[Wittrs] Re: Meaning, Intent and Reference (Parsing Fodor?)

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:18:43 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
>
> Good philosophy, that is clear thinking about difficult concepts, ought to be 
> doable in ordinary language.

Yes, and no.

If you try to do, say, quantum physics in ordinary language,
then yes, you can give some general ideas, but if you want to do
the calculations for an atomic bomb, you need more detail and rigor,
which is to say, math.


> On the Fodorian view, as you have described it at least, there is a mental 
> language in which our thoughts happen and then a translation process (and 
> processor?) that turns them into English. I am asking if that is the picture 
> Fodor wants us to have?

Yes.


> So is Fodor's language of thought the underlying occurrences before we 
> verbalize or fully verbalize them?

Certainly.


> But clearly just manipulating zeroes and ones in a computer via an algorithm 
> isn't understanding.

That's not clear to me.


> With Dennett I would argue that what's needed is a sufficiently complex 
> process-based system operating in a certain way (the way this is physically 
> realized).

Ones and zeroes can be complex.


> Short of a full blown field of study aimed at identifying Fodor's supposed 
> language of thought, how does he say we would recognize it or describe it?

You look where the light is good.

He, as Dennett, reviews various psych experiments for consistency
with theory.  Given sufficient visibility into neural brain activity,
we could look for it there.

Josh



=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrsamr
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2010