arnoud wrote: a> Well, to name internal events, there have to be rules/criteria for correct use a> of a term/name, like always for any use of language. How do you know how to a> use the word 'pain' for example, how did you learn its rule(s)? Well probably a> from your parents who told you you were in pain when you hit your knee or a> something like that and screamed afterwards. Behaviour was the necessary a> basis for this learning event.
This sounds plausible but I disagree that it proves your point. 1) Although I have indeed been taught words for internal states/ events/experiences based on other people's observation of my external behaviour, that does not mean I don't have internal experiences *without* external observables where the word or concept appears to apply. I.e. having learned about "pain" in initially a physical, and later a metaphoric sense (for emotional hurt), I can at a later date experience something-I- choose-to-designate "pain" without anyone, as it were, being the wiser that I am experiencing it. A far better example in this context would be the phrase/concept "deja vu". Although to learn the term I must exhibit certain external behaviour -- to wit, speak the words "have you ever had the feeling you've been here and done this before?" -- certainly I can later experience a state or feeling I designate "deja vu" without externals. 2) Although this may sound like a ginned-up argument, I have named and do name internal states *for my own exclusive use* as well. Language is not only for communication, it's also for memory (or to put it differently, communication to a future self / from a past self). More specifically, I've been keeping a journal/diary as I've gone through the anti-depressant drug merry-go-round (or triste-go- round ;), in order to have a better record of my internal states than vague impressions like "I think I felt better last month when I was taking medication X". In doing so I've found it necessary/ useful/helpful to come up with my own personal vocabulary for certain states. a> For more information on this, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical a> Investigations, Ryle's Concept of Mind, Dennett, Davidson etc. Sorry, I didn't come here to play "who has read more philosophy books". Please address arguments in this forum on your own terms. Or at the least say, "my opinions on these matters has been informed by, and I tend to agree with the arguments of, authors X, Y and Z" rather than "For more information on this, see X, Y and Z." The latter type of citation is suitable for consensus "facts" such as the population of the U.S. or the molecular weight of gold. When used to cite philosophy it implies objectivity and comes off sounding arrogant. -- Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
