The question is whether this is how people reason about the utterances of others, — Srap Tasmaner
...it might be what Davidson thinks. — Srap Tasmaner
You're the one that made the analogy with DNA. Does DNA intend to copy itself correctly? Copy machines make lots of copies, but where is the intent to make copies - in the copier or in the mind of the human using the copier? The copy machine just does what was designed to do. If something goes wrong, then that was part of the design. You have to call a tech to change the design (replace a part).You'd have to ask him. But it certainly looks like DNA is getting copied a lot. — Olivier5
Not really I suppose. But the fact is that it is getting copied inside your body at this very moment, quite a lot in fact, because your body constantly produces new cells to replace the ones dying. And if the copies are too different from the original, you may well die as a result. Doctors call it cancer.Does DNA intend to copy itself correctly? — Harry Hindu
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? — Harry Hindu
Finding something interesting isn't the goal here. Finding the truth is. — Harry Hindu
It's not just me. Look it up in a dictionary or Google it. — Harry Hindu
Looks like the definition supports my assertion. Thanks.Definition of malapropism
1 : the usually unintentionally humorous misuse or distortion of a word or phrase especially : the use of a word sounding somewhat like the one intended but ludicrously wrong in the context "Jesus healing those leopards" is an example of malapropism. (my emphasis) — Janus
Sure, but that is the type of association that was being talked about and that I was responding to. All I was saying is different associations require different algorithms to resolve the errors made in using them.Similarity of sound and shape are not the only associations; there are many other associations of ideas; that's why I thought the analogy unhelpful, because too simplistic. — Janus
:roll: ...and what is "wisdom" if not applying knowledge that is true? How do you know whether or not you are wise if not empirically? Is not the difference of being wise or not an empirical matter? Maybe if you'd stop trying to be artful with your language use and get more to the point, then we would all be wiser.Everyone here likely has different goals, so again you're thinking too simplistically. Philosophy is the search for wisdom, not truth, according to my view. Truth is an empirical matter. — Janus
Looks like the definition supports my assertion. — Harry Hindu
All I was saying is different associations require different algorithms to resolve the errors made in using them. — Harry Hindu
"Algorithm" is a malapropism :wink: as has already been suggested — Janus
Something in this neighborhood happens, however we characterize it. — Srap Tasmaner
The connection between storm clouds and rain is not mental. — Srap Tasmaner
But clearly a whole lot of language processing is algorithmic, just as a lot of other biological processes are. — Srap Tasmaner
:roll: ...and what is "wisdom" if not applying knowledge that is true? How do you know whether or not you are wise if not empirically? Is not the difference of being wise or not an empirical matter? — Harry Hindu
Can you offer an example of "language processing"? Understanding language seems to be more ad hoc and associative than algorithmic. Sure language has it's conventions but they are more like habits, well-beaten paths, than they are like well-defined procedures. — Janus
Can you offer an example of "language processing"? Understanding language seems to be more ad hoc and associative than algorithmic. Sure language has it's conventions but they are more like habits, well-beaten paths, than they are like well-defined procedures. — Janus
It seems to me that we start off, as children learning a language, taking others at their word, and only when we experience them use words in a way that they don't mean what they say (they lied), that we question whether or not we should take them at their word in the future.I only want to say that you don't need a reason to take someone at their word — Srap Tasmaner
In daily life people make mistakes and use words in novel ways and we seem to manage. Do we need a special explanation for that? — Srap Tasmaner
It seems to me that we start off, as children learning a language, taking others at their word — Harry Hindu
Then I'm not clear on what you mean by "taking people at their word".I think rather that how a language is learned, and that it may be learned, is the source of the habit of taking people at their word, but itself is not an example of taking people at their word. — Srap Tasmaner
The truth is that this scribble or sound, red, is used to point to, or communicate something that isn't that scribble or sound, namely a particular color.I don't think a child learning the names of the colors is called on to believe that we are telling them the truth, neither in the sense that we are not lying about what we believe the names to be, nor in the sense that these are indeed the real names of the colors. I want to say that the question of truth just does not arise here at all. — Srap Tasmaner
You don't see anything systematic in English phonology, morphology or syntax?
Also: might want to rethink your concept of "habit". Putting on your slippers when you get up in the morning is a habit, but so is getting 17 when you add 12 and 5. — Srap Tasmaner
It seems to me that we start off, as children learning a language, taking others at their word
— Harry Hindu
I think rather that how a language is learned, and that it may be learned, is the source of the habit of taking people at their word, but itself is not an example of taking people at their word. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't think a child learning the names of the colors is called on to believe that we are telling them the truth, neither in the sense that we are not lying about what we believe the names to be, nor in the sense that these are indeed the real names of the colors. I want to say that the question of truth just does not arise here at all.
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.