117 ideas
| 3426 | If one theory is reduced to another, we make fewer independent assumptions about the world [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If we reduce one theory to another, we reduce the number of independent assumptions about the world. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.215) |
| 18137 | Impredicative definitions are wrong, because they change the set that is being defined? [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Poincaré suggested that what is wrong with an impredicative definition is that it allows the set defined to alter its composition as more sets are added to the theory. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) |
| 18122 | Classical interdefinitions of logical constants and quantifiers is impossible in intuitionism [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: None of the classical ways of defining one logical constant in terms of others is available in intuitionist logic (and this includes the two quantifiers). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) |
| 18114 | There is no single agreed structure for set theory [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: There is so far no agreed set of axioms for set theory which is categorical, i.e. which does pick just one structure. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: This contrasts with Peano Arithmetic, which is categorical in its second-order version. |
| 18107 | A 'proper class' cannot be a member of anything [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: A 'proper class' cannot be a member of anything, neither of a set nor of another proper class. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) |
| 18115 | We could add axioms to make sets either as small or as large as possible [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: We could add the axiom that all sets are constructible (V = L), making the universe of sets as small as possible, or add the axiom that there is a supercompact cardinal (SC), making the universe as large as we no know how to. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: Bostock says most mathematicians reject the first option, and are undecided about the second option. |
| 18139 | The Axiom of Choice relies on reference to sets that we are unable to describe [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The usual accounts of ZF are not restricted to subsets that we can describe, and that is what justifies the axiom of choice. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4 n36) | |
| A reaction: This contrasts interestingly with predicativism, which says we can only discuss things which we can describe or define. Something like verificationism hovers in the background. |
| 18105 | Replacement enforces a 'limitation of size' test for the existence of sets [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Replacement (or the Axiom of Subsets, 'Aussonderung', Fraenkel 1922) in effect enforces the idea that 'limitation of size' is a crucial factor when deciding whether a proposed set or does not not exist. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) |
| 18108 | First-order logic is not decidable: there is no test of whether any formula is valid [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: First-order logic is not decidable. That is, there is no test which can be applied to any arbitrary formula of that logic and which will tell one whether the formula is or is not valid (as proved by Church in 1936). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
| 18109 | The completeness of first-order logic implies its compactness [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: From the fact that the usual rules for first-level logic are complete (as proved by Gödel 1930), it follows that this logic is 'compact'. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: The point is that the completeness requires finite proofs. |
| 18123 | Substitutional quantification is just standard if all objects in the domain have a name [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Substitutional quantification and quantification understood in the usual 'ontological' way will coincide when every object in the (ontological) domain has a name. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.3 n23) |
| 18120 | The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of natural deduction [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of 'natural deduction' in the first place. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) |
| 18125 | Berry's Paradox considers the meaning of 'The least number not named by this name' [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Berry's Paradox can be put in this form, by considering the alleged name 'The least number not named by this name'. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.1) |
| 18101 | Each addition changes the ordinality but not the cardinality, prior to aleph-1 [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If you add to the ordinals you produce many different ordinals, each measuring the length of the sequence of ordinals less than it. They each have cardinality aleph-0. The cardinality eventually increases, but we can't say where this break comes. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) |
| 18100 | ω + 1 is a new ordinal, but its cardinality is unchanged [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If we add ω onto the end of 0,1,2,3,4..., it then has a different length, of ω+1. It has a different ordinal (since it can't be matched with its first part), but the same cardinal (since adding 1 makes no difference). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] The ordinals and cardinals coincide up to ω, but this is the point at which they come apart. |
| 18102 | A cardinal is the earliest ordinal that has that number of predecessors [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: It is the usual procedure these days to identify a cardinal number with the earliest ordinal number that has that number of predecessors. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: This sounds circular, since you need to know the cardinal in order to decide which ordinal is the one you want, but, hey, what do I know? |
| 18106 | Aleph-1 is the first ordinal that exceeds aleph-0 [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The cardinal aleph-1 is identified with the first ordinal to have more than aleph-0 members, and so on. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) | |
| A reaction: That is, the succeeding infinite ordinals all have the same cardinal number of members (aleph-0), until the new total is triggered (at the number of the reals). This is Continuum Hypothesis territory. |
| 18095 | Instead of by cuts or series convergence, real numbers could be defined by axioms [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: In addition to cuts, or converging series, Cantor suggests we can simply lay down a set of axioms for the real numbers, and this can be done without any explicit mention of the rational numbers [note: the axioms are those for a complete ordered field]. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: It is interesting when axioms are best, and when not. Set theory depends entirely on axioms. Horsten and Halbach are now exploring treating truth as axiomatic. You don't give the 'nature' of the thing - just rules for its operation. |
| 18099 | The number of reals is the number of subsets of the natural numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: It is not difficult to show that the number of the real numbers is the same as the number of all the subsets of the natural numbers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: The Continuum Hypothesis is that this is the next infinite number after the number of natural numbers. Why can't there be a number which is 'most' of the subsets of the natural numbers? |
| 18093 | For Eudoxus cuts in rationals are unique, but not every cut makes a real number [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: As Eudoxus claimed, two distinct real numbers cannot both make the same cut in the rationals, for any two real numbers must be separated by a rational number. He did not say, though, that for every such cut there is a real number that makes it. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: This is in Bostock's discussion of Dedekind's cuts. It seems that every cut is guaranteed to produce a real. Fine challenges the later assumption. |
| 17447 | Parsons says counting is tagging as first, second, third..., and converting the last to a cardinal [Parsons,C, by Heck] |
| Full Idea: In Parsons's demonstrative model of counting, '1' means the first, and counting says 'the first, the second, the third', where one is supposed to 'tag' each object exactly once, and report how many by converting the last ordinal into a cardinal. | |
| From: report of Charles Parsons (Frege's Theory of Numbers [1965]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3 | |
| A reaction: This sounds good. Counting seems to rely on that fact that numbers can be both ordinals and cardinals. You don't 'convert' at the end, though, because all the way you mean 'this cardinality in this order'. |
| 18110 | Infinitesimals are not actually contradictory, because they can be non-standard real numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Non-standard natural numbers will yield non-standard rational and real numbers. These will include reciprocals which will be closer to 0 than any standard real number. These are like 'infinitesimals', so that notion is not actually a contradiction. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
| 18156 | Modern axioms of geometry do not need the real numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: A modern axiomatisation of geometry, such as Hilbert's (1899), does not need to claim the existence of real numbers anywhere in its axioms. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5.ii) | |
| A reaction: This is despite the fact that geometry is reduced to algebra, and the real numbers are the equivalent of continuous lines. Bostock votes for a Greek theory of proportion in this role. |
| 18097 | The Peano Axioms describe a unique structure [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Peano Axioms are categorical, meaning that they describe a unique structure. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4 n20) | |
| A reaction: So if you think there is nothing more to the natural numbers than their structure, then the Peano Axioms give the essence of arithmetic. If you think that 'objects' must exist to generate a structure, there must be more to the numbers. |
| 18148 | Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Hume's Principle will not do as an implicit definition because it makes a positive claim about the size of the universe (which no mere definition can do), and because it does not by itself explain what the numbers are. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18145 | Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Hume's Principle gives a criterion of identity for numbers, but it is obvious that many other things satisfy that criterion. The simplest example is probably the numerals (in any notation, decimal, binary etc.), giving many different interpretations. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18149 | There are many criteria for the identity of numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: There is not just one way of giving a criterion of identity for numbers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18143 | Frege makes numbers sets to solve the Caesar problem, but maybe Caesar is a set! [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The Julius Caesar problem was one reason that led Frege to give an explicit definition of numbers as special sets. He does not appear to notice that the same problem affects his Axiom V for introducing sets (whether Caesar is or is not a set). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
| A reaction: The Julius Caesar problem is a sceptical acid that eats into everything in philosophy of mathematics. You give all sorts of wonderful accounts of numbers, but at what point do you know that you now have a number, and not something else? |
| 18116 | Numbers can't be positions, if nothing decides what position a given number has [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: There is no ground for saying that a number IS a position, if the truth is that there is nothing to determine which number is which position. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: If numbers lose touch with the empirical ability to count physical objects, they drift off into a mad world where they crumble away. |
| 18117 | Structuralism falsely assumes relations to other numbers are numbers' only properties [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Structuralism begins from a false premise, namely that numbers have no properties other than their relations to other numbers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: Well said. Describing anything purely relationally strikes me as doomed, because you have to say why those things relate in those ways. |
| 18141 | Nominalism about mathematics is either reductionist, or fictionalist [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Nominalism has two main versions, one which tries to 'reduce' the objects of mathematics to something simpler (Russell and Wittgenstein), and another which claims that such objects are mere 'fictions' which have no reality (Field). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9) |
| 18157 | Nominalism as based on application of numbers is no good, because there are too many applications [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The style of nominalism which aims to reduce statements about numbers to statements about their applications does not work for the natural numbers, because they have many applications, and it is arbitrary to choose just one of them. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5.iii) |
| 18150 | Actual measurement could never require the precision of the real numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: We all know that in practice no physical measurement can be 100 per cent accurate, and so it cannot require the existence of a genuinely irrational number, rather than some of the rational numbers close to it. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.3) |
| 18158 | Ordinals are mainly used adjectively, as in 'the first', 'the second'... [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The basic use of the ordinal numbers is their use as ordinal adjectives, in phrases such as 'the first', 'the second' and so on. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.5.iii) | |
| A reaction: That is because ordinals seem to attach to particulars, whereas cardinals seem to attach to groups. Then you say 'three is greater than four', it is not clear which type you are talking about. |
| 18127 | Simple type theory has 'levels', but ramified type theory has 'orders' [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The simple theory of types distinguishes sets into different 'levels', but this is quite different from the distinction into 'orders' which is imposed by the ramified theory. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.1) | |
| A reaction: The ramified theory has both levels and orders (p.235). Russell's terminology is, apparently, inconsistent. |
| 18144 | Neo-logicists agree that HP introduces number, but also claim that it suffices for the job [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The neo-logicists take up Frege's claim that Hume's Principle introduces a new concept (of a number), but unlike Frege they go on to claim that it by itself gives a complete account of that concept. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
| A reaction: So the big difference between Frege and neo-logicists is the Julius Caesar problem. |
| 18147 | Neo-logicists meet the Caesar problem by saying Hume's Principle is unique to number [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The response of neo-logicists to the Julius Caesar problem is to strengthen Hume's Principle in the hope of ensuring that only numbers will satisfy it. They say the criterion of identity provided by HP is essential to number, and not to anything else. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
| 18146 | If Hume's Principle is the whole story, that implies structuralism [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If Hume's Principle is all we are given, by way of explanation of what the numbers are, the only conclusion to draw would seem to be the structuralists' conclusion, ...studying all systems that satisfy that principle. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
| A reaction: Any approach that implies a set of matching interpretations will always imply structuralism. To avoid it, you need to pin the target down uniquely. |
| 18129 | Many crucial logicist definitions are in fact impredicative [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Many of the crucial definitions in the logicist programme are in fact impredicative. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.2) |
| 18111 | Treating numbers as objects doesn't seem like logic, since arithmetic fixes their totality [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If logic is neutral on the number of objects there are, then logicists can't construe numbers as objects, for arithmetic is certainly not neutral on the number of numbers there are. They must be treated in some other way, perhaps as numerical quantifiers. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
| 18159 | Higher cardinalities in sets are just fairy stories [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: In its higher reaches, which posit sets of huge cardinalities, set theory is just a fairy story. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.5.iii) | |
| A reaction: You can't say the higher reaches are fairy stories but the lower reaches aren't, if the higher is directly derived from the lower. The empty set and the singleton are fairy stories too. Bostock says the axiom of infinity triggers the fairy stories. |
| 18155 | A fairy tale may give predictions, but only a true theory can give explanations [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: A common view is that although a fairy tale may provide very useful predictions, it cannot provide explanations for why things happen as they do. In order to do that a theory must also be true (or, at least, an approximation to the truth). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5) | |
| A reaction: Of course, fictionalism offers an explanation of mathematics as a whole, but not of the details (except as the implications of the initial fictional assumptions). |
| 18140 | The best version of conceptualism is predicativism [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: In my personal opinion, predicativism is the best version of conceptualism that we have yet discovered. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4) | |
| A reaction: Since conceptualism is a major player in the field, this makes predicativism a very important view. I won't vote Predicativist quite yet, but I'm tempted. |
| 18138 | Conceptualism fails to grasp mathematical properties, infinity, and objective truth values [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Three simple objections to conceptualism in mathematics are that we do not ascribe mathematical properties to our ideas, that our ideas are presumably finite, and we don't think mathematics lacks truthvalue before we thought of it. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4) | |
| A reaction: [compressed; Bostock refers back to his Ch 2] Plus Idea 18134. On the whole I sympathise with conceptualism, so I will not allow myself to be impressed by any of these objections. (So, what's actually wrong with them.....?). |
| 18131 | If abstracta only exist if they are expressible, there can only be denumerably many of them [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If an abstract object exists only when there is some suitable way of expressing it, then there are at most denumerably many abstract objects. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.2) | |
| A reaction: Fine by me. What an odd view, to think there are uncountably many abstract objects in existence, only a countable portion of which will ever be expressed! [ah! most people agree with me, p.243-4] |
| 18134 | Predicativism makes theories of huge cardinals impossible [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Classical mathematicians say predicative mathematics omits areas of great interest, all concerning non-denumerable real numbers, such as claims about huge cardinals. There cannot be a predicative version of this theory. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure that anyone will really miss huge cardinals if they are prohibited, though cryptography seems to flirt with such things. Are we ever allowed to say that some entity conjured up by mathematicians is actually impossible? |
| 18135 | If mathematics rests on science, predicativism may be the best approach [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: It has been claimed that only predicative mathematics has a justification through its usefulness to science (an empiricist approach). | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: [compressed. Quine is the obvious candidate] I suppose predicativism gives your theory roots, whereas impredicativism is playing an abstract game. |
| 18136 | If we can only think of what we can describe, predicativism may be implied [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: If we accept the initial idea that we can think only of what we ourselves can describe, then something like the theory of predicativism quite naturally results | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: I hate the idea that we can only talk of what falls under a sortal, but 'what we can describe' is much more plausible. Whether or not you agree with this approach (I'm pondering it), this makes predicativism important. |
| 18133 | The usual definitions of identity and of natural numbers are impredicative [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: The predicative approach cannot accept either the usual definition of identity or the usual definition of the natural numbers, for both of these definitions are impredicative. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: [Bostock 237-8 gives details] |
| 18132 | The predicativity restriction makes a difference with the real numbers [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: It is with the real numbers that the restrictions imposed by predicativity begin to make a real difference. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) |
| 3431 | Supervenience suggest dependence without reduction (e.g. beauty) [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Supervenience opens up the possibility of a relationship that gives us determination, or dependence, without reduction (as beauty supervenes on physical properties, but can't be given a physical definition). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.223) | |
| A reaction: Beauty is a bad analogy, since it rather obviously involves a beholder. There is nothing more to a statue than a substance of a certain shape. There are no good analogies for this sort of supervenience, because it doesn't exist. |
| 3437 | 'Physical facts determine all the facts' is the physicalists' slogan [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Physicalists are fond of saying that physical facts determine all the facts. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.232) | |
| A reaction: I totally agree with this slogan. As a view, it seems to me that it is reinforced by essentialism (see the ideas of Brian Ellis), which gives some indication of how facts are physically determined, and why there is no alternative. |
| 3430 | Resemblance or similarity is the core of our concept of a property [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Resemblance or similarity is the very core of our concept of a property. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.219) |
| 3432 | Is weight a 'resultant' property of water, but transparency an 'emergent' property? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Emergent properties are said to be irreducible to, and unpredictable from, the lower-level phenomena from which they emerge (as weight is a 'resultant' property, but the transparency of water is an 'emergent' property). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.228) | |
| A reaction: So weight is predictable, but transparency is a surprise? But presumably the transparency of water is totally predictable, once you understand it. Emergent properties are either dualist or reducible, in my view. |
| 3434 | Emergent properties are 'brute facts' (inexplicable), but still cause things [Kim] |
| Full Idea: For the emergentist why pain emerges when C-fibres are excited remains a mystery (a 'brute fact'), but such properties then take on a life of their own as 'downward causation'. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.229) | |
| A reaction: I don't think there are any 'brute facts', except perhaps at the lowest level of physics. Whatever happened to the principle of sufficient reason? Is the mind like God - a causal source which is uncaused? |
| 3436 | Should properties be individuated by their causal powers? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Arguably, properties must be individuated in terms of their causal powers. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.230) |
| 3406 | Counterfactuals are either based on laws, or on nearby possible worlds [Kim, by PG] |
| Full Idea: For counterfactuals there is the 'nomic-derivational' approach (which logically derives them from laws), and the 'possible world' approach (based on truth in worlds close to the actual one). | |
| From: report of Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.141) by PG - Db (ideas) |
| 3368 | Mind is basically qualities and intentionality, but how do they connect? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: It is generally held that there are two broad categories of mental phenomena - qualitative states and intentional states (but what do they have in common?). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 23) | |
| A reaction: I am happy to accept this orthodox modern analysis. Putting it more simply: minds exist to enable experience and thought. I judge a priori that the two aspects are not separate. Qualia exist to serve thought, and qualia are necessary for thought. |
| 3392 | Mind is only interesting if it has causal powers [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Unless mental properties have causal powers, there would be little point in worrying about them. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.118) | |
| A reaction: This doesn't, on its own, actually rule out epiphenomenalism, but it does show why it barely qualifies as a serious theory. One might, in fact, say that we simply can't worry about something which has no causal powers. The powers might not be physical |
| 3396 | Experiment requires mental causation [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Experimentation presupposes mental-to-physical causation and is impossible without it. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.128) | |
| A reaction: So an epiphenomenalist can't do experiments? Kim implies that there is some special mental assessment of the feedback from physical events, but presumably a robot or a zombie could do experiments. Spiders do experiments. |
| 3397 | Beliefs cause other beliefs [Kim] |
| Full Idea: A brief reflection makes it evident that most of our beliefs are generated by other beliefs we hold, and "generation" here could only mean causal generation. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.128) | |
| A reaction: This seems right, and yet implies an uncomfortable determinism, as if all our beliefs just happened to us. I don't claim proper free will, but I do say there is an element in belief formation which is just caused by bunches of beliefs. Call it character. |
| 3367 | Both thought and language have intentionality [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Mental states are not the only things which exhibit intentionality - words and sentences can also refer to or represent facts or states of affairs. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 22) | |
| A reaction: This points to Searle's distinction between 'intrinsic' and 'derived' intentionality (see Idea 3465). We must now explain the difference between verbal intentionality and non-verbal intentionality (both as phenomena, and as information). |
| 3365 | Intentionality involves both reference and content [Kim] |
| Full Idea: There is referential intentionality (that some of our thoughts refer, or are 'about' something) and content intentionality (that propositional attitudes have content or meaning, often expressed by full sentences). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 21) | |
| A reaction: So could these be the external and internal components of content? Which might be the causal/historical component, and the descriptive component? Which might be known by (indirect) acquaintance and description? |
| 3360 | Are pains pure qualia, or do they motivate? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Are pains only sensory events, or do they also have a motivational component (e.g. aversiveness)? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 7) | |
| A reaction: A nice question. Given the occasional genuine masochist, and the way some people love tastes that others hate, it has always seemed to me that aversiveness was not a necessary property of pain. I couldn't train myself to like pain, though |
| 3366 | Pain has no reference or content [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Some mental phenomena - in particular, sensations like tickles and pains - do not seem to exhibit either reference or content. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 21) | |
| A reaction: This could be challenged. These sensations cannot be had without a bodily location, and they give information about possible contact or damage. |
| 3389 | Inverted qualia and zombies suggest experience isn't just functional [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If inverted qualia, or absent qualia (zombies), are possible in functionally equivalent systems, qualia are not capturable by functional definitions. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.114) | |
| A reaction: The point here (I take it) is that we don't have to go the whole hog of saying the qualia are therefore epiphenomenal, although that is implied. How about a fail-safe situation, where qualia do it for me, and something else does the same for zombies? |
| 3391 | Crosswiring would show that pain and its function are separate [Kim, by PG] |
| Full Idea: If you crosswire your 'pain box' and your 'itch box', the functionalist says you are in pain if the inputs and outputs are for pain, even though the feeling is of an itch. | |
| From: report of Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.115) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: If functionalists would indeed say this, then the objection seems to me almost conclusive. But they might well say that such simple crosswiring won't work. Itching won't produce pain behaviour - it lacks the correct function. |
| 3422 | Externalism about content makes introspection depend on external evidence [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Externalism about content would have the consequence that most of our knowledge of our own intentional states is indirect and must be based on external evidence. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.207) | |
| A reaction: I think this is a confusion, endemic in discussions of externalism. If what Shakespeare meant by 'water' is H2O, or Putnam means by 'elm' what experts say, the point is that their meanings are NOT part of their intentional states, which are bookmarks. |
| 3412 | How do we distinguish our anger from embarrassment? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: How do we know that we are angry rather than embarrassed? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.159) | |
| A reaction: A very nice question, because the only answer I (or anyone?) can think of is that they are distinguished by their content. Event A is annoying, while event B is embarrassing. Either of those feelings is almost inconceivable without its content. |
| 3363 | We often can't decide what emotion, or even sensation, we are experiencing [Kim] |
| Full Idea: It is not always easy for us to determine what emotion (or even physical sensations) we are experiencing. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 18) | |
| A reaction: Confused sensations are, I would have thought, rare. Emotions, I think, are only confused when they are weak, and then a lot of the confusion is merely verbal. Our body and intuitions understand the feeling well enough, but we lack the vocabulary. |
| 3409 | Mental substance causation makes physics incomplete [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Since Cartesian dualism implies causation from outside of the physical domain, this means there can be no complete physical theory of the physical domain. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.147) | |
| A reaction: This, I think, should be taken as a very strong argument against dualism, rather than as bad news for physics. Some exception might make the closure of physics impossible, but the claim that our brain is the exception looks highly suspect. |
| 3399 | If epiphenomenalism were true, we couldn't report consciousness [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If epiphenomenalism were true, it would be a mystery how such things could be known to us. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.130) | |
| A reaction: If a brain were asked whether it was conscious, it would presumably say 'yes', but (if epiphenomenalism were true) the cause of that would have to be brain events, and NOT information that it is conscious, which the brain could not have. Big objection. |
| 3390 | Are inverted or absent qualia coherent ideas? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Some philosophers doubt the coherence of the very idea of inverted or absent qualia. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.115) | |
| A reaction: The possibility of inverted qualia with identical brain structures strikes me as nil, but it would be odd to deny that qualia could be changed by brain surgery, given that insects can see ultra-violet, and some people are colourblind. |
| 3414 | What could demonstrate that zombies and inversion are impossible? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Is there anything about the qualitative characters of mental states which, should we come to know it, would convince us that zombies and qualia inversion are not really possible? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.171) | |
| A reaction: The issue is what causes the qualitative states, not their 'characters'. This strikes me as falling into the trap of thinking that 'what it is like to be..' is a crucial issue. I think zombies are impossible, but not because I experience redness. |
| 3359 | Cartesian dualism fails because it can't explain mental causation [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Its inability to explain the possibility of "mental causation" doomed Cartesian dualism. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 4) | |
| A reaction: This is a modern way of stating the interaction problem. Personally I am inclined to think that dualism was doomed by the spread of the scientific materialist view to every other corner of our knowledge except the mind. Plenty of causes baffle us. |
| 3369 | Logical behaviourism translates mental language to behavioural [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Logical behaviourism says any meaningful statement about mental phenomena can be translated without loss of content into a statement solely about behavioural and physical phenomena. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 29) | |
| A reaction: Also called analytical behaviourism. If we are supposed to infer the ontology of mental states from language, this makes me cross. Maybe we only discuss mentality in behavioural terms because we are epistemologically, and hence linguistically, limited. |
| 3428 | Behaviourism reduces mind to behaviour via bridging principles [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Behaviourism can be considered as an attempt to reduce the mental to the physical via definitional bridge principles (every mental expression being given a behavioural definition). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.217) | |
| A reaction: Effectively these would (if they had been discoverable) have been the elusive psycho-physical laws (which Davidson says do not exist). The objection to behaviourism is precisely that there is no fixed behaviour attached to a given mental state. |
| 3380 | Are dispositions real, or just a type of explanation? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Functionalists take a "realist" approach to dispositions whereas the behaviourist embraces an "instrumentalist" line. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 78) | |
| A reaction: A helpful distinction, which immediately shows why functionalism is superior to behaviourism. There must be some explanation of mental dispositions, and the instrumental view is essentially a refusal to think about the real problem. |
| 3371 | Behaviour depends on lots of mental states together [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Mind-to-behaviour connections are always defeasible - by the occurrence of a further mental state. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 35) | |
| A reaction: But then an object's falling under gravity is always defeasible, by someone catching it first. This popular idea is meant to show that there could, as Davidson puts it, 'no psycho-physical laws', but I suspect the laws are just complex, like weather laws. |
| 3372 | Behaviour is determined by society as well as mental states [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The factors that determine exactly what you are doing when you produce a physical gesture include the customs, habits and conventions that are in force, so it is unlikely that anyone could produce correct behavioural definitions of mental terms. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 36) | |
| A reaction: This problem can be added to the problem that it is hard to specify behaviour without reference to mentalistic terms. The point is clearly right, as what I am doing when I wave my hand in the air will depend on all sorts of conventions and expectations. |
| 3373 | Snakes have different pain behaviour from us [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If it is an analytic truth that anyone in pain has a tendency to wince or groan, what about snakes? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 37) | |
| A reaction: Snakes do, however, exhibit what looks like 'I really don't like that' behaviour, and their rapid avoidance movements are identical to ours. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what a snake does what it has a stomach upset. I see Kim's point. |
| 3370 | What behaviour goes with mathematical beliefs? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Is there even a loosely definable range of bodily behaviour that is characteristically exhibited by people when they believe, say, that there is no largest prime number? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 32) | |
| A reaction: This is a highly persuasive argument against behaviourism. Very abstract and theoretical thoughts have no related behaviour, especially among non-mathematicians. I probably believe this idea about numbers, but I can't think what to do about it. |
| 3379 | Neurons seem to be very similar and interchangeable [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Most neurons, it has been said, are pretty much alike and largely interchangeable. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 76) | |
| A reaction: This fact, if true, is highly significant, because the correct theory of the mind must therefore be some sort of functionalism. If what a neuron is is insignificant, then what it does must be what matters. |
| 3388 | Machine functionalism requires a Turing machine, causal-theoretical version doesn't [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Machine functionalism requires a mental state to be a physical realisation of a Turing machine; causal-theoretical functionalism only requires that there be appropriate "internal states". | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.112) | |
| A reaction: Searle's objection to the Turing machine version seems good - that such a machine has an implicit notion of a user/interpreter, which is absent from this theory of mind. |
| 3384 | The person couldn't run Searle's Chinese Room without understanding Chinese [Kim] |
| Full Idea: It is by no means clear that any human could manage to do what Searle imagines himself to be doing in the Chinese Room - that is, short of throwing away the rule book and learning some real Chinese. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.100) | |
| A reaction: It is not clear how a rule book could contain answers to an infinity of possible questions. The Chinese Room is just a very poor analogy with what is envisaged in the project of artificial intelligence. |
| 3393 | How do functional states give rise to mental causation? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: On the functionalist account of mental properties, just where does a mental property get its causal powers? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.118) | |
| A reaction: That is the key problem. Something can only have a function if it has intrinsic powers (corkscrews are rigid and helix-shaped). It can't be irrelevant that pain hurts. |
| 3439 | Reductionism gets stuck with qualia [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The main obstacle to mind-body reduction is qualia. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.236) | |
| A reaction: Personally I am also impressed by Leibniz's Mill (Idea 2109). No microscope could ever reveal the contents of thought. How can it be so vivid for the owner, but totally undetectable to an observer? |
| 3427 | Reductionism is impossible if there aren't any 'bridge laws' between mental and physical [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Most antireductionist arguments focus on the unavailability of bridge laws to effect the reduction of psychological theory to physical theory (as found in reducing the gas laws to theories about molecules). | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.216) | |
| A reaction: Reduction can, of course, be achieved by identity rather than by bridge laws. I would say that all that prevents us from predicting mental events from physical ones is the sheer complexity involved. Cf. predicting the detailed results of an explosion. |
| 3376 | We can't assess evidence about mind without acknowledging phenomenal properties [Kim] |
| Full Idea: In order to make sense of the empirical character of mind-brain identity, we must acknowledge the existence of phenomenal properties. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 66) | |
| A reaction: Mind-brain identity is, of course, an ontological theory, not an epistemological one (like empiricism). I suspect that the basis for my belief in reductive physicalism is an intuition, which I am hoping is a rational intuition. Cf. Idea 3989. |
| 3424 | Most modern physicalists are non-reductive property dualists [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The most widely accepted form of physicalism today is the nonreductive variety, ...which combines ontological physicalism with property dualism. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.212) | |
| A reaction: I suspect that property dualism is actually in decline, but we will see. I have yet to find a coherent definition of property dualism. If being simultaneously red and square isn't property dualism, then what is it? Sounds like dualism to me. |
| 3413 | Zombies and inversion suggest non-reducible supervenience [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The main argument for the physical supervenience of qualia, then, is the apparent conceivability of zombies and qualia inversion in organisms physically indistinguishable from us. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.171) | |
| A reaction: Since neither zombies nor qualia inversion for identical brains seem to me to be even remotely conceivable, I won't trouble myself with the very vague concept of 'supervenience'. |
| 3362 | Supervenience says all souls are identical, being physically indiscernible [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If one accepts the supervenience of mental on physical, this logically implies that there can only be one Cartesian soul, because such souls are physically indiscernible, and hence mentally indiscernible. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 10) | |
| A reaction: Not very persuasive. Brains are certainly discernible, and so are parts of brains. Egos might be mentally discernible. I don't find my notion of personal identity collapsing just because I espouse property dualism. |
| 3374 | Token physicalism isn't reductive; it just says all mental events have some physical properties [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Token physicalism (as opposed to type physicalism) is a weak doctrine which simply says that any event or occurrence with a mental property has some physical property or other. It is not committed to reductionism. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 61) | |
| A reaction: Sounds nice, but it seems incoherent to me. How can something have a physical property if it isn't physical? Try 'it isn't coloured, but has colour properties', or 'not a square, but with square properties'. 'Not divine, but divine properties' maybe. |
| 3433 | The core of the puzzle is the bridge laws between mind and brain [Kim] |
| Full Idea: From the emergentist point of view, the reductionists bridge laws are precisely what need to be explained. Why do these mental-physical correlations hold? | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.229) | |
| A reaction: Everyone is happy with the bridge laws from chemistry to physics, but no one knows (deep down) why those exact laws hold. We need to understand what consciousness is; its cause will then, I think, become apparent. |
| 3377 | Elimination can either be by translation or by causal explanation [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The two best know attempts to analyse away mental states are Armstrong's causal conception of such states (e.g. pain is a neural event caused by tissue damage), and Smart's 'topic-neutral translation'. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 67) | |
| A reaction: Armstrong's view certainly seems to be missing something, since his 'pain' could do the job without consciousness. I take Smart's approach to be the germ of the right answer. |
| 3438 | Reductionists deny new causal powers at the higher level [Kim] |
| Full Idea: For the reductionist, no new causal powers emerge at higher levels, which goes against the claims of the emergentist and the non-reductive physicalist. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.232) | |
| A reaction: I would say that all higher level causes are simply the sums of lower level causes, as in chemistry and physics. What could possibly produced the power at the higher level, apart from the constituents of the thing? Magic? |
| 3440 | Without reductionism, mental causation is baffling [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If reductionism goes, so does the intelligibility of mental causation. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.237) | |
| A reaction: Quite so. Substance dualism turns mental causation into a miracle, but property dualism is really no better. If no laws connect brain and mind, you have no account. I don't see how 'reasons are causes' (Davidson) helps at all. |
| 3375 | If an orange image is a brain state, are some parts of the brain orange? [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If an orange visual image is a brain state then, by the indiscernibility of identicals, some brain state must also be orange. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 64) | |
| A reaction: I think this is the Hardest of all Hard Questions: how can I experience orange if my neurons haven't turned orange? What on earth is orangeness? I don't believe it is a 'microproperty' of orange objects; it's in us. |
| 3411 | 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. |
| 3386 | 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. |
| 3394 | 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. |
| 3387 | 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. |
| 3410 | 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. |
| 3382 | 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. |
| 3383 | 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'? |
| 3408 | 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. |
| 3420 | 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. |
| 3418 | '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. |
| 3421 | 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. |
| 3416 | 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. |
| 3419 | 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. |
| 3417 | 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. |
| 18121 | In logic a proposition means the same when it is and when it is not asserted [Bostock] |
| Full Idea: In Modus Ponens where the first premise is 'P' and the second 'P→Q', in the first premise P is asserted but in the second it is not. Yet it must mean the same in both premises, or it would be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. | |
| From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) | |
| A reaction: This is Geach's thought (leading to an objection to expressivism in ethics, that P means the same even if it is not expressed). |
| 3403 | We assume people believe the obvious logical consequences of their known beliefs [Kim] |
| Full Idea: We attribute to a subject beliefs that are obvious logical consequences of beliefs already attributed to him. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.135) | |
| A reaction: Depends what you mean by 'obvious'. Presumably they must be judged obvious to the believer, but only if they have thought of them. We can't believe all the simple but quirky implications of our beliefs. |
| 3402 | If someone says "I do and don't like x", we don't assume a contradiction [Kim] |
| Full Idea: If someone says "I do and I don't like x", we do not take her to be expressing a literally contradictory belief. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.135) | |
| A reaction: It might mean 'one minute I like it, and the next minute I don't', where there seems to be a real contradiction, with a time factor. You can't sustain both preferences with conviction. |
| 3401 | A common view is that causal connections must be instances of a law [Kim] |
| Full Idea: A widely but not universally accepted principle is that causally connected events must instantiate a law. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.133) |
| 3407 | Laws are either 'strict', or they involve a 'ceteris paribus' clause [Kim] |
| Full Idea: Some laws are held to be 'strict', and others involve a 'ceteris paribus' clause. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.143) |