Not solving the problem = Not understanding language

Relative ontology takes no datum, no standard and no specific context from which to base itself on. It only takes the formless "entity" as a building block, and through working out how entities work together, an ontological system, that is something that is productive of emergent functions, can be worked out. Then, with only one assumption, the brain is a product of natural selection, and taking the human situation as a guide, the whole system of the mind can be built from the ground up.

.... I dont think constructing a new language of 'relative ontology' is the answer. We just need to examine the use of our language and how it leads us into painting false pictures about the mind and much can be achieved by this method. To quote Wittgenstein 'But ordinary language is all right.'

Although I think definitions are helpful and precise use of language is important,
Not all philosophical problems are language problems.
Determinism versus free will is more than a language problem.
Viewing the universe as a mechanistic deterministic machine versus any form of theism in not just a language problem.
In fact linguistic analysis or analytic philosophy excludes more problems than it solves.

No language can describe what one creates in their minds. But we do our best.

In a way, the language (and thought) used to describe, for lack of a better phrase, mental functions, has seemingly caused a great deal of confusion. One has only to think of Cartesian dualism. But whether this was caused linguistically or by lack of scientific understanding, which we are just beginning to explore, is debatable.

What does seem to be the case, however, that as we do learn more about mental functions, we find ways to use language to describe and to think about novel concepts; words have a life of their own, and can change and grow or simply disappear, or new words can be coined. As I understand the original argument, a new linguistic environment is suggested as a solution that avoids the earlier problems. It would seem that language is not only capable of that, but is on its own working toward that goal.

Another possible approach, at least for the present and to avoidi linguistic confusions, is to begin philosophical analysis with the Self and its world, including Others and society. This implies abandoning discussions (for example) of "mind" vs, "brain" or at least only making tentative remarks about mental functions. This ontological framework, I take to be the stand of some of the existentialists (e.g., Sartre or Heidegger) and the "life-philosophy" school (e.g.Schultz) closely allied to the phenomenological approach.

a) There is no logical, algorithmic or scientific definition for any of these, or similar, terms. Therefore they have no meaning and no place in the definition of anything computational, which is, implicitly, the goal of said research.

Since when has "ordinary language" been all right? There is no scientific progress in history that has been untouched by neologisms to describe the new concepts. I agree that ordinary language paints an erroneous picture, like ancient concepts of the four elements does for physics, but examination of the flaws of that system isn't likely to take us anywhere. Are there any examples where this has been shown to be profitable.

The Computational theory of mind is not the only programme of research being undertaken within Cognitive science.

Actually the study and clarification of ordinary language has been very profitable in the development of a Science of Conciousness, a quick look through academic publications will reveal this. Philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (greatly influential in Cognitive science) who was greatly influenced by Wittgenstein and was also taught by ordinary language Philosopher Gilbert Ryle can be seen in some ways as caring on their legacy with much success.

I would disagree with this; if philosophical debate is reasoned logic, and the currency of logic is language, then all philosophical debate can, on some level, be reduced to a question of language.

Is there any argument that goes with this?
Some variation of Godel's theorem?

What other approach would serve any purpose at all? In a technological sense, there is only a computational theory that is required. In a mystical sense, well, anything at all can and has been acceptable.

OK, I have not read anything by Dennett, but I am quite sure that he hasn't built a sentient machine yet, so this "profitability" is highly questionable! Rather, I was wondering if there were any proven examples in history where looking at common language has had any scientific merit.

For me, these are unnecessary constraints. I find images and pictures more helpful at times. For example, Wheeler in his book, describes his own Delayed-Choice Gedanken, using a picture of a baseball diamond. The Cubists and the Impressionists add much to my own philosophical thinking with their art. I myself like to use the old TV show Camouflage as an example of how Nature hides. Language may be your currency of exchange and you may try logic if this is your preferred approach, but it not my chosen means because language is rife with problems and is too limiting for me.

Other non mystical approaches can be made in regards to the study of the brain. The computational theory of mind (Which I'm agnostic about) has come under both scientific criticism and conceptual critcism. Surely we want to be engaging in the correct approach

Firstly saying that someone hasnt built a sentient machine makes the profitability of their contributions to the field of Cognitive Science as highly questionable is a informal fallacy. As fair as I'm aware no one has built a sentient machine yet, does this mean the "profitability" of all the other work in the field is questionable?

Wittgenstein for example is often featured in books in neuroscience, in particular books on the neuroscience of language and certainly some of Wittgenstein's ideas have scientific value. As well as providing important conceptual analysis, which is what I believe that neuroscience and cognitive science is most in need of.

Art is great, I too find some answers to these questions in painting, literature or music, but these are personal, esoteric answers that primarily serve to give me a spiritual comfort. Is there any practical merit to these answers?

Incredibly so. But it is not like you look at it and say AH-HAH, I see practical value. It is a long winding road of exploration, experience, and learning, and then one takes a look at it and says AH-HAH. I would say that my experiences with Cubism twenty years ago was completely different than it is today - and for me it is all about learning to look at things from different perspectives for practical purposes. It is helpful in all aspects of my life. Much more so than tons of philosophy books. For others, maybe not.

Rich

Current philosophical thinking seems to have been become tyrannized by two ways (patterns, horizons) of thinking: on the one hand the rhetoric of the political (starting after, say, WWI as Benda deplored in his Treason of the Intellectuals) and on the other that of the scientific/technological. In this trend of colonization, it follows the intellectual climate of the times in which politicians and scientists hold language in their hands.

But perhaps it is necessary for Philosophy to reclaim language, not just for itself, but for thinking in general, and find its own voice, which has been lost the last fifty years. Certainly the times in which we live call for philosophical thinking on the grand scale, and not all the interminable, crabbed papers in journals its workers address to one another.

But if we get down to the nuts'n'bolts of the issue, it's computation that is going to have the biggest impact by far.

Maybe as one is first setting out in life, and is making a living that computation has a larger impact. However, as one gets older, the thought then turns to the spiritual. I think it is the cycle of life, and for everyone the cycle is a bit different. The Tarot provides a very nice story about the cycle of life.

What makes you think they're not actively seeking it?