response to my points about the Dennettian model and the idea that brains produce minds? Did I not point out to you that it was irrelevant in the case I was speaking of? And did you not continue to reiterate it as though you hadn't read or gotten what I had said? Why hide behind Anscombe or anyone else now? It's your mantra and my reference was to it, not to anything else. -- SWM
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 2.5.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:45 am (PST)
SWM wrote:
> "Cayuse" wrote:
>> SWM wrote:
>>> "Cayuse" wrote:
>>>> SWM wrote:
>>>>> But the issue is where do we get the "we" kimosabe! What is the
>>>>> "we" or the "I"? Cayuse says it has no application but that is
>>>>> patently false as we use the term intelligibly everyday.
>>>> SWM, master of the straw-man argument as ever. I won't bother to
>>>> correct the above comment since that would just be an invitation to
>>>> give us yet another demonstration of his talent for straw-man
>>>> arguments, and possibly to indulge in his favorite game of "who's
>>>> on next". Suffice it to say that his claim above is utter
>>>> claptrap, and then leave him to squirm about posting his
>>>> misleading out-of-context quotes. Take it away SWM!
>>> Not worth it Cayuse.
>> <snip the garbage>
>> David Kastle indirectly led me to a paper by Anscombe that echoed
>> my argument. She writes:
>>
>> "The (deeply rooted) grammatical illusion of a subject is what
>> generates all the errors which we have been considering. "
>> http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/01-02/270/pwd01F270/anscombe.html
>>
>> Now show us all what you're really made of maestro,
>> and criticize THAT (or walk away shamefaced).
> What has that to do with your mantra of "it has no application" when
> speaking of the "I"?
As I maintained, and as Anscombe also points out, the word "I"
pertains to the physical organism, and "the (deeply rooted) illusion"
of a "subject of experience" has no application, kimosabe!
============ ========= ========= ========= ===
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 2.6.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:25 pm (PST)
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Now show us all what you're really made of maestro,
> >> and criticize THAT (or walk away shamefaced).
>
> > What has that to do with your mantra of "it has no application" when
> > speaking of the "I"?
>
> As I maintained, and as Anscombe also points out, the word "I"
> pertains to the physical organism, and "the (deeply rooted) illusion"
> of a "subject of experience" has no application, kimosabe!
>
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ===
And the physical organism with the sense of self that certain physical organisms have, as part of their mental lives, IS an application so your statement that "it has no application" is wrong.
No one claims that "I" names an entity on a par with objectively known entities (like dogs, cats, people, trees, rocks, etc.). That's not the way the term is used and one doesn't have to believe it is to use it. But note that the fact that it IS used (that there are, indeed, correct uses for it) is evidence that it has an application.
As I noted, the issue is that you stated, repeatedly, that "it has no application" contra my position that "I" names the self we recognize as what we are and that that recognition is part of our type of mental life. That is to say, it's part of what we think of as having a mind, being a fully conscious entity of the human sort. As such, understanding how it comes about and what precisely it is is a part of what it means to study how brains produce minds.
Anyway, this is yet another silly debate. The last time we went over this we made no more headway than we are likely to make now. I followed along with your debate with Joe and, though I don't agree with Joe's apparently Cartesian approach, I do believe he was right on balance about the relevance of statements about selves and the use of the word "I", and that your claims about the absence of an application were not ultimately coherent. But others may have come away with a different opinion.
I merely mentioned your claim about "I" having "no application" in my discussion with Bruce to show ONE possible position among several and I credited you since you are the one who repeatedly made it.
If you now wish to be disassociated from it, however, or to say that that's not what you meant, that's fine. Feel free to correct the record though the unpleasant way you have of phrasing your correction (see above) strikes me as wholly unnecessary. But I have long discovered on lists like these that it's hard to keep things civil. I don't know why but I suppose it has to do with human nature and such.
SWM
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 3.1.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:32 am (PST)
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "BruceD" <blroadies@. ..> wrote:
>
> Dehaene wrote
>
> > attention is a prerequisite of consciousness
>
> In other words, to be conscious, one must be aware that one is conscious. Is he proposing that the brain is aware or a person with a brain is aware?
>
> bruce
What would a person without a brain be like, Bruce?
Do brains have persons or do persons have brains?
Do persons have consciousness or do consciousnesses have persons?
Is it enough to flip our words about and hang our hats on the peculiarities kicked up by unaccustomed usages? Is philosophy just wordplay or is it, rather, to learn the implications of what and how we say the things we say?
Can we put an end to the hopes of researchers like Dehaene by exposing oddities that occur when we turn words and phrases into semantic pretzels? Should Dehaene and company shut down because you cannot abide the notion that brains produce consciousness while you yet have nothing better to offer?
If Dehaene's approach is one of unintelligible assertions, how is it that so many seem to understand him?
SWM
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
- 4.
-
Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:44 pm (PST)
Sean Wilson < whoooo26505@yahoo.com> added Anthony Ryle's Account of Wittgenstein:
[continuing the series, "Wittgenstein at War, Again"]
John Ryle was the Regius Professor Physics at Cambridge. In 1940, he was helping Guy's Hospital in London prepare for the Blitz. He had helped Wittgenstein get a job at the hospital around September of 1941, so he, too, could assist with the civilian war effort. In early 1942, John Ryle took Wittgenstein to meet Ryle's family. There, Wittgenstein encountered the Ryle’s 14-year old son, Anthony, who recorded the following in his diary:
“Daddy and another Austrian (?) professor called Winkenstein (spelling?) arrived at 7:30. Daddy rather tired. Wink is awful strange – not a very good English speaker, keeps on saying ‘I mean’ and ‘its-tolerable’ meaning intolerable.
[Continuing at the end of next day: -- sw] In the morning Daddy, Margaret, goats, Tinker & I went for a walk. Frosty but sunny. Witkinstein spent the morning with the evacuees. He thinks we’re terribly cruel to them. We spent the afternoon argueing – he’s an impossible person everytime you say anything he says ‘No No, that’s not the point.’ It probably isn’t his point, but it is ours. A tiring person to listen to.
After tea I showed him round the grounds and he entreated me to be kind to the miserable little children – he goes far too much to the other extreme – Mommy wants them to be good citizens, he wants them to be happy.”
Source: Ray Monk, The Duty of Genius, 434-435.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
< http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrs-blog/2009/12/13/anthony-ryles-account-of-wittgenstein.html>
--
Powered by Squarespace ( http://www.squarespace.com/)
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
![]()
|
