I provided the answer, but you simply asked the same question again. Your question, not my answer, is circular.To know something is to have a rule for interpreting some sensory data.
— Harry Hindu
It is? How do you know? — Banno
If to know is to hold a justified true belief, then what is the justification here? I know it is a picture of him because I recognise it as such? But that is to say just that I know it is a picture of him because I know it is a picture of him...
And if there is no justification, then do we not know that it is a picture of him? — Banno
Knowing how to add two numbers is shown in the act of adding numbers. Knowing how to ride a bike is shown in getting on the bike and taking off up a hill. The same is true of knowing that it is N. in the picture. — Banno
Knowing that this is a picture of N. is different to knowing that water freezes at zero degrees. — Banno
Yes, and one can know "2 + 2 = 4", and that would all entail knowing how to say and write these things but not what the scribbles and sounds actually mean. Knowing how to imitate language use is not the same as knowing what the words mean, or what the words refer to that aren't words themselves. That would require an experience of using the words at the same moment of experiencing the sensory data that they refer to, such as hearing the word, "red" and seeing the color red at the same moment. In that instance, you would know what the word, "red" meant, not just how to form the word with your mouth.Perhaps you know the picture is of N because you were told that and perhaps you know that water freezes at zero degrees because you were told it. In both cases, it would be based upon what you heard said (hearsay). Or, both could be based upon direct knowledge, where you actually witnessed N in person and then by picture or you witnessed the mercury fall to zero and then the water freeze. — Hanover
Yes, and one can know "2 + 2 = 4", and that would all entail knowing how to say and write these things but not what the scribbles and sounds actually mean. Knowing how to imitate language use is not the same as knowing what the words mean, or what the words refer to that aren't words themselves. That would require an experience of using the words at the same moment of experiencing the sensory data that they refer to, such as hearing the word, "red" and seeing the color red at the same moment. In that instance, you would know what the word, "red" meant, not just how to form the word with your mouth. — Harry Hindu
"Suddenly I had to think of him." Say a picture of him suddenly floated before me. Did I know it was a picture of him, N.? I did not tell myself it was. What did its being of him consist in, then? Perhaps what I later said or did.
[Emphasis on 'consist', 'consists', and 'consisted' in the quotes added.]16. "Your meaning the piano-playing consisted in your thinking of the piano-playing."
"That you meant that man by the word 'you' in that letter consisted in this, that you were writing to him."
The mistake is to say that there is anything that meaning something consists in.
The underlying question, as the context makes clear, is about meaning. One answer is that meaning is a mental activity, that in this case consists in having a mental picture of N. — Fooloso4
But what I take to be at issue in the paragraph under discussion is whether there is anything that meaning something consists in. — Fooloso4
"Suddenly I had to think of him." Say a picture of him suddenly floated before me. Did I know it was a picture of him, N.? I did not tell myself it was. What did its being of him consist in, then? Perhaps what I later said or did.
(Zettel, 14) — Banno
Wittgenstein asks: what did its being him consist of? Its being him is shown by what he does and what he says, that is, how he responds to the picture that floated before him.
Wittgenstein is not providing an explanation of cognition. If it were a picture of someone else he would not respond as he does. — Fooloso4
It's possible that he might act in exactly the same way in regard to both A and B, for instance if he suffered from delusions. So, I'm sorry, I'm just not following you at all. Where am I dropping bits? — frank
The wording is interesting, I think: "Suddenly I had to think of him."(my italics). There is no choice or volition or logical space of any sort between seeing the picture and seeing N. — Banno
I'm also interested in contrasting the note to the critique of Moore's argument. What are the difference between "Here is a hand" and "that's N."?
The wording is interesting, I think: "Suddenly I had to think of him."(my italics). There is no choice or volition or logical space of any sort between seeing the picture and seeing N.
(unfinished. contrast with knowing how to ride a bike or knowing that Canberra is the capital of Australia...) — Banno
Right. I could question it, but I usually don't.but consider how odd it would be if every time you think of someone and an image comes to mind of that person you doubt that the image of the person is the image of that person. — Fooloso4
When the picture comes to mind I might think: "Oh, I am supposed to meet N. for lunch", or I might smile and wonder how he is doing, or various other responses that have nothing to do with asking myself if the picture is a picture of N. — Fooloso4
I would suggest the book Sense and Sensibilia — Sam26
That it looked like him would be my justification. — Hanover
I am justified due to experiential knowledge of what the person looks like and the difference between the person and a picture of the person. — I like sushi
...typically the justification would be something like the inductive reliability of one's memory in general. — Terrapin Station
The justification for saying that I know a picture of someone is a picture of that person is my well-tested faith in being able to remember what that person looks like. — Janus
If to know is to hold a justified true belief, then what is the justification here? I know it is a picture of him because I recognise it as such? But that is to say just that I know it is a picture of him because I know it is a picture of him... — Banno
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.