You're simply describing the same problem, but with different variables.Processing information is an algorithmic process.
— Harry Hindu
What should one understand by this?
An algorithmic process is one that follows explicit rules; I'm suggesting that the rules must be explicit, since in order to recognise that he process one is following is algorithmic, one must recognise the rules one is following.
What's the rule one follows in recognising the joke ‘We need a few laughs to break up the monogamy’? Is it the very same rule we follow when we laugh at ‘We’re all cremated equal’?
Or are we to say that in recognising the joke, one is not processing information?
Experience is information, I'm told; processing information is algorithmic; an algorithm is a method for solving a malapropism.
So what, exactly, is the algorithm being used?
Or is Harry's use of "algorithm" itself a malapropism? — Banno
Exactly, so now I'm confused as to why my analogy didn't work for you if you're now admitting that similarity of sound and shape are the associations that are used to solve the problem of what is actually meant to be said but wasn't? How would you solve the problem of interpreting someone's improper use of a hammer as a meat tenderizer? How would you interpret what they intend if not by the similar shape if the tool that they are using and the similar action in using it? How do you interpret what was meant when someone utters an unintentional word that sounds like the intended word if not by comparing the similarity of sound and use with the intended word?Rhyming or similarity of sound are kinds of association and association of ideas is another. That's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a few moments. — Janus
Finding something interesting isn't the goal here. Finding the truth is. Philosophy is in the habit of questioning the trivial things that we might be taking for granted. Its just that some, like Banno, keep questioning trivial things - like the idea that brains are algorithmic and perform computations to solve problems, like malapropisms.The question is can you come up with anything more interesting or enlightening to say about it than that? Does the paper we are supposed to be critiquing manage to come up with any such thing? Not as far as I can tell. — Janus
It's not just me. Look it up in a dictionary or Google it.According to Harry a malapropism must sound like or rhyme with the word it has replaced. — Janus
It's not a convention that what one says by way of a statement is an assertion — Banno
If we weren't using the same algorithm to solve the same problem, then you have your work cut out for you in explaining how we can come to the same conclusion of what was actually meant. How is it that you and I understand not only why those are errors, but what was actually meant, if we aren't following the same rules? — Harry Hindu
Sometime check out a beautiful little book by Ruth Krauss called A Hole Is To Dig. It's definitions offered by a kindergarten class made into a little picture book. Besides the title, we find "A hole is when you step in it you go down," and "There's a difference between pretending you're a lion and pretending you're really a lion." — Srap Tasmaner
The high necessity of working memory indicates that learning how people use words is very useful for survival, so extra energy that is used to extrapolate what is communicated from sounds and scribbles is necessary for survival. — Harry Hindu
The comparison of sounds, and their similarities and differences, happens within consciousness.
— Harry Hindu
According to whom? — Isaac
According to conscious beings, like myself. It is not only observable in my mind that sounds are compared, but logical in that you can only compare what appears in consciousness. — Harry Hindu
It's not a convention that what one says by way of a statement is an assertion; if it were, the turnstile would add something to the utterance. — Banno
Strange, considering that this thread seems to be dedicated to what Davidson meant. If Davidson didn't mean one thing with his use of words, then it appears that he didn't mean anything, or at least it would be impossible for you to ever get at what he meant.This looks like the same transcendental argument you have used before: There is a thing called "what was actually meant", that is shared by multiple individuals; the only way this could occur is if we were all doing the same thing - following the same rules; hence interpretation is algorithmic.
But of course there is not one thing that is what was actually meant, and which is shared by multiple folk. — Banno
Yes. I thought the same when Srap Tasmaner mentioned "awareness". We'd need to nail down what we mean by "awareness" and conscious vs subconscious.Not getting this at all I'm afraid. Not sure it's relevant to the discussion though so unless it is you can leave off answering my query, but - how can you use what you're consciously aware of to judge what does or does not happen in your sub-conscious? I really don't understand this "you can only compare what appears in consciousness". Why? What prevents neuronal networks from comparing things without your conscious awareness but allows then to when they involve conscious awareness? — Isaac
We'd need to nail down what we mean by "awareness" and conscious vs subconscious. — Harry Hindu
Saying that you're using a word is only getting at a fraction of what is going on. How are you using it - to what end - if not to name your ideas?So we can use the word. It does not follow that it is the name of a thing. — Banno
Where, or what, is the "we" in this explanation? Is it a human body, a human brain, a human mind or what?Conscious processes would be those we experience the stages of, sub-conscious processes would be those we experience only the results of, and infer the stages from experimental investigation (such as lesion studies, fMRI scanning in various forms of aphasia, etc). That's how I'd separate them, anyway. — Isaac
...mandatory... — bongo fury
Think about it, Banno. If I copy what you said, word for word, you might cry, "plagiarism!" But if words meant different things then my word for word duplication could mean something else, so what place does plagiarism take in your theory? — Harry Hindu
It's not a convention that what one says by way of a statement is an assertion; if it were, the turnstile would add something to the utterance.
— Banno
Clarification, please? If it were... mandatory that the statement was an assertion? ...or, mandatory that it needed or allowed specifying as such? ...or...? — bongo fury
Because the operation is a fantasy. — bongo fury
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.