Combining Texts

Ideas for 'works', 'Philosophical Investigations' and 'Philosophy of Mind'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


24 ideas

18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 2. Propositional Attitudes
How do we distinguish our attitudes from one another? [Kim]
     Full Idea: How do you find out that you believe, rather than, say, doubt or merely hope, that it will rain tomorrow?
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.159)
     A reaction: There should be a special medal created for philosophers who ask reasonable questions which are impossible to answer. They are among the greatest discoveries.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 4. Folk Psychology
Folk psychology has been remarkably durable [Kim]
     Full Idea: Commonsense psychology seems to have an advantage over scientific psychology: its apparent greater stability. Scientific theories seem to come and go.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.110)
     A reaction: This seems to make the assumption that the folk are in universal long-term agreement about such things, which seems doubtful. See Ideas 2987 and 3410.
Maybe folk psychology is a simulation, not a theory [Kim]
     Full Idea: There is the "theory" theory of commonsense psychology, and also a "simulation" theory, which says it is not a matter of laws, but of simulating the behaviour of others, using ourselves as models.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.123)
     A reaction: Using ourselves as models may be the normal and correct way to relate to people within our own culture, but we have to start theorising when we encounter (e.g.) suicide bombers.
A culture without our folk psychology would be quite baffling [Kim]
     Full Idea: A culture that lacked our folk psychology would be unintelligible to us, and its language untranslatable into our own.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.110)
     A reaction: Surely we can manage to discuss the processing life of a robot, without having to resort to anthropomorphic psychology? Its human-style behaviour will fit, but the rest blatantly won't.
Folk psychology has adapted to Freudianism [Kim]
     Full Idea: Freudian depth psychology has now almost achieved the status of folk psychology of the sophisticates.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.158)
     A reaction: You don't need to be a 'sophisticate' to laugh knowingly when someone makes an embarrassing Freudian slip. Terms like 'neurotic' are commonplace among modern folk.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 10. Rule Following
An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §580)
     A reaction: Why do processes need 'criteria'? I have never understood why I can't have private criteria, or at least private modifications of public criteria.
Every course of action can either accord or conflict with a rule, so there is no accord or conflict [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: Paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule. Answer: if everything can accord with the rule, then everything can conflict with it, so there is no accord or conflict.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §201)
     A reaction: This is a very interesting claim which goes beyond the private language question. It seems to imply, for example, Dancy's 'Particularism' about morality, which is a general rejection of rules and principles in moral thought.
One cannot obey a rule 'privately', because that is a practice, not the same as thinking one is obeying [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: 'Obeying a rule' is a practice. And to think one is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule. Hence it is not possible to obey a rule 'privately': otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same thing as obeying it.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §202)
     A reaction: The core of the Private Language argument. But if I drive on the right erroneously thinking it is the law, I can still make progress until I meet someone.
If individuals can't tell if they are following a rule, how does a community do it? [Grayling on Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: The problem facing a putative private language-user - namely, that he cannot tell whether he is, or only thinks he is, following a rule - also faces the community as a whole; how does the community tell whether it is following a rule?
     From: comment on Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §580) by A.C. Grayling - Wittgenstein Ch.3
     A reaction: Nice question. If you really get into the sceptical frame of mind that Wittgenstein reached about rules, almost everything seems impossible. How can I move? How can I speak? How can one instant follow another? How can I understand a word?
18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 6. Artificial Thought / c. Turing Test
A machine with a mind might still fail the Turing Test [Kim]
     Full Idea: The Turing test is too tough, because something doesn't have to be smart enough to outwit a human (or even have language) to have mentality or intelligence.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 97)
     A reaction: Presumably an alien with an IQ of 580 would also fail the Turing test. Indeed people of normal ability, but from a very different culture, might also fail. However, most of us would pass it.
The Turing Test is too specifically human in its requirements [Kim]
     Full Idea: The Turing test is too narrow, because it is designed to fool a human interrogator, but there could be creatures which are intelligent but still fail the test.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 97)
     A reaction: I think the key test for intelligence would be a capacity for metathought. 'What do you think of the idea that x?' Their thoughts about x might be utterly stupid, of course. How do you measure 'stupid'?
18. Thought / C. Content / 5. Twin Earth
Two identical brain states could have different contents in different worlds [Kim]
     Full Idea: States that have the same intrinsic properties - the same neural/physical properties - may have different contents if they are embedded in different environments.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.146)
     A reaction: This is a way of expressing externalism. It depends what you mean by 'contents'. I struggle to see how "H2O" could be the content of the word 'water' among ancient Greeks.
Two types of water are irrelevant to accounts of behaviour [Kim]
     Full Idea: The difference in the two types of 'water' in the Twin Earth experiment seem psychologically irrelevant, for behaviour causation or explanation.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.203)
     A reaction: A rather important point. No matter how externalist you are about what content really is, people can only act on the internal aspects of it.
18. Thought / C. Content / 6. Broad Content
Is white simple, or does it consist of the colours of the rainbow? [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: Is white simple, or does it consist of the colours of the rainbow?
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §047)
     A reaction: A nice challenge to externalism. White remains simple long after experts have told us it is complex.
Externalist accounts of mental content begin in Wittgenstein [Wittgenstein, by Heil]
     Full Idea: The roots of externalist accounts of mental content lie in Wittgenstein.
     From: report of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952]) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View 18.2 n1
     A reaction: This points to the key idea being that content involves the whole language community, rather than that it involves the physical stuffs of the world, such as water. I suspect that Wittgenstein is right, but Putnam is wrong.
Content may match several things in the environment [Kim]
     Full Idea: If content is said to be 'covariance' with something in the environment, then the belief that there are horses in the field covaries reliably with the presence of horses in the field, but also the presence of horse genes in the field.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.192)
     A reaction: That's the end of that interesting proposal, then. Or is it? Looking at the field from a distance this is right, but down the microscope, the covariance varies. The theory lives on.
'Arthritis in my thigh' requires a social context for its content to be meaningful [Kim]
     Full Idea: The example of someone claiming "arthritis in my thigh" shows that the content of belief depends, at least in part but crucially, on the speech practices of the linguistic community in which we situate the subject.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.197)
     A reaction: Personally I find this social aspect to meaning to be more convincing that Putnam's idea that the physical world is part of meaning. It connects nicely with the social aspects of justification.
Content is best thought of as truth conditions [Kim]
     Full Idea: It is standard to take contents as truth conditions.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.203)
     A reaction: This tradition runs from Frege to Davidson, and has been extended to truth conditions in possible worlds. Rivals will involve intentions, or eliminativism about meaning.
18. Thought / C. Content / 7. Narrow Content
Pain, our own existence, and negative existentials, are not external [Kim]
     Full Idea: No external factors seem to be required for Fred's belief that he is in pain, or that he exists, or that there are no unicorns.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.198)
     A reaction: This is an extremely important observation for anyone who was getting over-excited about external accounts of content. Unicorns might connect externally to horns and horses.
Content depends on other content as well as the facts [Kim]
     Full Idea: An objection to the 'covariance' theory of content is that what you believe is influenced, often crucially, by what else you believe.
     From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.193)
     A reaction: I can't think of a reply to this, if the covariance theory is suggesting that content just IS covariance of mental states with the environment. Externalism says that mind extends into the world.
18. Thought / D. Concepts / 3. Ontology of Concepts / b. Concepts as abilities
Possessing a concept is knowing how to go on [Wittgenstein, by Peacocke]
     Full Idea: Wittgenstein implies that which concepts a thinker is capable of possessing depends on the ways in which he is capable of finding a natural way to go on.
     From: report of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952]) by Christopher Peacocke - A Study of Concepts 1.2
     A reaction: This doesn't seem to amount to much. Presumably someone who failed to grasp a concept would demonstrate the fact by going on in a silly way, and whether or not it was silly might not be obvious. A genius may go on in a quirky way.
Concepts direct our interests and investigations, and express those interests [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: Concepts lead us to make investigations; are the expression of our interest, and direct our interest.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §570)
     A reaction: This presumably points to the evolutionary origin of our concept-creating capacity, though I am not sure that it defines what a concept actually is.
Man learns the concept of the past by remembering [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: Man learns the concept of the past by remembering.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], II.13)
     A reaction: [quoted by Peacocke] Is it the case that we learn all of our concepts by doing? Obviously not, since we can be taught them. Could you have no long-term memories (head trauma), and be taught the concept of the past by someone else?
18. Thought / D. Concepts / 4. Structure of Concepts / h. Family resemblance
Various games have a 'family resemblance', as their similarities overlap and criss-cross [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: I shall say 'games' form a family, with a 'family resemblance', for the resemblances within a family - build, eyes, temperament etc. - overlap and criss-cross in the same way.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §067)
     A reaction: A very helpful idea for the nominalist view of universals, particularly for showing how concepts shade off indeterminately at the edges.