Consider, you might ask me what a horse is. I'd say it's the thing I'd name "horse". — Michael
Horses aren't just the things we call horses -- for example, if we stopped calling anything 'horse,' there would still be horses. Unless you have the incredible power of making all horses disappear by never uttering 'horse.' — The Great Whatever
That's not the appropriate way to answer that question, obviously.
I'm not saying that if we stop calling this animal "horse" then it disappears. I don't know how you've managed to derive that from what I've said. — Michael
Then how would I answer it? Perhaps by showing you a horse? — Michael
So let's say I show you two animals. Which one is the horse and which one is the rabbit? The horse is the one that, if shown to you, would predictably have you respond with "yes, that is a horse". — Michael
If a horse is that which you call 'horse,' it follows that if you do not call anything 'horse,' there are no horses. If there used to be horses but aren't any more, that means all the horses disappeared. QED. — The Great Whatever
I'm not saying "X is a horse iff I name it 'horse'". — Michael
Consider, you might ask me what a horse is. I'd say it's the thing I'd name "horse". — Michael
iff clauses are definitions. If someone is asking you what a horse is, they're roughy asking a definitional claim: what are the conditions that make something a horse?
"The things I call 'horse'" is obviously a totally uncooperative answer to that question, and everyone except OLP philosophers understands this. — The Great Whatever
I can't list the conditions that must be satisfied to make something a horse. What I can do, however,is ask you to consider the sort of thing that you'd have to see to respond with "that's a horse". Well, that thing is a horse. — Michael
In response to that, you'd do what a SANE person would do, and POINT TO A HORSE. I find it unbelievable that you think that "consider the sort of thing that you'd have to see to respond with "that's a horse"" is something people ever actually do in response to these questions (they don't), or that it is in any way elucidating (it isn't). — The Great Whatever
And what does understanding the description consist of? Knowing the empirical situation in which such a description is the appropriate thing to use. — Michael
And when it comes to something like grief or red or happiness, I can't even break it down into some components parts (like I could do in a generalized way with horses). All I can do is say that they're the things that I name "grief", "red", or "happiness", and hopefully there are things that you name "grief", "red", and "happiness", and so you understand what I mean. — Michael
And yet there is no way in which 'grief' means 'thing I call 'grief'.' This is a gross misunderstanding. — The Great Whatever
No. Understanding the description is understanding what sorts of things fall under it.
I'm not saying that grief means "thing I call 'grief'". I'm saying that grief is the thing I call 'grief'. — Michael
And what does it mean to understand what sort of things fall under "horse"? — Michael
Not necessarily. Which is why when someone asks what grief is, and so wants a kind of characterization or definition, saying that grief is what you call 'grief' is completely uninformative. And notice that that is what you did to me when I asked. — The Great Whatever
That you know, for example, that things like rabbits, which don't have manes, and have prominent hind legs and small arms, don't fall under it, whereas things with giant penises do.
Yes, it's uninformative. But how can I provide an informative account? Your response "grief is a feeling" is also uninformative because plenty of feelings aren't of grief. Which feeling is grief? — Michael
And knowing what falls under "rabbit", "mane", "small arms", etc.? You can't avoid the fact that when push comes to shove knowing what these words means is knowing when to use them. At some point you tie them to some empirical situation in which such words are the appropriate response. — Michael
Just because it isn't maximally informative doesn't mean it's uninformative: there are also lots of things that are not feelings that this rules out. — The Great Whatever
Also, your offer is not just uninformative, but outright misleading: when someone asks you what something is, they're asking you to characterize it, viz. to give an account of what sorts of qualities make it that sort of thing.
Yes, you tie them to empirical situations, but the relevant criteria are then what they look like, how they feel, and how they act, not circular appeals to linguistic behavior!
But your calling something a 'horse' in no way makes it a horse. So it is not an appropriate answer to the question.
And there are lots of things that are not named "grief", so in saying that grief is that thing we call "grief" I've ruled them out. — Michael
But as I've said before, in the case of grief there are no component qualities, and in the case of horses there are no necessary and sufficient conditions. The only way to understand grief or horses is to know in what sort of empirical situation you would say "I'm grieving" and "this is a horse". — Michael
It rules out nothing, because to know what it rules out, you'd have to already know the answer to precisely the question you just asked. — The Great Whatever
But this is horseshit. For one, you can understand them without speaking English, or without English even existing! For another, you an understand grief and horses say by feeling grief or by riding horses!
Yes, and as I said, I assume you know the answer to the question "what is grief?". — Michael
I meant to quote "grief" and "horses" in that sentence: The only way to understand "grief" or "horses" is to know in what sort of empirical situation you would say "I'm grieving" or "this is a horse". — Michael
But I don't know the answer because you are a philosopher and have idiosyncractic, non-intuitive ideas about what it means to understand things, for example, or what it means to feel grief. And you cannot explain those conceptions to me. — The Great Whatever
And whats situations are those? Presumably, you must answer, situations involving grief and horses. Which are what...? Those in which people use the word 'grief' and 'horses?' No; that is not an appropriate answer.
Can you? Explain grief to me. Explain understanding to me. — Michael
It's the only answer I can give. My answers can only ever be in English. You either understand the English words I use (which is to know when to use them) or you don't. — Michael
The best way to explain grief to you would be to kill one of your family members. — The Great Whatever
Except that's NEVER the answer anyone gives unless they're a philosopher. Instead, they do things like POINT TO HORSES.
Then why did you ask me what grief is? Presumably you wanted an answer, but don't want me to kill your family. — Michael
So given two animals, which one do I point to? The horse? Which one is the horse? — Michael
It depends on what the animal is. If it was a horse versus a rabbit, I'd mention the size, the shape of the legs, the mane, etc. — The Great Whatever
Second, simply because we do not relate to a computer as well as we do to other humans doesn't mean a computer doesn't feel. The recent movie Ex Machina explores this. To treat humans above computers simply because we don't have an emotional attachment to the latter is to have an anthropic bias. — darthbarracuda
Do you actually have anything meaningful to say about the difference between humans and computers such that we have reasons to believe that the one understands grief and the other doesn't? — Michael
Second, simply because we do not relate to a computer as well as we do to other humans doesn't mean a computer doesn't feel. The recent movie Ex Machina explores this. — darthbarracuda
So the presence of emotions is determined by public behaviour. Then if a robot behaves the same way a person does, e.g. saying "I'm sorry for your loss" when you tell them that your father has died, accompanied with the appropriate facial expressions and body language, then the robot has demonstrated his capacity for emotions. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.