I am glad you are concentrating on stressing that I am not a trained philosopher, which is ambiguous, but not on my logic. To be a real thinker: right information, logic and ability clearly communicate what is only needed. I think I did everything according the rules of healthy fuzziness . 'Know' is obvious, and 'red' is a word/symbol of light waves only to human. For birds and unlearned child it is sensed reflection of part of the spectrum - one of the ways to 'know' it. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:42:58 EDT In a message dated 4/4/10 3:22:55 PM, [email protected] writes: > Child 'knows' 'red' not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but > certain light waves brain senses. > Boris Shoshensky > I think I garner your underlying thoughts here, Boris, and I don't disagree with them. But tolerate me as I say your attempt to articulate the thoughts, your notation, is ambiguous. Assuming I've grasped your thinking, here is how a somewhat trained philosopher might express them: [Child "knows" red not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but certain light waves the brain senses.] I immediately grant this is not "perfectly clear" either: One has to be familiar with the philosopher's notation, and his distinction between "use" and "mention". A classic line to convey that distinction goes like this: [Boston has 700,000 people, and 'Boston' has six letters.] I removed your single quotes from ['red'] because you were using the word, not mentioning it. You meant the child "knows" the color-sensation, not the three-letter word. If, using some philosophical notation, you wanted to talk about the word you'd say: [The child knows 'red' as the name of the color of the fire engine.] In fact the more than just somewhat trained philosopher -- like Van Quine -- justifiably adopts even more abstruse notations -- including brackets and half-brackets -- because, for example, the double quotes that I put around your ['knows'] have several possible uses: They can be used simply to indicate a quotation, or they can be used as "scare quotes" -- to cite a word with ambiguous or allegedly confused effect. It's intended to convey something like, "You said it, not I." Moreover, it's something of a rule in correct English to put only single quotes around a quotation if the quotation is within a quotation: [When I heard the teacher say, "Samuel Johnson said 'Nothing succeeds like excess,' I knew the teacher was wrong. Oscar Wilde said that, not Johnson.] Your original line was meant to convey how you use the word 'knows'. A philosopher might balk at that usage, and alter more than just the notation. He might write: [Child is acquainted with red not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but certain light waves the brain senses.] Or even: [A child is acquainted with red, and understands 'red'.] I grant this hyper-meticulous approach can get tedious quickly. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:42:58 EDT In a message dated 4/4/10 3:22:55 PM, [email protected] writes: > Child 'knows' 'red' not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but > certain light waves brain senses. > Boris Shoshensky > I think I garner your underlying thoughts here, Boris, and I don't disagree with them. But tolerate me as I say your attempt to articulate the thoughts, your notation, is ambiguous. Assuming I've grasped your thinking, here is how a somewhat trained philosopher might express them: [Child "knows" red not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but certain light waves the brain senses.] I immediately grant this is not "perfectly clear" either: One has to be familiar with the philosopher's notation, and his distinction between "use" and "mention". A classic line to convey that distinction goes like this: [Boston has 700,000 people, and 'Boston' has six letters.] I removed your single quotes from ['red'] because you were using the word, not mentioning it. You meant the child "knows" the color-sensation, not the three-letter word. If, using some philosophical notation, you wanted to talk about the word you'd say: [The child knows 'red' as the name of the color of the fire engine.] In fact the more than just somewhat trained philosopher -- like Van Quine -- justifiably adopts even more abstruse notations -- including brackets and half-brackets -- because, for example, the double quotes that I put around your ['knows'] have several possible uses: They can be used simply to indicate a quotation, or they can be used as "scare quotes" -- to cite a word with ambiguous or allegedly confused effect. It's intended to convey something like, "You said it, not I." Moreover, it's something of a rule in correct English to put only single quotes around a quotation if the quotation is within a quotation: [When I heard the teacher say, "Samuel Johnson said 'Nothing succeeds like excess,' I knew the teacher was wrong. Oscar Wilde said that, not Johnson.] Your original line was meant to convey how you use the word 'knows'. A philosopher might balk at that usage, and alter more than just the notation. He might write: [Child is acquainted with red not as a name we gave to the certain light waves, but certain light waves the brain senses.] Or even: [A child is acquainted with red, and understands 'red'.] I grant this hyper-meticulous approach can get tedious quickly.
