[Wittrs] Re: My Chinese Encyclopedia: The Red Chicken Footnote
- From: "College Dropout John O'Connor" <sixminuteabs@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:16:47 -0400
I am now certain that this thread, as well as all others, are secretly dialogs
in praise of red chickens.
> SWM wrote:
> Only insofar as they are examples of some of the things minds do. If brains
> make minds, then the things minds do are relevant to brain research.
>
> I write:
> Brains don't make minds anymore than do minds make language. The world does.
SWM wrote:
Well of course, in one sense. But that isn't the sense that we need when
talking about how brains and their activities relate to our subjective lives
(the mental realm of our "private" worlds). Note that, in at least one sense,
it makes no sense at all to say "the world makes minds." After all, the world
makes everything except, of course, that when we're speaking of making things
we don't really ever think in terms of the world as a whole as doing the making
since making takes place IN the world and is ascribed to certain kinds of
agential entities that are also thought of as IN the world.
I write:
To what goal do we 'need' to speak of one sense and not another? As for the
world making minds, I was not intending to make a causal claim, but that the
world coincides with reality- there is not excuse for talking of the world
abstracted from reality (and thereby producing the concept of mind). It
appears you may have understood this, too.
> SWM wrote:
> Not if this is about research into how brains make minds. Scientists will,
> rather, say this is what it takes to understand things (say geometry or
> language or difficult concepts or any notions at all), e.g., the brain does
> this and this and this, thus THIS is what understanding is. And so forth.
>
> I write:
> It is as if you are looking for the power of revelation.
You wrote:
No the underpinnings of understanding, of recognizing and referencing semantic
content.
I write:
Well, take calculus, for example. I learned it by doing the mathematics over
and over (granted, my terminology is likely way wrong as I haven't been taking
those classes for years). There are some things that don't years of practice
to learn, however. Consider the M. Night Shalamalamawhatever movie titled
SIGNS. Some people think it is a movie about aliens, and others... a blessing.
The latter do not come to that realization from years of studying the film.
Either way, "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life"- LW
> > Quote:
> > > Quote:
> > > > Of course, the fact that computers cannot recognize a tautology in
> > > > "Christ died for my sins"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How is that a "tautology"?
> >
> >
> > It is religious language.
>
> SWM wrote:
> What about that makes it a tautology though? Isn't it more, on the
> Wittgensteinian view, like an expressive statement, on line with showing
> another a feeling we have, etc.? This wouldn't be a tautology in any ordinary
> sense of that word.
>
> I write:
> Wittgenstein revolutionized the notion of tautology. That is the calculus.
> 5.101 is a picture of logic of our language, and obviously religious language
> is not scientific. It is nonsense, and I think it is apparent that a
> metaphysical assertion has the form of a
> tautology, at least in this instance.
You wrote:
Hmmm, I don't see that. Perhaps you mean to stipulate that it, too, is a
tautology in the sense that it has the same level of content as a tautology. I
would not, however, call it that. I think level of content is not the key. That
is, we can have different kinds of nonsense where some would be tautologous and
others would not be. Better to focus on the idea of nonsense here rather than
the idea of a tautology which has a technical sense in logic and other areas of
analytical philosophy than that of ordinary language and/or Wittgenstein.
I write:
Well, we do have an easy split in the notion of contradiction and tautology;
and yes, should we have a need to add more than T&F to our logical symbolism,
we could have a solid combination of that 'letter' that stands next to T&F (but
I see no need for that). If you would prefer me to say 'nonsense' rather than
'tautology or contradiction', I would be willing. It makes no difference to
me. Such statements are not expressive, however- at least according to
Wittgenstein. They could mean almost anything.
> I have heard that Buddha once told two men contradictory claims, namely that
> God exists and God does not. "Christ died for my sins" is a fair description
> of the life of Christ and the Christian- ala, a tautology. I could say, "I
> will see you when I see you" or "it is what it is" or "this sentence is true"
> or "substance is"... all of the tautological form. "I know nothing" and "The
> Tao is not the real Tao" etc. have the form of contradiction.
>
You wrote:
I think that it is better to concentrate on the differences in these various
uses rather than try to unify them by squeezing them into any single rubric.
One of the things about Buddhism (or at least the form with which I'm familiar)
is that it aims to jam up the thought processes so that we stop trying to think
things through, to reason, and just approach the world on a more basic
intuitive level. Take things as they are, you might say, tear away the cobwebs
of the discursive mind.
I quote:
"To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life" -LW
Some things can be said and others (~). But what is the way of life (form of
life?) of the psychoanalyst/psychologist/etc.? (For some, it is/was Dianetics)
> SWM wrote:
> Yes that is the classical Wittgensteinian (both the later and earlier) view.
> I am inclined to agree generally speaking though perhaps not exclusively so,
> i.e., I think he was wrong about religious talk, i.e., sometimes I think it
> is open to empirical consideration in which case it is open to scientific
> discourse.
>
> I write:
> Then you are doing it wrong...
Well perhaps. We always think others are wrong if they are doing something
differently than we are doing if we are confident in the rightness of how we do
it. Certainly, I have come to the conclusion that one cannot fully embrace a
religious picture of the world without embracing the facts it implies. I think
Wittgenstein missed that, i.e., that maybe he was the one who was doing it
wrong. But then who knows? I only know what I have experienced, how I have seen
things when trying to practice religion . . .
I write:
What you say agree with what I linked, and yet, you seem to think we disagree.
"The world of the happy is far different than the unhappy"-LW
(paraphrase, maybe?)
> "Man has to awaken to wonder -- and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way
> of sending him to sleep again." -LW
>
> http://www.funnychill.com/files/funny-pictures/engineer-mistake.jpg
>
> http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/science%20-%20you%27re%20doing%20it%20wrong.jpg
>
> SWM wrote:
> And yet we do think unlogically at times or we would all be in agreement all
> the time, no? Sometimes some of us must have the logic wrong!
>
> I write:
> To be confused is not the same as being illogical.
You wrote:
Agreed, it's not, at least not always. But sometimes it is. Logic is about the
true and the false but also about what is coherent or isn't. What do we mean by
"illogical"? It can mean to get something wrong because we fail to see the
implications of certain logical relations. But it can also mean a failure to
apply logic and to act, say, emotionally or thoughtlessly.
> "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
> for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain
> The logic of our language is sorely misunderstood because of the notion that
> a contradiction is unlogical or illogical or whatever it is that philosophers
> like to call it.
>
You wrote:
Logic has one meaning for technical philosophers, another for the average
person on the street.
I write:
I thought you liked the remark that nothing was outside of logic.
"To a truly religious man, nothing is tragic" -LW
> I wrote:
> An analogy: One cannot count with the number zero, for it is without content;
> but that doesn't make it any less important to mathematics. It is often
> called the origin. So too, tautologies and contradictions are senseless,
> but... let me quote, if you do not mind:
>
> You wrote:
> There is "nonsense" as being without sense (as in meaning) and "nonsense" as
> in being without a point and "nonsense" as being wrong in such an extreme way
> as to be silly. The nonsense of tautologies and contradictions are clearly
> without sense in one way (they are without any referential meaning beyond
> themselves) but in terms of the later Wittgenstein I would think they are
> more rightly thought of as trivial but in a constructive way as sometimes
> seeing a truth that is trivially so is to recognize something that is part of
> a larger point.
>
> I write:
> "Meaning" is a nonsense word.
You wrote:
I don't agree. It just has various meanings and maybe sometimes it is nonsense
to ask for a meaning or nonsense to seek a definition of "meaning" that goes
beyond familiarity with how the term is used in English or its variants are
used in other languages!
I write:
Absolutely! But mightn't we use the word 'use' here and not 'meaning'? And
what of other tricky words, like 'God' and 'Good' and 'Absolute' and
'Abstract'. heck, 'Abstract' is often used as both an adjective as well as a
verb!
> I mean what I say and say what I mean (a tautology).
You wrote:
A statement we might make in order to be emphatic, hence a purposive remark.
I write:
Purposeful? Of course any word can be argued to have a purpose. I might say
"How beautiful!" at a sunset. Of course, this doesn't describe the sunset
anymore than "I say what I mean and mean what I say" makes another proposition
clear.
> Without a point? "It is what it is" ... etc. "The slithey and the plithey
> and not so cuembicle as the aspiragot" (feel free to quote your favorite in
> my stead) does not evoke any different reaction that the other two- namely,
> me being rather speechless. One can surely not agree or disagree with such
> statements.
You write:
As I've said, I think there are many types of nonsense and it is a mistake to
think that, because there is this one word "nonsense", there must be a common
thread of meaning in every application of the term.
I write:
I don't say that; I say tautology and contradiction are equally senseless- but
obviously not the same. They are opposites. Do I even need to say how the
opposite of senseless is senseless? Cantor says there are many infinities, but
what has that done to describe infinity?
Furthermore:
If I say the sky is either blue or not blue, you might very well respond "yes,
this is true". I am saying that such a response is silly. The same goes with
a+b=c.
You write:
My point is that it is at least an open question whether the nonsense of a
trivial truism is relevant in the given argument. So we cannot just dismiss
such claims because they ARE trivial. There is a role for the trivial in
philosophy, too. And I think it's clear that Wittgenstein recognized that.
I write:
The relevance of truisms (tautologies?) is not contained in any logical
argument. No more is the relevance of religion contained within a scientific
explanation. Etc.
> You wrote:
> Not sure about this quote. Whose is it? Yours? Why should we speak
> religiously exclusively when speaking of mental phenomena? I see no reason to
> think that would be required.
>
> I write:
> That was not what I was trying to enunciate, but that all such metaphorical
> talk is patently senseless (or nonsense or whatnot).
You wrote:
I don't think that's true nor do I think Wittgenstein held that, or at least
not in a way that asserted that whatever is senseless is patently senseless and
therefore without use!
I write:
Then I have misrepresented myself. "What can be said at all can be said
clearly" -LW
> I think W's Lecture on Philosophy, and it conclusion on Freud (I have the
> right Lecture in mind, I hope) illustrates this. So does the Beetle in the
> box. There is no use in making a science about the beetle, even if the
> beetle is really important in life.
>
You write:
When there is no access to something I would agree. But we do have access to
subjective experience. Each of us has it and presumes it is shared by others
like ourselves. Moreover, we can talk about it, observe behavior that we
ascribe to it, etc. So there is enough access for science to be involved.
I write:
There are a gazillion religions on this planet, and you think the label
'scientific' will finally put to rest the infinite variety in subjective
experience, or better yet, define the undefinable metaphysical subject?
> You wrote:
> But the study of minds is, at least in part, a study of what brains do and
> how they do it. Logic is a tool for thinking about and expressing one's
> thoughts on the subject but the study of mind is not, per se, the study of
> logic let alone anything that is "transcendental".
>
> I write:
> How is talk of God any different than talk of minds (and all such entities or
> essences)?
You write:
We have direct experience of minds which is indubitable but while some may
claim to have direct experience of God or gods, on examination that is
generally seen to be inexpressible and/or explainable in other terms. I know
where my feelings are, right here with me. I have them. Where is God, on the
other hand, except as some abstraction, some concept I talk about and can,
depending on how I define the concept, associate with all sorts of things
including with the totality of everything?
I edit:
Where ARE MINDS, on the other hand, except as some abstraction, some concept I
talk about and can, depending on how I define the concept, associate with all
sorts of things including with the totality of everything?
> I think you are passionately committed to a set of coordinates as well, just
> not the same ones as me.
>
> The red bird lives on!
>
> Nonsense and such,
> College Dropout John O'Connor
> --
> He lived a wonderful life.
> ==========================================
>
Yes, the red chicken. I wish I understood that reference a little better but
maybe that is not the point, right?
SWM
========================================Need Something? Check here:
http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
[/quote]
I thought I was trying to get you to tell me what the red chicken reference
was! Maybe Sean knows.
Nonsense ans such,
JXO
--
He lived a wonderful life.
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
