It's probably worth pointing out that a language game is not just words. It also involves slabs and apples, and other stuff. — Banno

Then it sounds to me that saying "It's a language game" just means "using words to refer to other stuff that are not words". Of course, we could use words to refer to other words, but that is what words do - refer to other stuff. It just depends on what the user wants to draw others' attention to.

When having discussions like this and we are all using words and playing a "language game" - what is it that you want others to do? What is it that you are trying to get others to do - behave in some way, think in some way, both or something else entirely? What is the point of the "language game" in this thread?

When translating languages, what is it about the language that we are translating? What makes one word translatable to another language or not?

What it was meant to highlight was that "I do" there is not just communicative, it registers consent. Functionally, it marries rather than transmits. Of course, it also communicates, but it does more. — fdrake

Register, as in indicate, display or show, as in some form of output. Advertise, let know, inform... We are talking about the same thing - the movement of information with different causes.

What do your senses do? What kind of work do your senses do?

Thanks for the example of information transfer. You actually give two examples of information transfer. The transfer of information between Alice, Bob and the priest. And then you transferring the information about their conversation to me.

You informed me not only of what they said but how they said it, or what words they used to say it.

If meaning is use and if they could have used other words to say that, then how could they mean the same thing by doing (using different words) it differently?

One of the commonly known properties of consciousness is "aboutness". The aboutness of consciousness has to do with consciousness being a structure of information.

So we've already been through that language isn't just information transfer, — fdrake

It's the other way around.
It's not that language isn't just information transfer. It's that language is part, or a kind, of information transfer.

Knowledge...

Folk seem to think of it only in terms of knowing that...; they forget about knowing how...

I've argued that knowledge being seen as justified true belief is at best a good first guess. Given that we should be looking to what words do rather than what they mean, we should be looking at what we do with what we know. Knowing that... reduces to knowing how...

So knowing that one plus one is two is being able to count and hence to add. it's the doing, the capacity of implement the rule, that shows the knowing. — Banno

Then a toaster knows how to toast bread. Got it. :up:

You know how to plug in a toaster and flip the switch but a toaster is what knows how to toast bread as it is the one doing the toasting.

I am not aware that Banno or anybody else said it would be redundant. It is logically redundant, and hence redundant if one believes the only use of words is to convey information embedded in the words. But the OP suggested that that is not the only use of words.

For instance, the thing that the speaker might be doing is letting their partner, to whom the sentence is addressed, and with whom they have been in a furious, frigid, non-speaking standoff for two days, that they want to find a way to heal the breach.

There is indeed a message in the speech act, something like "I am sorry this has happened to us, and I would like to fix it. I am also sorry for my part in it, even though I don't think it was all me. Can we try to put it behind us and start again?".

But that message has nothing to do with rain.

So I would say that when we use words we are nearly always conveying some sort of message (even "Hello" usually signals friendly intent and that I consider the other person worthy of my acknowledgement), but the message often has nothing to do with the words used.

I suppose an instance where there is no information transmitted from one to another would be "I'm not afraid of you!", spoken to somebody I am afraid of, and who knows that. I say it to try and build up my own courage. Whether it has any impact on them is not the point. — andrewk

All you have done is explain how words can be used to convey information. The fact that a word can be used to convey different information than what the word is defined as conveying doesn't contradict the fact that language is used to convey information.

The message does have to do with rain, but also has to do with the intent of the speaker (the cause) to start a conversation. There is more information that is conveyed than just what the words mean when language is used. You are also informed that someone is speaking, understands English, who is speaking and there location relative to you. Your senses provide you with nothing but information, and words - being visual scribbles and sounds themselves - are just part of that information. How you interpret the different levels of causes for what you are hearing or seeing is based upon learned experience - your knowledge.

It is up to the listener to get at the cause of what they are hearing (the effect) (effects carry information about their causes) - which would be the intent of the speaker. What information did the speaker really intend to convey? In the above example, the speaker is speaking indirectly about their intent. They could have just said "Can we try to put it behind us and start again?", and in that case the words would mean what they are commonly defined as meaning and that information would be conveyed more directly and the message WOULD have to do with the words being used.

This whole story was obviously planned by Nike for name recognition. I mean what better story than to make a shoe with a version of the American flag, and have their "ambassador" who is known for kneeling for the American flag, call it out as racist? Give me a break. It's so obvious it's a joke. The fact that we're talking about it is playing right into their hands.

So if someone puts on a Betty Ross flag sticker on their shoe, does that make them racist?

Should we be looking to Kapernick to define what is offensive and racist for everyone?

If the answer is "No" to these questions, the what is the real reason Nike put out this story?

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw

And they only give a shit about what their target audience thinks so that they can manipulate them into buying their shoes. That was the whole purpose of putting this story out. What reason would Nike have to report the existence of a shoe that they planned to release but then won't thanks to the "wisdom" of Kapernick? Attention America: Nike's conceptual department is unwittingly racist so we have Kapernick to filter out any racist products that we might conceptualize before we put them on the market. :roll:

Why didn't Nike involve Kapernick when this shoe was in the conception phase? If Kapernick is their ambassador and has the power to cancel a product that is already past the conceptual phase, then why didn't they involve Kapernick from the beginning? How come no one that took part in the conceptual phase thought "this shoe is racist"? It actually took a racist (Kapernick) to tell Nike their shoe is racist.

It appears to me that Nike wanted this to be a public story just to get their name in the conversation. Its not that Nike is opposed to racism. Its simply that both Nike and Kapernick need to be talked about to remain legitimate. Neither really care about racism. They only care about themselves.

Doesnt sound very profitable to me but then some companies don't need to make a profit in the stores when their profit comes in handouts to limit their tax burden thanks to the politicians they lobby.

In other words they can afford to promote a political ideology as opposed to making a profit in the stores.

And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

Then Nike is marketing their products to a particular group with a particular political ideology. Doesnt sound very profitable to me. Some companies don't need to make a profit in the stores when their profit comes in handouts to limit their tax burden thanks to the politicians they lobby.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize their profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that ultimate goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden

Isn't that what I said?

How is it that Kapernick is allowed to speak for all of Nike's potential customers and shareholders? Did Nike do a survey? This is just one of those cases where the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

What makes x a symbol representing y is that S thinks about x as a symbol representing y.

Any S could think about any x as a symbol representing y for any imaginable reason. Of course, the reasons are usually not going to be very arbitrary, but they're also not usually going to be very elaborate or educated or obscure, either. And insofar as any S doesn't think about x as a symbol of y, x is not a symbol of y to that S. Meaning is always to some S.

So a way to determine how many S's are thinking x as a symbol of some particular y is to survey S's, preferably outside of some other S trying to presently persuade them to see x as a symbol of y (because then we might instead only be learning about the influence, or about how S wants to position themselves socially, re alignments and so on, rather than learning whether S was really thinking about x as a symbol of y). — Terrapin Station

Exactly. So S interpreting symbol x as representing y has to do with what their particular goal is. Kapernick's goal is to show that this is a racist country built upon racism. Nike's goal is to sell shoes, not to show that this is a racist country. By adopting Kapernick's interpretation, they are unwittingly adopting Kapernick's goals. Did Nike do a survey to find out if more people would buy their shoes than boycott their company? Or did they simply accept Kapernick's interpretation as the majority interpretation? Essentially, Nike let Kapernick speak for all Americans as if this country is still a racist country built on a history of racism.

What are you saying, that information is meaning with causal power? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is really nice to know that people are coming around to my way of seeing things. This is another thing that I have asserted many times on these forums (search it if you don't believe me) - that information and meaning are the same thing and information/meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

All of these ways, and more, provide a concrete footing for Banno's earlier assertion that knowing(how to use and/or do things with language) requires some sort of rule following... — creativesoul

When did Banno assert such a thing? This is something that I, not Banno, have been saying for a long time on these forums - that knowledge is simply a set of rules for interpreting sensory data.

I even said it to Banno just a few weeks ago in another one of his poorly executed threads, here:

To know something is to have a rule for interpretting some sensory data. — Harry Hindu

And of course, the typical Banno reply that leaves one wanting:

It is? How do you know? — Banno

So is Banno finally coming around to knowing what knowing is?

Any noise would do for a recorder; but not for the student. Why? — Banno

Because the recorder doesn't have a goal to determine what sounds are useful and which aren't. Hammers and screwdrivers are both tools to get work done, just different kinds of work. One is more useful for certain tasks than the other. A tool's usefulness is dependent upon the goal.

Because the meaning is not found in transferring information, but in the doing. Information transfer is at best incidental. — Banno

Meaning is found in the relationship between the sounds and the state-of-affairs or visual concepts that they are about - like the state-of-of-affairs that was the attack on Pearl Harbor and like visuals of Japanese torpedo bombers dropping bombs on American naval ships anchored in a harbor.

I'm not sure what it means to say a "point-of-view is simply an information superstructure in working memory used to navigate the world." Used by what or by whom? What is an "information superstructure"?

Doesn't the p-zombie have any "information superstructures"? Doesn't it "navigate the world"?

I might use a camera to help me navigate the world. But the camera does not navigate. Does the camera have any "information superstructures"? What kinds of things have "information superstructures"?

We say I have a point of view, the camera has a point of view, a painting has a point of view, a narrative has a point of view. I suppose we mean something different in each sort of case by the phrase.

Surely there's room in that hodgepodge for an application of the same phrase to p-zombies. What sort of view does it make sense to say they'd have; what sort of view does it make sense to deny they'd have -- assuming for the sake of argument that the notion of a p-zombie isn't self-defeating. — Cabbage Farmer

Well, what is a "view"? What is an "experience" for that matter? How do others' "views" and "experiences" relate to the neurological and computational processes that we visualize (or part of our view)? We never access another's "view" or "experience". We access some neurological or computational counterpart. Why?

I would say that information superstructures exist in memory, and a central executive would be necessary to determine what, or attend to the, information within memory is useful achieving some goal. Your camera has memory and even a small processor that runs a small program for organizing the contents of its memory. Now the question is does your camera have a some degree of a "view" or an "experience"? I think the answer to this question would stem from one's take on the indirect vs direct realism debate.

Under a wide range of "ordinary circumstances", human observers would be unable to distinguish (ii) and (iii) from each other or from genuine human beings. But once you poke through the outer layer, anyone would be able to tell them apart. Whether or not anyone happens to tell them apart, (ii) and (iii) would in fact differ in physical, if not "functional", composition.

Having an "outer layer" that resembles something you are not does not make you that thing.

I take it the philosophical puzzles about p-zombies do not mainly involve problems concerning how humans may be deceived by human-like appearances, but rather problems concerning our conceptions of consciousness -- problems purported to go much deeper than the Turing test. — Cabbage Farmer

But the "outer layer" of humans is no different than robots. Its just physical stuff - not some mind. That's the point I'm trying to make - no matter how many layers you peel back on a human or a robot, you never get to their mind - why? Why would you say that carbon-based brains possess mind but silicon-based brains don't? What reasons would you have for saying that other than exhibiting some bias?

The problem with p-zombies is that one is expecting the same effect from different causes. If we should expect the same results from difference causes, then that throws a wrench into all scientific knowledge that we've accumulated over the centuries. — Harry Hindu

To me it seems the other way around: The problem with p-zombies is that the hypothesis proposes different effects from the same causes. For by definition, the zombies are "molecule-for-molecule" the same as we are, take in information and process it just like we do -- by way of the same physiological processes -- and behave just like we do... but somehow, as yet inexplicably, have no "subjective experience with phenomenal character".

They are identical to us in every feature we may observe in the third-person, no matter how deep you cut into the body of the thing, from whatever physical point of view, in any cross-section, under any microscope, no matter what ideal-physics technological instrument you use to explore that body. — Cabbage Farmer

I was referring to the behavioral end of the p-zombie argument. It expects p-zombies to behave (the effect we observe) like humans even though the cause of those behaviors are different (subjective vs no subjective causes). I used the example earlier of how p-zombies would us language. How can a human or p-zombie talk about things that they are never informed about - like the existence of color or depth perception?

We're agreed on one thing at least. P-zombies seem impossible to me too. It's beginning to seem that we support our respective hunches on somewhat different grounds. — Cabbage Farmer

Sure. Your take from the molecular end is just as valid. We're both taking about how p-zombies are the result of incoherent causal relationships and therefore an unlikely, if not impossible, scenario.

This is not an AI problem or a "wires and pulleys" problem. It's weird metaphysics, or an attempt at some sort of a priori test of our concepts of conscious experience. — Cabbage Farmer

Exactly. It's an issue of indirect vs naive realism. How do brains and/or minds exist independent of our own visual information processing of them? Are the brains that we experience visually the result of processing visual information about minds?

What would information without meaning be? Can you give an example?
— Harry Hindu

Not without making use of that information... — Banno

How do you make use of information - by moving it? It would help if you took the time to put a little more meat in your posts. You don't provide enough information to chew on.

Well, yes I did, since in that meaning is what is done with information, meaning is not the sort of thing that moves... — Banno

Question: What is done with information?
Answer: Meaning.

How is that a coherent answer to that question? Does meaning move information? What does that mean? Notice that I am informing you with my question - that I don't have information and that I am requesting it. Are questions meaningful, or informative in your mind?

Per NASA, in the last 35 years, the amount of the earth's surface covered in leaves has increased by about twice the area of Australia. This is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2.
— frank

This is good. Proper analytic stuff.

My posit is that meaning is information doing work. Frank's comeback is that if this were so, then every meaningful utterance ought have a use; but here is a meaningful statement from NASA that is useless... — Banno

It is only useless to the present goal in your head. If your goal was to understand environmental change then it would be useful. It is useless in this conversation. To say something off-topic is to say something useless to the conversation at hand. The usefulness or uselessness of some information coincides with your changing goals.

It would depend on the definition of "information" that we're using. That word tends to be used in a lot of different senses--including simply denoting "data," or alternately "knowledge"--all sorts of things; those are just two examples. So I'm never sure what someone has in mind with it unless they specify a definition. — Terrapin Station

So language is copying something from one mind to another and we're simply disagreeing on the term used for that something. In other words, we agree that something is copied and we arent talking past each other. We are just using different terms? Are we copying information, meaning, knowledge or what? What if someone claims that all three are the same thing?

If none of that is the case then what happens when language is used? What kind of work is done?

I think that a bit trivial. To know something is to act in certain ways. — Banno

What would be the cause of the act?

I'd happily posit that information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

What would information without meaning be? Can you give an example?

Or Harry's inability to see when a question has been answered... — Banno

I didn't catch the answers to my questions from the first page. When you answered, were you "using language" without communicating? If so, did you really use language?

...information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

Then its meaning and not information that gets copied to other heads via language use? You still haven't addressed the issue of moving information versus copying it. Can meaning be copied?

"George Washington is the first president of the United States." is information that has no meaning until it is used to do some work?

It seems to me that the above statement is meaningful and information as a result of the state of affairs of George Washington actually having been the first president, not because someone made the statement.

I agree.
The former is semantic information, and the latter is physical (specifically, first inorganic, then organic) information. — Galuchat

It seems to me that inorganic sensory information processing systems can process semantic information as well as physical information. For me there is no difference other than the causal relationships that result in information. Minds are just as much a transmitter (a cause) of information as a receiver (an effect), and simply attend to the information that is useful in the moment.

I have said that "Information is the result of communication." Specifically, information is a decoded message. — Galuchat

Information exists everywhere that we either attend or ignore depending on the present goal in the mind. If we arent ignoring information, what are we ignoring? There are both useful and useless information, not that usefulness makes information. The ignored information might be useful for some other goal.

Information isnt created from usefulness. Information is useful or not depending upon the present goal. Minds parse existent information to achieve goals.

I am informed of many things just by using my eyes and ears, not just what people are saying, but that they are saying something. If I am to understand what someone is saying I have to know that they are saying something - that they are using language in the first place. Language use is just a part of that information that makes up my mind, not the other way around.

Wittgenstein observes that there is a way of understanding a rule that is not found in stating it, but in following it. Is the information in a rule is given in the stating of that rule? — Banno

Information isn't in a rule. Rules are information.

An excellent point. Does information mean anything without a decipherer? — Banno

Information and meaning are the same thing.

If they aren't then what is the difference?

What sort of things can be moved? How about all of the things that have a spatiotemporal location? — creativesoul

Like I said earlier, the information isn't being moved, it is being copied. The information doesn't leave your head and arrive at another. It now exists in two places thanks to language use. So this whole idea that the OP is based on is wrong.

The discussion in this thread is not at the peak level of philosophical discourse which might be hoped for, — T Clark

It started with the OP and Banno's inability to acknowledge and answer tough questions.

Language is a code used for intrinsic and extrinsic mental communication (data encoding, messaging, and decoding).

Intrinsic Mental Communication: communication within a mind.
Extrinsic Mental Communication: communication between minds.

Information is the result of communication. — Galuchat

Information is the relationship between cause and effect. Effects carry information about their causes. You are not only informed what someone is saying, but informed that someone is saying something - that language is being used. How do you know that language is being used if you aren't informed language is being used? Seeing and hearing words is informing you that someone is using language because that is the cause of you hearing and seeing sounds and scribbles.

The mind is nothing but information as an effect of the interaction between your body and the world.

The problem with the OP is that it is all information, so you can't escape receiving information via the senses. Words are just different kinds of visual scribbles or sounds, which means that language is just a kind of information provided by your senses' interaction with the environment.

As if language were all nouns. — Banno

Who said all states-of-affairs were nouns?

It would be a much more interesting conversation if you weren't being purposefully obtuse.

What moved? — Banno

Well, "moved" would be the wrong word. The information is still in your head. It didn't leave your head and get moved to the listener. "Copied" is the proper term to use. Information about how to use certain sounds is copied from one head to another.

And you still haven't explained what you mean by "use" as in "using words". Do you mean just making sounds with your mouth, or do you mean referring to states-of-affairs that aren't sounds from your mouth with sounds from your mouth?

Perhaps, you not being a native speaker of English, I am explaining to you how to make use of "It's raining".

Which fits in exactly with the OP. It's what we do that counts, not the information involved. — Banno

How is explaining how to make use of something not moving information from one head to another?

Hence, it is what we are doing that counts, not the information involved. — Banno

And I asked what you were doing if not referring to states-of-affairs with sounds and scribbles.

Perhaps, you not being a native speaker of English, I am explaining to you how to make use of "It's raining". — Banno

But if I was a native english speaker it would be redundant and what you mean by "explaining to me how to make use" is explaining what the auditory symbols refer to, which arent just other sounds, but the actual thing you're taking about.

What else could you mean by "using" words?

Then why, Captain Obvious, would it be redundant and unecessary to tell me, "It is raining", when I'm looking outside at it raining?

There can be a limited common ground that gives a basis for disagreements, our use of the same language is a common ground, even if we often don't mean the same thing when we use the same word. — leo

If we dont mean the same thing when we use the same word then we are talking past each other.

You talk of delusions, delusion is defined as a belief that contradicts reality, the concept of delusion presupposes a mind-independent reality, right now I don't believe in a mind-independent reality so to me the concept of delusion is meaningless, see the problem? — leo

Thats what I said: that your view obliterates the distinction between delusions and other thoughts. Delusions would be just as true as any deductive conclusion, which is preposterous.

I'm not saying how it is for everyone in an objective sense, I am saying how it is for everyone from my point of view. — leo

Exactly. So you're misusing language by implying that you are talking about other's views when you're really talking only about your view. So you're really talking past everyone who talks about their views or about a mind independent world. What is the point of having such a conversation? What would it be about?

Just as "delusions" would be meaningless to you, so to would "other views" be meaningless to you, so you need to adjust your use of terms so that it is implied that it is only your view that youre referring to, and not anyone else's view.

That doesn't make talking with one another and sharing ideas pointless. Precisely because in my view, our realities are not disconnected, they can influence one another, and through speech we can get an idea of the commonalities and the differences. — leo

Another misuse of language. You're misusing the term "reality".

If we perceive the world as colored in, and science explains it without the coloring in, then the appearance of color needs to be explained. It doesn't matter whether we call colors relational, qualia, secondary qualities, representations, mental paint or whatever. Changing the language use isn't going to help. — Marchesk

There aren't straightforward word-for-word translations - those words have different uses in various philosophies and tend to have a cascade effect onto the use of other words. A case in point is with the terms "experience" and "consciousness" as evidenced by this thread. — Andrew M

Isn't the study of color-blindness and vision in general a science that includes explaining color? It seems to me that it depends upon the scientific field you're talking about if you want to talk about color. It seems to me that the view from nowhere would leave out the first person because the visual system isn't part of the causal relationships that they are currently talking about. Start talking about visual systems and scientists start using terms like "color", and even use human test subjects to report their first person experiences to study.

Like I said before, color is the interaction between many different things. Color isn't just about the object that is colored. It is also about the light in the environment and the state of your visual system. If we're not talking about light or visual systems, but strictly the causal relationships prior to those interactions, then what need is there to include color in the explanation?

Since the first person is a participant in the world, a theory of everything from a view from nowhere would include and even make predictions about, what happens in the first person.