[Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:38:45 -0800 (PST)
(Glen)
1. This point below isn't bad. But the matter of "brain script" is dealt with
here:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1240&start=0&S=f7be91516311c79a95c6924ab2f75637.
You have yet to understand it. All it attempts to do is use computer notation
to illustrate sense. And you also don't understand that it represents an
intermediate position to brute-behaviorism and what is called "cognitivism" --
that is, it represents Wittgensteinianism. And it does so by borrowing certain
arguments from AI, but using them in ways opposite to their liking. It's a
creative way to wed Wittgenstein to Fodor, I think. (But this last point I am
not exactly clear on).
2. The OLP technique you describe is supposed to illustrate that the sense of
"see" used out of context creates the puzzle that falsely employs philosophers.
On this much we agree. But that doesn't mean that when someone uses "see" in
colorful ways, that nonsense is made. It only means that the sense must be
captured. The fallacy here is not to realize that ordinary senses of see are
themselves composed only of portions of other ideas that are: (a) assembled for
the current vehicle; and (b) can be broken down and used partially here or
there -- which creates senses of "see."
That's the point. That there are SENSES. To assert that only an ordinary sense
of "see" could ever be used in language, is NOT to do anything remotely close
to what Wittgenstein espoused. In fact, for one to say that anything out of an
ordinary sense of a word would be nonsense; or that language only amounts to
how the person behaves -- neither of these are Wittgensteinian.
I don't know how many quotes I'd have to pull out to show you this. I noticed
that you responded to my last mail and apparently did not read the quotes. What
have you to say about a Rose with teeth, fat Wednesday, and a yellow "e" -- AND
the assertion by Wittgenstein that these are NOT METAPHORICAL??? (Please see
quotes in the very last mail).
Part of me does not mind your devotion to behaviorism. Another part really does
not mind your spirited nature. But what bothers me is that you seem to think
that you have some better hold of Wittgenstein than me. And for the life of me,
all I can see about this matter is that you do not understand certain
high-end Wittgenstenian notions. Why not just say "I don't agree with that part
of Wittgenstein." Wouldn't that be a better course of action?
Regards
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
----- Original Message ----
From: Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 4:47:52 AM
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Games with Logic and Bachelor
Now, Sean's repeated references to brains, and "brain scripts," and "brains
processing language" etc., is very interesting. It is now standard cognitive
"science" talk. What is interesting is that it is a sort of
institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday. When I used to teach, I would joke
with my students and say that, for example, one could define "seeing" as "the
creation and utilization of representations of the world in the brain
constructed via light entering the eye*." Then I would point out how the word
"see" (and related forms) is really used as in, for example, "John saw the
police and ran away." What was witnessed when the person said that? Were they
observing John's brain? No, of course not. They observed John's behavior within
a particular context. That, of course, illustrates a part of the language games
in which "see" (and related forms
are used). Now, it is true that saying things like "When we see, we are really
seeing a representation" has become its own little langauge game. But this does
not make it OK. Indeed, this notion is one of the worst things that ever
happened to psychology, philosophy, and now much of neuro"science." It is an
institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday; it is exactly the sort of thing
that Wittgenstein's "meaning is use" was supposed to illuminate as garbage.
Now, when Sean talks about things that PEOPLE do as "brain behavior" he is, of
course, making exactly the kind of error that later Wittgenstein was trying to
get people to avoid. But, I guess I could be wrong as Sean is a self-proclaimed
"master" of Wittgensteinian philosophy.
*Subsequently, I came across this definition in some piece of trash
masquerading as a scientific paper!
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP - Sean Wilson
