Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except for missing the crux: You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about who is stating what (very few lines) which may increase the understanding of the innocent by-reader about the generalities mentioned back and forth. I for one looked at the 2 URL-s, long as one of them may be, and found further generalities as in a style of scientifically 'expert' discussions/arguments. One of my reasons for posting it was to illustrate that there is in fact a debate about ontology. Bruno has been arguign that numbers exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their existence. The counterargument is that existence in mathematical statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued backwards and forwards. I did not read so far and did not study these versions, so reading your (and their) papers was frustrating. I am fundamentally opposed to 'ontology', because I consider it explaining the partial knowledge we have about 'the world' as if it were the total. I am for epistemology, the growing information-staple we absorb. Most people stand on ontological grounds. I wanted to get a glimps. Could you help? John M On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Yablo and Gallois's paper Is ontology based on a mistake is quite relevant to the question of Platonism, specificall whether true matehmatical assertions of existence have to be taken literally. http://tinyurl.com/ldekg7 What is it? A paper criticising the Quinean view of ontology. Yablo does so by introduces a metaphorical/literal distinction as to when it is reasonable to posit the existence of entities. Thus in order to determine our ontological commitments we need to be able to extract all cases in which such entities are posited in a metaphorical way rather than a literal one. If there is no way to do this, then it is not possible to develop a Quinean ontology. Where does it fit in for me? For the thesis: if correct, it implies that Quine's fundamental approach to ontology is flawed and this may have negative implications for the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument. For the metaphysics paper: possibly details a way in which existence cannot be held to occur (which would be interesting to look at in terms of the relations proposed). At the very least it gives an example of particular existence claims which can then be analysed in a relational way. Reference Yablo, S., Does ontology rest on a mistake?, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. LXXII (1998), 229-261. The Argument Carnap on existence Carnap argued that the realist existence question/assertion was meaningless. He did this by means of his concept of linguistic framework. A linguistic framework lays down rules for the use and meaning of some object term X in a linguistic sense. Thus there are two ways in which one can question/assert the existence of X: internal or external to the linguistic framework. If one questions the existence of X internal to the framework, one is almost certainly guaranteed a yes answer (thus the statement there is an X can pretty much be viewed as tautological when assessed internally to a framework involving X). Hence the realist must be making an external existence assertion. However, in this case the term X has no meaning, as the framework within which it gains such is not present. Thus the realist existence question/assertion is either tautological or impossible to answer/assess. Quine on Carnap Quine objected to Carnap's position in three ways: firstly, he held that his internal/external distinction was reliant on an analytic/ synthetic distinction (because the concept of a linguistic framework involves the rules inherent in that framework being viewed as indefeasible (i.e. analytic) within that particular linguistic practice). As Quine believed that the analytic/synthetic distinction could not be made, he held that Carnap's internal/external distinction breaks down: internal assessments are thus not just a matter of following inviolable linguistic rules, it is indeed possible for these rules to change in response to experience and thus for internal practice to change too. Secondly, Quine argues that the external choice between linguistic frameworks is much more influenced by observation than Carnap would have us believe. For Quine, the decision to adopt a rule governing the appropriate observational conditions under which one may assert the existence of X is itself in part an assertion that X exists (if such conditions obtain). He
Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: I am fundamentally opposed to 'ontology', because I consider it explaining the partial knowledge we have about 'the world' as if it were the total. How much we don't know is somehting we don't know. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Dawkins has some good things to say on the subject I think: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:21:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except for missing the crux: You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about who is stating what (very few lines) which may increase the understanding of the innocent by-reader about the generalities mentioned back and forth. I for one looked at the 2 URL-s, long as one of them may be, and found further generalities as in a style of scientifically 'expert' discussions/arguments. One of my reasons for posting it was to illustrate that there is in fact a debate about ontology. Bruno has been arguign that numbers exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their existence. The counterargument is that existence in mathematical statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued backwards and forwards. Your summary appears fairly nonsensical. Existence is a word humans have invented, as such it means whatever we define it to mean, there is no truth about whether numbers exist independent of our arbitrary choices about how to define what the word exist actually means. If I choose to define existence as the property of walking around on four legs, then it is perfectly correct to say that cats and dogs exist but humans and birds do not exist, according to this definition. I have asked you in several previous posts (such as the one at http://tinyurl.com/muh9a3 ) whether you agree that different philosophers define existence differently and there is no single correct usage, but you never seem willing to answer this straightforward question. Philosophers may debate whether various concepts of existence like Quine's are internally coherent, or how well they match up with how we talk about the existence of things in everyday speech (these kinds of issues seem to be what Yablo is talking about), but they certainly don't debate about whether a particular definition of existence coincides with what really exists, as if existence has some pure platonic meaning beyond human definitions. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Dawkins has some good things to say on the subject I think: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we built it in the first place). However neither of these is true in the case of dealing with a person who has committed a crime (I disdain the word criminal as if it were a separate species). Such a person may be deterred from further crimes by some punishment and more to the point other persons may be deterred by the example. Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote: ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their existence. The counterargument is that existence in mathematical statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued backwards I have never said that numbers exists because there are true mathematical statements asserting their existence. I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a universal machine exists. In the usual mathematical sense, like with the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists. I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA. And you don't need really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine. All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp. May be very fertile one. Like galaxies and brains. Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate basic entities and relations in theories which are always hypothetical. I am just honest making explicit my use of the non constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm. You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I 'm afraid. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we built it in the first place). However neither of these is true in the case of dealing with a person who has committed a crime (I disdain the word criminal as if it were a separate species). Such a person may be deterred from further crimes by some punishment and more to the point other persons may be deterred by the example. Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). Brent If our goal is a criminal justice system that is rational, ethical, and efficient, then do you think that it helps or hurts to frame the discussion in terms of traditional words like morality, responsibility, and free will - with all of their religious and pre-scientific connotations and baggage? So, looking at your original Dennett quote: If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything. So apparently what he is saying is that it is his evaluation that anyone who concludes that determinism precludes free-will is most likely making that conclusion BECAUSE they themselves wish to avoid being subjected to positive or negative reinforcement whose intent is to produce optimal social conditioning. BUT, if I am in fact supportive of the rational, ethical, and efficient application of positive and negative reinforcements whose intent is to induce socially optimal behavior (even if I am the one being targeted by these inducements), BUT I still don't believe in free will or moral responsibility in the sense that those words are traditionally used (e.g., to justify retribution, instead of only deterrence and rehabilitation), then haven't I shown Dennett to be wrong? I think the American criminal justice system is nowhere near rational, ethical, or efficient...and I think that Dennett's compatiblist word games are more likely to hinder attempts to correct this than to help. And the same goes for other areas, like addressing poverty and economic inequality. Not because Dennett's ENTIRE system leads to bad things, but because if you just look at parts of it without grasping the full context, then it seems to uphold the status quo approach of retribution first, deterrence second, and rehabilitation third if at all. And the idea that the system is fine, and that people *only* have themselves to blame for their poverty or other undesirable situation. And of course, as Stathis pointed out, Dennett isn't the first compatiblist, or the only compatibilist...but he's by far the most vocal and prominent. So...we've wandered way off topic. But Dennett really irks me. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork Orange has a similar problem...it's singular focus on the individual, while ignoring the problems of the system within which the individual developed. So obviously if you have a person who has committed a crime, some action has to be taken. And you can't hand out hardship waivers left and right just because the criminal can plausibly point to some event in his past as a causal factor. The crime was committed, and a credible threat of negative reinforcement has to be maintained for the sake of deterrence. But rehabiitation isn't necessarily punishment...it could even be viewed as positive reinforcement, AND it's in everyone's interest..perpetrator, society at large, as well as victims. Further, if there's some common denominator amongst perpetrators of crimes, such as poverty, and we want to reduce crime, why not raise the priority of programs to reduce poverty instead of building more prisons and passing 3-strikes type laws? Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, but I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on individuals. Though, obviously there are no perfect solutions, and violence will always be with us. BUT, Dawkins' tone in the link I sent sounds much closer to the right attitude than the vibe I get from Dennett. But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else. But if everybody else are somewhat less than admirable (or at the very least, less than rational) in their attitudes towards the maladjusted members of society, then I don't see this as a big win. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork Orange has a similar problem...it's singular focus on the individual, while ignoring the problems of the system within which the individual developed. So obviously if you have a person who has committed a crime, some action has to be taken. And you can't hand out hardship waivers left and right just because the criminal can plausibly point to some event in his past as a causal factor. The crime was committed, and a credible threat of negative reinforcement has to be maintained for the sake of deterrence. But rehabiitation isn't necessarily punishment...it could even be viewed as positive reinforcement, AND it's in everyone's interest..perpetrator, society at large, as well as victims. Further, if there's some common denominator amongst perpetrators of crimes, such as poverty, and we want to reduce crime, why not raise the priority of programs to reduce poverty instead of building more prisons and passing 3-strikes type laws? Of course the easiest, and 100% effective way to reduce crime is to repeal laws. About 1/3 of our prison population is there because of non-violent drug use crimes. Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, Actually I think some are. Note the outcry from various business groups when it is suggested that the way to stop illegal immigration is to punish those who hire them. Why would they want to have access to illegal aliens? Because illegal aliens are poor and they will therefore be willing to work cheap. but I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on individuals. I'd say it depends on whether we have systemic solutions or individual solutions. Though, obviously there are no perfect solutions, and violence will always be with us. BUT, Dawkins' tone in the link I sent sounds much closer to the right attitude than the vibe I get from Dennett. But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else. Seems like you're mainly interested in picking a fight with Dennett. I don't recall him mentioning either Brights or atheists in either Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves, his two books on compatibilist free will. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, but I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on individuals. Or, another way of saying it might be: I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from preventative positive reinforcement for individuals who are in a group with a high demonstrated risk of committing crimes, towards an excessive focus on negative reinforcement for individuals what have been already been convicted of committing crimes. While there are limits to what is practically possible, I think we have been lax in pursuing this angle. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else. Seems like you're mainly interested in picking a fight with Dennett. I don't recall him mentioning either Brights or atheists in either Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves, his two books on compatibilist free will. Probably you should check out Breaking The Spell, which I haven't read either, but I've seen him give interviews on it. I don't have any problem with Dennett per se...probably he's a fine person. He makes cider, and is a sculptor, and likes to sail. All sounds good. And I don't know what his views on all the various social issues are, like crime or immigration or universal healthcare, so I can't oppose him on any of those grounds...for all I know we agree on everything. AND he may even be right...if you convert everyone to atheism, then they may be more inclined to think rationally about things, and everything will improve as a result. Including my pet issues. BUT...to me it looks like he's going about it the wrong way. His views on free will look like unhelpful word games. Determinism is determinism and there's no way to make it compatible with the traditional meaning of free will. If you have an alternate definition of all the free will that's worth having, then we should come up with a new term for that. Bright-will maybe. And his views on qualia don't raise my opinion of him much either. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Against Physics
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Of course the easiest, and 100% effective way to reduce crime is to repeal laws. About 1/3 of our prison population is there because of non-violent drug use crimes. Indeed, I'm on board with that. But, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Americans love to send people to prison. It's the national pastime. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/03/11/glenn-loury/a-nation-of-jailers/ I put the ultimate blame on an exaggerated emphasis on personal responsibility, plus a naive belief in libertarian free will. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
