#9408
11/14/2000 10:56 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Good to see you back, Shona.
Of course, as far as I am aware, it was this paradox (or one akin to it: "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves") that caused Russell and Whitehead to give up on their Principia. Also was probably what set Godel off on his Incompleteness Theorem - one of the most important epistemological results of this century (probably equal first with Heisenberg and Uncertainty). So all hail the humble paradox!
|
|
|
#9409
11/14/2000 11:36 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
>All rules have exceptions, including this one.
OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.Brilliant, Max! How about: All generalisations are meaningless.Is that a higher level paradox?  What interests me is that the above statement is, as far as I'm concerned, true, meaningful and useful. I think the same applies to many paradoxes, including mav's original. Keeping true to this thread, many 'meaningless' words are similarly meaningful enough when used in context. So, contentious statements for the day: 1. Meaning has almost nothing at all to do with logic.
2. On occasion, meaning has very little to do with Dictionary definitions.
Just some moderate personal opinions.  Post-modernish Fish
|
|
|
#9410
11/14/2000 12:13 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Hi Fishus, pedalling full speed ahead again ! As long as you admit that the meaning of meaning includes at least an intent to communicate, you can't avoid a certain amount of generalization: A word has to mean the same thing to at least two persons, even though their experience is necessarily different (raspberries include green and red ones). There is no communication without generalization, to paraphrase a famous '68 slogan .
|
|
|
#9411
11/14/2000 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
John Searle (one of America's many big gun philosophers of mind today) claims that it's all down to the difference between syntax and semantics (yay, back on the linguistic track again).
His contention (controversial, and certainly not one I agree with), is that computers, for instance, can replicate the syntax of human interaction, but can not be claimed to 'know' (oh my word, the cross references are thrilling - would this be connaitre, savoir or comprendre?), the meaning (semantics) of what they do. His Chinese Room thought experiment is one of the most famous of the last 25 years or so.
The problem that this gives one (and now we're back to philosophy, language be darned) is that of dualism all over again. If the 'mind', 'consciousness' or 'meaning' are not mechanical, then whence do they come? Searle claims they are mechanical but different from anything we are able to model ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"), because we will never, using the empirical third person reference pojnt, be able to investigate meaning, which requires a first person reference point.
And of course, Jerry Fodor believes we will never know what it is like to be a bat. Daniel Dennett believes he has 'Quined qualia', and Hilary Putnam believes something else altogether...
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
#9412
11/14/2000 12:35 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
All rules have exceptions, including this one.
OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.
Itself.
|
|
|
#9413
11/14/2000 12:46 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
(raspberries include green and red ones).... and shanks, the references go on - we're back to cockney rhyming slang here! (Raspberry tart) Glad to see my little philosophical fish has got the bicycles in gear...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
(raspberries include green and red ones).
... and shanks, the references go on - we're back to cockney rhyming slang here! (Raspberry tart)
Green heart? Perhaps we're talking of Hearts of Oak here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
computers, for instance, can replicate the syntax of human interaction, but can not be claimed to 'know' the meaning (semantics) of what they doHi again shanks, You'll have to send me references to Chinese Rooms, bats, Dennetts etc privately, I think! But regarding the above statement, I'd probably subscribe to something like the Turing Test viewpoint: Does it matter? How can we ever really be certain anyone shares 'meanings'? To which the answer probably has to be another raspberry. (thanks for the rhyming slang reference, mav - but why don't we blow "treacles"??)I'd also say that any sharp division between form and content, or in this case syntax and semantics, is almost definitely an artificial one. We may be back to mav's Keats reference: "Beauty is Truth"! http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Board=miscellany&Number=7585P.S. for those who are wondering, the Turing Test involves a person conversing with both another person and a computer by typewritten means (such as this Board  ). If the tester can't tell the computer and human apart, the computer may be called "intelligent", at least as far as the tester is concerned. For the moment, anyway.
Sort of.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
There is no communication without generalizationCertainly agree with that one, wsieb. Double-edged sword, though, as all generalisations throw the (individual) baby out with the bath-water!  P.S. Flatmoders - I'm not talking to myself, honest..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
whew! turing away from all this philosophical gas for a mim, and returing to the barber: forget the pronoun and give the barber a name, say Figaro. Figaro shaves all those in the village who don't shave themselves.
so Figaro shaves Pedro, et al; and he shaves Figaro, one way or another. not shaving would be a poor business decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
why don't we blow "treacles"??Great question - but you presuppose logic in CRS?
|
|
|
#9419
11/14/2000 11:15 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Hey shanks. I also must plead ignorance as to the Chinese room thought experiment. A bit of a clue in would be nice.
There is a some important differences between connaître, savoir and comprendre. In the context we are discussing now...
Connaître means knowing more or less precisely.
Savoir means remembering in a way that you can repeat the knowledge.
Comprendre means understanding the subject or thing.
As to Jerry Fodor. True, we will never know what it is like to be a bat, but it is also true that we will know what it is to by any other person in the world. You can generalize or assume, but you can never know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I forget what the point was, but the Chinese room thought experiment goes something like this:
Imagine a room containing a person who does not understand Chinese and a list of all possible questions in Chinese with the answers, also in Chinese. Every so often somebody transmits a question in Chinese into the room. The person in the room looks up the question in the list of Chinese questions and then transmits the appropriate answer. How can the people outside tell whether or not the person inside understands Chinese?
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Bingley
I think you're just about right. You don't take it as far as Searle does, though, because he uses this thought experiment to point out what he considers the difference between syntax and semantics. He says that, as far as any observer outside is concerned, the man in the room, or the room itself, seems to understand Chinese. But we know that the man in the room hasn't a clue about Chinese - he is just manipulating, to him meaningless, symbols. Ergo, the Turing Test plays us false: even if someone, or some entity, could behave human (or speak Chinese) that is no assurance that this person is human (or understands Chinese).
In fact a number of philosophers have attacked this thought experiment, and there was, famously, some rather vitriolic correspondence between Searle and Dennett on this issue (I think it may have been in the New York Times). I (personal opinion only) plump for Dennett's interpretation and reject Searle's - but the debate ain't done and dusted yet.
cheer
the sunshine (pretentiously philosophising) warrior
ps. As far as the thinking like a bat thing goes, see Wittgenstein on 'the beetle in the box', and remark on how fragile is the basis upon which we attribute consciousness to others...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
- I'm not talking to myself, honest..Good to know ! Otherwise I should call you a solipsist, since this is where one ends up by categorically refuting the possibility to share meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
It wasn't Fodor who wrote the classic paper "What is it like to be a bat", it was Thomas Nagel. Sorry if I misled you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
I appreciate that this isn't the forum in which to carry on about one of my obsessions (consciousness studies in philosophy and science), so here's a link to take you to some reference material: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.htmlOnce you get there, however, you are going to have to do your own looking up. For those who prefer their information printed, and part-digested, here are some books that talk about these matters: Consciousness Explained Daniel Dennett (also wrote the more well-known Darwin's Dangerous Idea) The rediscovery of the mind John Searle (had to include him in fairness - I may disagree with his ideas, but his advocacy of freedom of speech and other liberal notions makes him someone I respect) How the mind works Stephen Pinker (one of the best all-round books on the subject, by the well-known author of The language instinct) How brains think William Calvin (a research scientist in neurobiology explains how the brain works to produce thought - outstanding stuff, though you may have to get past his own hobby-horse of ballistics being the key to consciousness/intelligence) Think Simon Blackburn (a general introduction to philosophy, and a remarkably good one, in my opinion) I think all of these are still in print, and they should be available on Amazon (or your local big bookshop could order them for you). I shall do my best not to talk about consciousness and meaning any more on this board. I promise (I can be a good boy, I can...) cheer the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
#9425
11/15/2000 10:18 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
the Turing Test plays us falseWell yes, shanks (or am I addressing Searle?), but my point is that it doesn't matter! More accurately, it doesn't matter to me. Which, of course, means that I will soon discover that this Board and all its many and varied characters are merely the invention of a state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence.
|
|
|
#9426
11/15/2000 11:30 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
I will soon discover that this Board and all its many and varied characters are merely the invention of a state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence.Who the Hal are you, then?
|
|
|
#9427
11/16/2000 10:10 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
... me thinks you mistake me. Shona I have tried to say at every turn that I am merely representing Searle's ideas, even though I disagree with them!  Ah well, so much for the ability of language as a communication tool. (Sulking in his tent - bring me Briseis now, and make sure she's scrubbed!)
|
|
|
#9428
11/16/2000 10:28 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
so much for the ability of language as a communication toolThere now, shanks - the failure was mine!  by am I speaking to Searle I meant it to be taken that I didn't think you were his stand-in. Yeah, let's take a tour of our baronial lands.
|
|
|
#9429
11/16/2000 10:33 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Who the Hal are you, then?Don't do that Dave. Dave. Don't do that. (less than a year away, eh?) More recently, I'm just another aspect of The Matrix, Max. 
|
|
|
#9430
11/16/2000 11:02 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
More recently, I'm just another aspect of The Matrix, Max.
Was told by a colleague once that I reminded her of the cool Laurence Fishburne character in the matrix - Morph[eus]. But then, it was close to her review, and she wanted a raise...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
(Sulking in his tent - bring me Briseis now, and make sure she's scrubbed!)
You heel, shanks.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Nothing Styx to you like a bad rep...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Morph[eus]Flattery indeed! - sort of half-plasticine, half king of cool? (Morph is known over here as an animated plasticine character - a weak forerunner to Wallace and Gromit) (Waddya mean, who's Wallace and Gromit?!)Personally I'm just like Keanu Reeves. In much the same way as Peewee Herman isn't. By the way, thanks for the consciousness refs, shanks. Keep me busy for a while... (you wish!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>In much the same way as Peewee Herman isn't.
So, closer to PeeWee are you? Wouldn`t want to be going to the movies with you then.
(she says while hoping the non-U.S. residents understand the reference)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
So, closer to PeeWee are you? Wouldn`t want to be going to the movies with you then.
(she says while hoping the non-U.S. residents understand the reference)
As I understood it, If one went to the movies with PeeWee, one could be fairly certain that he would leave one completely alone, being otherwise occupied. Sitting right next to him might be rather distasteful, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
as PeeWee used to say:
I know you are, but what am I?
|
|
|
#9437
11/19/2000 12:36 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 29
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 29 |
Well, basically, I think basically is a meaningless word. Maybe it had once some basic meaning, but these days it is used basically as a tedious filler word, especially by anyone being interviewed on TV -- go ahead, count em. It's driving me nuts -- basically.
Carpe rutila
Carpe whatever
|
|
|
#9438
11/19/2000 12:56 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
Well, basically, I think basically is a meaningless word.
Like, that is just so true, you know? I think, it's like you've basically hit the nail on like, the head, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
I see, in view of the toughening competitive situation, you have based your strategy on your core competence
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
I see, in view of the toughening competitive situation, you have based your strategy on your core competence
Kindly clarify that statement. Seldom has anyone dared accused me of competence in anything, so your statement leaves my neurons (yes, both of them) completely baffled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
One man's (mine) example of meaningless words are another man's neuronic alarm
|
|
|
#9442
11/20/2000 11:39 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
By the way, thanks for the consciousness refs, shanks. Keep me busy for a while... (you wish!)
Pleasure.
More than happy also to point you towards personal discussions and archives (of a leetle salon I once frequented) with all sorts of consciousness debates on it. (But only if you become truly obsessed like I am.)
|
|
|
#9443
11/20/2000 11:44 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
It seems to me that there are some words that, being redundant in context, achieve meaninglessness (or have it thrust upon them?)
For instance, I find a number of people in the UK using the phrase "my work colleagues". I have never understood why the word 'work' has to be in there, since 'colleague' implicitly carries that meaning anyway.
|
|
|
#9444
11/20/2000 12:08 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
As I posted that message, the sense of deja vu was strong enough for me to have listened to it! And I didn't even bother to search. Dang. Heck. Poot. Or as a lady on another board said - I am furking stuping.
Ah well - at least it's all taking me closer ot addict. (Am I an incipent addict here, or an inchoate one?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
inchoate oneHey, shanks, is that really how you spell incoherent?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
Ah well - at least it's all taking me closer ot addict. (Am I an incipent addict here, or an inchoate one?)
You make a good point, shanks. Since addicts are renowned for showing a depraved indifference to the means used to quiet their cravings, we should expect similar conduct from AWAD addicts, nascent or otherwise. As the monkeys on our respective backs grow ever larger and more insistent, we should expect to see ever more shameless skulduggery in pursuit of the next fix. I say this by way of explaining why I am about to post this same reply 285 times!
|
|
|
|
|
