First prize for best title of an OP.

First prize for best title of an OP. — Baden

What do I win?

Me staying out of the conversation? :lol:

Yay! :sparkle:

The problem inherent in the private-language scenario is (I think I gather from Witty) the lack of criteria for identifying and classifying internal entities (sensations, qualia, images), should these be (as folk-psychology often leads them to be) conceived as the sole and sufficient basis for their own classification. Where, on the other hand, such criteria are available, because the entities are conceived instead as part of a larger, pre-existing game (e.g. there is meaningful comparison with blood pressure, or actual train times), no immediate critique is offered.

So I don't think that your returning

back to the same starting frequency — frank

is a problem for Witty, because you are judging the pitch-identity (vs. difference) of the earlier and later 'internals' according to a pre-existing system that (if it recognises them as internal) maps them to externals that are identified or distinguished according to frequency. So he wouldn't see that judgement as a problem. He would doubt that the imagery-talk is true literally, but he wouldn't be sceptical about the viability of pitch comparisons among internal images...

I found I had to practice to even duplicate it with my voice, — frank

...nor between images and actual sounds. And neither would I. So I'm still curious as to the nature of the difficulty you describe.

So I don't think that your returning

back to the same starting frequency — frank


is a problem for Witty, because you are judging the pitch-identity (vs. difference) of the earlier and later 'internals' according to a pre-existing system that (if it recognises them as internal) maps them to externals that are identified or distinguished according to frequency. — bongo fury

How do you know the early and later internals are the same?

How do you know the early and later internals are the same? — frank

The resolution to this is issue is to realize that they are not ever "the same", but they are the same type. Unless one has absolute pitch it's just a tone (same type), and even with absolute pitch the two tones are not the same tone, but still the same type with a more precise definition or criteria for that type. The private language argument misleads us into thinking that we must recognize two things as being the same thing in order for such a recognition to be useful. But this is not the case, because we only need to recognize similarities, and hence types.

I meant the same frequency.

It occurs to me that we use a song by the Bee Gees to achieve the right timing of chest compressions for CPR. Nobody sings it out loud though. It's an internal sound-image that translates to correct timing.

No logical argument defeats that.

How do you know the early and later internals are the same [pitch]? — frank

In the kind of imagery talk that I think the PLA isn't designed to attack: by comparing them for pitch just like a pair of externals, or like an internal and a corresponding external.

Internals and externals are all part of the same game or classification system.

The internals might (if you like) be memory traces, like computer records. They don't literally match in frequency, but they match in pitch exactly as do all and only (or mostly) sounds that also match in frequency. So they are like a mental image of a time-table that can be tested for correctness. (cf PI 264)

Does Witty elsewhere critique this notion of a public sensation language? (Grateful for leads.) But it clearly isn't the private one.

The private language argument misleads us into thinking that we must recognize two things as being the same thing in order for such a recognition to be useful. But this is not the case, because we only need to recognize similarities, and hence types. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see that. I think it attacks the British empiricist psychology of ideas and impressions: the narrative of a private construction of mind from sense-data. His argument seems to be that identity and similarity of the internals has no basis when asserted in private. I don't see any conflating of numerical identity with similarity.

It occurs to me that we use a song by the Bee Gees to achieve the right timing of chest compressions for CPR. — frank

Come on - tell us the song. "I'm going back to Massachusetts, something's telling me I must go back" (patient dies).

a song by the Bee Gees — frank

I use Queen, "Another one bites the dust".

Irony at its best. :rofl:

Internals and externals are all part of the same game or classification system. — bongo fury

It's not a cultural or social class though. It appears to be biological. There's a genetic anomonly that's associated with perfect pitch. On the other hand, some people are tone deaf.

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves?

There's a genetic anomaly that's associated with perfect pitch. — frank

Interesting theory.

On the other hand, some people are tone deaf. — frank

Likewise. (But a rather antiquated theory.)

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves? — frank

Each other.

The social divide is between those who can and those who can't reliably compare tones (whether internal or external) that are in entirely separate musical contexts, so that there is no feasible chain of local and easier intermediate comparisons reaching between them.

Obviously there is huge variation in the skill of relative pitch: of maintaining a chain.

The can't beat them so might as well join them [the absolute pitchers] comes partly from knowing (or failing to remedy) my limitations. Which are, mainly, losing track around modulations, some more than others obviously. — bongo fury

There's a genetic anomaly that's associated with perfect pitch. — frank


Interesting theory. — bongo fury

? Turners syndrome. I'm not saying everyone with perfect pitch has a genetic abnormality, just that there is a known case of association indicating a biological basis (at least in some cases).

Likewise. (But a rather antiquated theory.) — bongo fury

Not sure what you mean. What's the state of the art view on tone deafness?

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves? — frank


Each other. — bongo fury

So when you repeat aloud an internal tone, you learned to do this from someone else? How?

BTW, with a little practice I can do it just fine.

Come on - tell us the song. "I'm going back to Massachusetts, something's telling me I must go back" (patient dies). — T Clark

They're usually better off dead. :up:

Uncanny...

Silently hum a note in your mind. Now duplicate that same frequency aloud. I think some readings of the Private Language argument would say this activity is nonsense because there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind.. — frank

Like colors, sounds only exist in the mind. The sound you hear when you hum and the "sound" you "hear silently humming" in your mind is a memory are the same. Just as the password stored in the computer's memory is the same as the stokes on the keyboard you type, or else you won't be able to get access to your data.

I meant the same frequency. — frank

The problem is that it's not really "the same". Tones of the same frequency from two different instruments are not the same tone, for example, there are overtones and all sorts of other interference patterns. If you have a sound in your mind, from an instrument, and you try to match the pitch of that sound with your mouth, you are selecting a part of the sound, (the principal pitch) and trying to replicate it. If your goal is to produce that pitch you are not necessarily trying to replicate the sound exactly.

I don't see that. I think it attacks the British empiricist psychology of ideas and impressions: the narrative of a private construction of mind from sense-data. His argument seems to be that identity and similarity of the internals has no basis when asserted in private. I don't see any conflating of numerical identity with similarity. — bongo fury

The premise of the argument, is that one would take a sensation signify it as "S", and every time the same sensation occurs it is noted as "S". The problem is that reoccurring sensations are not the same sensation, each time it occurs, it is a new instance of a similar sensation, therefore it is distinct and in some sense different. To create the private language argument it is necessary to assume that the symbol "S" is supposed to denote the very same object each time it is employed. Then the issue is on what criteria is the use of the symbol validated. How does the user know that it is the very same object? But when we recognize that the symbol "S" is simply employed to signified a similar sensation, not the very same thing, and the criteria is completely subjective, and this is consistent with language use in general, then the so-called private language argument cannot be constructed.

So the issue pointed to by Wittgenstein is the judgement of similarity, it is not the issue of judgement of identity or sameness. He creates ambiguity by using the word "same" to refer to similar things, in the common way of usage known as qualitative identity, and allows the reader to create a private language argument through the assumption that "same" is being used in the sense of numerical identity. The latter would be a faulty interpretation. Then the question which follows ought to be, on what criteria do we judge similarity. If the judgement is base on private principles and there is no requirement for public input, then a private language is possible.

Like colors, sounds only exist in the mind. The sound you hear when you hum and the "sound" you "hear silently humming" in your mind is a memory are the same. — Harry Hindu

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.

Just as the password stored in the computer's memory is the same as the stokes on the keyboard you type — Harry Hindu

I could access the computer's registers and light up a display of LEDs to show me the binary code for the password. I can't do that with an internal image of a password.

Maybe we just don't have the technology for that yet. Maybe one day.

The problem is that it's not really "the same". Tones of the same frequency from two different instruments are not the same tone, for example, there are overtones and all sorts of other interference patterns. If you have a sound in your mind, from an instrument, and you try to match the pitch of that sound with your mouth, you are selecting a part of the sound, (the principal pitch) and trying to replicate it. If your goal is to produce that pitch you are not necessarily trying to replicate the sound exactly. — Metaphysician Undercover

True. I agree with Bongo that there's a little fuzz to duplicating sounds. I find myself wanting to hum a harmonic frequency. The point I'm driving toward isn't diminished by that, I don't think.

It's qualia.

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming. — frank

What does it mean to know the sound of internal humming when you can't check its frequency? If you need to know the frequency to know the sound and you can't check the frequency of the sound in your mind then how can you say that you know the sound in your mind?

I could access the computer's registers and light up a display of LEDs to show me the binary code for the password. I can't do that with an internal image of a password.

Maybe we just don't have the technology for that yet. Maybe one day. — frank

There are programs that can display a stored passwords. When you tell someone your password you convert memory to sound and another hears it an coverts the sound to their memory. They are then able to access your data. How did they get the correct password if the internal sound of your password is different than what is heard?

So reconsider what you said in the op now:

Silently hum a note in your mind. Now duplicate that same frequency aloud. I think some readings of the Private Language argument would say this activity is nonsense because there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind.. — frank

Let's start with the assumption that "there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind". Ask yourself is it necessary that the note you hum be the very same (numerical identity) as the note in your mind, in order for your humming to be significant, have meaning, or be a sensible activity. If the answer is no, as it clearly is, then the so-called private language argument has no bearing.

Let's start with the assumption that "there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind". Ask yourself is it necessary that the note you hum be the very same (numerical identity) as the note in your mind, i — Metaphysician Undercover

Numerical identity? The note I hum makes pressure gradiated waves in the air. The frequency of those waves impacts objects such as ear cilia or microphone carbon, it whatever else is in the environment.

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. All I know is that I do it, then hum the same tone outloud. Bongo can do it too, so I'm not alone.

So we'll drop the PLA. Maybe you guys are right that it's irrelevant.

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. All I know is that I do it, then hum the same tone outloud. Bongo can do it too, so I'm not alone. — frank

I seem to have this uncanny ability to sing in my head too.

Another thing I can do is dream, when I am asleep.

And these things I dream of, they sometimes seem to have meaning. As if I were talking to myself in some secret language.

:up:

I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming. — frank

But of course you probably wouldn't ever check the frequency of an external sound, as such. You would check that it matched in pitch with another sound, such as that of a tuning fork. Likewise you can check the pitch of an internal humming against another image or an external sound or both.

The physics is a kind of back-story. Indeed, if we are partisan internalists, we might even aspire to "divide through and cancel it out", leaving only the internals (the images both perceptual and merely imagined or recalled); just as Witty suggests we might in certain conditions eliminate the internals, and their questionable solipsistic back-story (the private language).

Numerical identity? — frank

the relation that holds between two relata when they are the selfsame entity, that is, when the terms designating them have the same reference — Collins

As opposed to identity in a particular (known or unknown) respect.

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. — frank

Is it different to qualia in general?

But of course you probably wouldn't ever check the frequency of an external sound, as such. — bongo fury

I could though. There's probably an app that does it.

I guess it's metaphysically possible to check my qualia as in The Minority Report, but as it stands I don't know how to get a third party verification, the first two parties being me silently humming and me listening to it.

The physics is a kind of back-story. Indeed, if we are partisan internalists, we might even aspire to "divide through and cancel it out", leaving only the internals (images both perceptual and merely imagined or recalled); just as Witty suggests we might in certain conditions eliminate the internals, and their questionable solipsistic back-story (the private language). — bongo fury

Did you know Berkeley was trying to solve the epistemic problem of indirect realism when he came up with subjective idealism? You need some sort of world soul for that, though.

As opposed to identity in a particular (known or unknown) respect. — bongo fury

Yes. I understand what numerical identity is. I don't understand why MU would think I was suggesting that internal and external tones are identical in that way.

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. — frank


Is it different to qualia in general? — bongo fury

I don't know understand the nature of qualia in general. What's happening? How does it work?

I could though. There's probably an app that does it. — frank

Keuwlsoft Audio Frequency Counter on google play.

I tried to do the same note several times. It was 252 Hz three times. Then it was 248 Hz. Then back to 252.