arnoud, first off let me apologize for my tone (not necessarily my content) towards the end. I shouldn't post when I'm out of coffee ;)
arnoud: a> Yes, of course. Pain without pain behaviour, and also pain a> behaviour without pain can happen. The point is that if that were a> the case most of the time the word 'pain' cannot be connected well a> to experienced pain. Not intersubjectively at least, there could a> not be an intersubjectively shared rule(s)/criteria for correct use a> of 'pain', and then communication breaks down. a> (According to Wittgenstein there can be no pure subjective rule a> following. See his famous private language argument (if I'm allowed a> to say that ;-) ) OK...sigh...I'll grant you permission to say that ;-)...but I don't know what exactly that refers to. What I *do* know is that even without reading it, I'm inclined to dismiss his argument out of hand -- because I feel I've got a reductio ad absurdum proof: I can easily disprove his conclusion, because in fact I *do* have internal rules and usage for my "private" language, that in fact cannot be used intersubjectively (if that means what I think it does, i.e., for communication between different parties)). a> Yes OK, but were is it a 'deja vu' of? Of pain. pleasure, seeing a a> color? In other words, a 'deja vu' may tell you there's a rule, a> something to name, but what is the rule, which name applies? It a> seems to me the 'deja vu' cannot on its own be the basis for that a> decision; it's too vague. I'm not clear exactly (and haven't been...) what, exactly, you mean by "the rule" in the context of these discussions. Do you mean "what is the rule for when to use the word" i.e. sort of "what is the (operational) definition"? If so I'm confused by the implication that such a rule can be precise in any sense. a>c> 2) Although this may sound like a ginned-up argument, I have a>c> named and do name internal states *for my own exclusive use* a>c> as well. Language is not only for communication, it's also a>c> for memory (or to put it differently, communication to a a>c> future self / from a past self). a> About words on paper and so on I would answer yes. Without an a> external medium for notation I'm not so sure. I would agree that some sort of "encoding" is necessary -- in fact, I have my own strong opinions/theories of memory being a motivator for the creation of language (which I think co-evolved both as private and public language, perhaps with a slight leading edge for private language -- but that aside). However I don't believe *written* (or otherwise external physical) records are essential to the process. Any kind of naming/designation could be sufficient, even if it were just "out loud" -- heck, even if it were just internalized. Consider, tangentially related, how a certain smell can bring back a whole episode of events, or a very specific, yet unnameable, emotion -- isn't this indirect evidence that the brain is engineered for such encoding, and failing that, at least evidence that encoding can happen without explicit or written records of any sort? a>c> More specifically, I've been keeping a journal/diary as I've gone a>c> through the anti-depressant drug merry-go-round (or triste-go- a>c> round ;), in order to have a better record of my internal states a>c> than vague impressions like "I think I felt better last month when a>c> I was taking medication X". In doing so I've found it necessary/ a>c> useful/helpful to come up with my own personal vocabulary for a>c> certain states. a> This is the scenario of the private language argument. In that story the a> privacy is fundamental; the person cannot explain the internal event to a> anyone else; he is unable. He follows his rule privately (impossible a> according to W.). Well, heh. Wittgenstein considers it impossible? Then I'd have to say, BZZZZT, mr. W. loses and on to the next player. a> Do you mean that also? Pretty much...see following Q and A. a> Or is it that you could explain to other people what you experience a> (and they would understand you)? I could attempt to but would not rate my chances of success high. Let me put it this way: I'm pretty sure I would not be able to capture anything in a formal or precise way, or even in a way most folk would be able to understand. But, to the extent that people can communicate "unspeakables" through poetry, music and other forms, perhaps it could be done. (I get the impression that this latter type of communication -- of things which *cannot* be spoken about explicitly, but which nonetheless can and do get conveyed in e.g. music and poetry -- does not exist in the philosophy you're citing either. In which case, pffffft.) a> And do you think that behaviour you can refer to (or simulate) a> plays a necessary rol in that? I don't understand the question. a> And if so, how do you know it doesn't play a necessary rol for you a> too in discerning X. I don't understand the question. a>c> a> For more information on this, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical a>c> a> Investigations, Ryle's Concept of Mind, Dennett, Davidson etc. >> a>c> Sorry, I didn't come here to play "who has read more philosophy a>c> books". Please address arguments in this forum on your own terms. Or a>c> at the least say, "my opinions on these matters has been informed by, a>c> and I tend to agree with the arguments of, authors X, Y and Z" rather a>c> than "For more information on this, see X, Y and Z." The latter type a>c> of citation is suitable for consensus "facts" such as the population a>c> of the U.S. or the molecular weight of gold. When used to cite a>c> philosophy it implies objectivity and comes off sounding arrogant. a> Please..... wow......I'm sorry, but isn't the arrogance here in the a> eye of the beholder? "comes off *sounding* arrogant." Perhaps I should have made the "to *me*" explicit. Yes, of course it's in my eye/ear. a> I mean, you don't have to see it like that. Sure. But as it happens I *do* see it like that. I'll repeat that I *wouldn't* if you were citing these as *opinions* or *perspectives" or what-have-you, rather than citing these authors as if they were authoritative factual sources -- which is what you seem to be doing. a> Anyway, the discussion starting to get off subject, not? Yeah, but I think it's interesting, and I've got a feeling Ben'll let it slide...longer, in any case, than ESY ever would ;) -- Cliff ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
