0
   

usage cannot capture meaning.

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:46 am
@Ahab,
Ahab;142169 wrote:
He would need a conception or idea of the Fountain of Youth. That is, he would have to have some idea of what he was looking for. But he certainly, as you point out, was not looking for that idea.


Yes. So just as de Leon was not looking for the concept of The Fountain of Youth, so people who imagine a dog show they have never seen (or even does not exist) are not imagining the concept of that dog show.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 11:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;142145 wrote:
They are not just imagining the dog show, but their concept of the dog show? Could they ever imagine just the dog show, and not their concept of a dog show (whatever that means)?


Yes of course. The concept of a dog show is one thing and the dog show I attended February, 16th 2010 is another. I can imagine the concept of a dog show or I can imagine a particular dog show. I can even imagine a dog show that hasn't happened (or will never happen). I can imagine the concept of a man or I can imagine a particular man. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand (other than your usual stubbornness).

Ahab;142182 wrote:
If I imagine (form a mental image of) what my aunt looks like that doesn't mean that my aunt is an imaginary person!


That's because your aunt is a person and doesn't exist entirely in your mind. Anything that exists entirely inside human minds is imaginary. Do concepts exist outside of your mind? If so, can I borrow a cup of concepts?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 11:42 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142221 wrote:
Yes of course. The concept of a dog show is one thing and the dog show I attended February, 16th 2010 is another. I can imagine the concept of a dog show or I can imagine a particular dog show. I can even imagine a dog show that hasn't happened (or will never happen). I can imagine the concept of a man or I can imagine a particular man. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand (other than your usual stubbornness).



That's because your aunt is a person and doesn't exist entirely in your mind. Anything that exists entirely inside human minds is imaginary. Do concepts exist outside of your mind? If so, can I borrow a cup of concepts?


My headache exists in my mind. Is my headache imaginary?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 11:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;142224 wrote:
My headache exists in my mind. Is my headache imaginary?


You're grasping at straws. Headaches aren't in the mind. They aren't even in the brain because the brain doesn't have nociceptors.
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 12:52 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142221 wrote:

That's because your aunt is a person and doesn't exist entirely in your mind. Anything that exists entirely inside human minds is imaginary. Do concepts exist outside of your mind? If so, can I borrow a cup of concepts?


Concepts don't exist in the mind. They are products of thinking beings. They are not like physical objects that occupy space. It makes no sense to say (literally) either that they are in the mind or outside of the mind.

We both share the same concept of addition. If we didn't, then we would not both know that there is a correct answer to the question ' what does 250 + 300 equal?''.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 12:57 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142225 wrote:
You're grasping at straws. Headaches aren't in the mind. They aren't even in the brain because the brain doesn't have nociceptors.


So where are headaches? Or sadness, or anger?
0 Replies
 
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 01:21 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142221 wrote:
I can imagine the concept of a dog show or I can imagine a particular dog show. I can even imagine a dog show that hasn't happened (or will never happen). I can imagine the concept of a man or I can imagine a particular man. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand (other than your usual stubbornness).


It is difficult because your usage of 'imagine' seems to be the same as saying 'think about'. But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 01:37 pm
@Ahab,
Ahab;142238 wrote:
Concepts don't exist in the mind. They are products of thinking beings.


Where do you think mental products are? Of course they are in the mind.

Ahab;142238 wrote:
They are not like physical objects that occupy space.


All information requires space. In the case of computers it's magnetic bits. In the case of human brains it's neuron patterns. Do you really think your brain has unlimited storage?

Ahab;142238 wrote:
We both share the same concept of addition. If we didn't, then we would not both know that there is a correct answer to the question ' what does 250 + 300 equal?''.


They are the same concept in that they are functionally identical. But the concepts are stored in our brains independently. Think of it like copies of the same algorithm on different hardware.

Ahab;142247 wrote:
It is difficult because your usage of 'imagine' seems to be the same as saying 'think about'. But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers.


I don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about? Could you quote something I've said and then respond directly to that? Otherwise it seems like you're just starting another discussion. One which I might actually agree with you on.
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:52 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142252 wrote:
Where do you think mental products are? Of course they are in the mind.


Concepts are non-spatial so of course the are not in the mind. Leastways, not in any literal sense of the word 'in'.


Quote:

All information requires space. In the case of computers it's magnetic bits. In the case of human brains it's neuron patterns. Do you really think your brain has unlimited storage?

My brain is not my mind.


Quote:

They are the same concept in that they are functionally identical. But the concepts are stored in our brains independently. Think of it like copies of the same algorithm on different hardware.


But they aren't like copies stored in diffferent hardware. Concepts are non-spatial. Do you know what it means to be non-spatial?


Quote:

I don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about? Could you quote something I've said and then respond directly to that? Otherwise it seems like you're just starting another discussion. One which I might actually agree with you on.


In post #8 you said:
"Imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog."

Since you refuse to explain what you mean by 'imagining a concept' I can only guess that you mean thinking of or about a concept. I'll quote again my response to what you claimed in post #8:

"But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers. "
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:57 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Isn't this thread somehow self-referential? What is the meaning of "usage cannot capture meaning"? Incidentally, I think I know what is meant by the phrase. But an epistle on the impossibility of communication is going to raise some dust. What is the meaning of "meaning"? That's a party in itself.

This is what Wittgenstein tackles so well in the TLP. You just can't get perfect precision with such words. And yet we get enough precision to put our five-toed feet on the moon.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:44 am
@Ahab,
Ahab;142401 wrote:
Concepts are non-spatial so of course the are not in the mind. Leastways, not in any literal sense of the word 'in'.


All information is spatial.

Ahab;142401 wrote:
My brain is not my mind.


Your mind is what your brain does.

Ahab;142401 wrote:
But they aren't like copies stored in diffferent hardware. Concepts are non-spatial.


Why do you think that?


Ahab;142401 wrote:
In post #8 you said:
"Imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog."

Since you refuse to explain what you mean by 'imagining a concept' I can only guess that you mean thinking of or about a concept.


I shouldn't have to explain it. If you don't know what it means then look it up. I'm not here to educate you on trivial matters. If there weren't 11 million hits for it in Google then perhaps I would have some sympathy.

Ahab;142401 wrote:
I'll quote again my response to what you claimed in post #8:

"But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers. "


Why do I care about this? So what? How does it disagree with anything I've said that's relevant to this thread? Does it show that concepts are not imaginary? What's the point? Please explain it instead of just repeating yourself.
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 11:06 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142617 wrote:
All information is spatial.



Your mind is what your brain does.



Why do you think that?




I shouldn't have to explain it. If you don't know what it means then look it up. I'm not here to educate you on trivial matters. If there weren't 11 million hits for it in Google then perhaps I would have some sympathy.



Why do I care about this? So what? How does it disagree with anything I've said that's relevant to this thread? Does it show that concepts are not imaginary? What's the point? Please explain it instead of just repeating yourself.


I'll explain it after you explain what you mean by saying 'imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog'.

Sorry, but I am simply not interested in playing guessing games.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 11:19 am
@Ahab,
Ahab;142647 wrote:
I'll explain it after you explain what you mean by saying 'imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog'.

Sorry, but I am simply not interested in playing guessing games.


I think you're just using that as an excuse to ignore the rest of the discussion. That's your choice, not mine. I'll be here if you change your mind. I don't think it was relevant anyways. You seem to think concepts aren't imaginary but what is the alternative?
0 Replies
 
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:54 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;142252 wrote:
Where do you think mental products are? Of course they are in the mind.

They are the same concept in that they are functionally identical. But the concepts are stored in our brains independently ["independently" of what?]. Think of it like copies of the same algorithm on different hardware.


A token of a type is not numerically identical to the type of which it is a "copy." And it is highly arguable whether a type is numerically identical to its set of tokens. So I have a question:

If "copies" of concepts are analogous to token-copies of the same algorithm on different hardware then, presumably, when John ceases to exist his token-copy ceases to exist too. But if the type (the concept itself) neither exists in John's mind (nor Bill's, nor Bob's), nor dependent on any particular mind for its existence, then in whose mind does it exist (and on which it is dependent)?
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:10 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;142777 wrote:
Tokens are not identical to the types of which they are copies. And it is highly arguable whether types are identical to sets of tokens. So I have a question:

If "copies" of concepts are analogous to token-copies of the same algorithm on different hardware then, presumably, when John ceases to exist his token-copy ceases to exist too. But if the type (the concept itself) neither exists in John's mind (nor Bill's, nor Bob's), nor dependent on any particular mind for its existence, then in whose mind does it exist (and on which it is dependent)?


Since concepts are non-spatial they can't be said to exist literally inside of the mind or outside of the mind.

For a fuller discussion of types and tokes and concepts I would recommend the following article:
Concepts: Where Subjectivism Goes Wrong
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:13 pm
@Ahab,
Ahab;142778 wrote:
Since concepts are non-spatial they can't be said to exist literally inside of the mind or outside of the mind.

For a fuller discussion of types and tokes and concepts I would recommend the following article:
Concepts: Where Subjectivism Goes Wrong


I agree fully. I happen to have strong Fregean, Fodorian, and Platonistic sentiments myself.

I am merely presenting questions to the other individual.Smile
0 Replies
 
Akeron
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 12:49 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;141850 wrote:
It is not clear the ontological status of meaning. Think of what it means for the word 'plus'. If the word 'plus' is the same as '+', one question to ask is how a person come to learn the meaning of plus? I know someone teach the meaning to you, but the deeper question is how this process is possible at all. When you are a child, someone had to teach you "1+1=2", "2+3=5" etc. There are infinity many arithmetic statements with the symbol '+'. You can only read, and memories finite many of these statements. This means that there are infinite many arithmetic statements concerning '+" that you never saw, or learn about. How is it possible you are able to learn what '+' mean? The second problem of leaning the meaning of an expression is knowing the correct application of the expression. So if an agent A is correct in applying X to situation S. There are again potentially infinite many situations for A to apply X correctly. You can only observe finite many situations for some agent to apply X correctly. Thus, there are potentially infinite many situations that you have not learn how to apply X correctly.



One possible solution is to say you just don` t know what the word 'plus' mean. This seems counterintuitive, but why must something true be intuitive anyway?

The second possible solution is more mystical. There are these crazy spirit like things called meaning that do not take any space, or time. We know what 'plus' mean in a similar way that we know mathematical objects exist.


reference:

Rule-following and meaning - Google Books

Ludwig Wittgenstein (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

MindPapers: 2.5c. Rule-Following


Trial and error mixed with convenience. We start with the patterns that present the most simple, affordable, and lucrative opportunities from our experiences with other actors, and we work our way down from there.

As far as constructing language is concerned, it's kind of the same thing in that we select symbols and sounds which relate to our feelings yet provide optimal organization(-al growth).
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 01:05 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;142777 wrote:
["independently" of what?]


Each other.

Extrain;142777 wrote:
If "copies" of concepts are analogous to token-copies of the same algorithm on different hardware then, presumably, when John ceases to exist his token-copy ceases to exist too. But if the type (the concept itself) neither exists in John's mind (nor Bill's, nor Bob's), nor dependent on any particular mind for its existence, then in whose mind does it exist (and on which it is dependent)?


No one's mind. There is nothing above and beyond the copies themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 06:56:00