However, I do appreciate this quote - very much - and would like to know more about it - source ? — Amity

He is difficult for everybody. It's just that some people spend more time with him and likely understand him better. I am not one of those. The good thing about him, on the other hand, is that since his phrases are so open to interpretation, you just defend what you think it means. Even Russell misunderstood some of Wittgenstein.

I believe this is from his Philosophical Investigations (115). I don't recall that passage myself. I first discovered it in the works of Raymond Tallis. I think his Why The Mind is Not a Computer is a good exercise in philosophy of language. You don't need to agree with him on many things, or even most things, to get value out of what he's doing.

But unfortunately, I cannot find it for free online. All I can see is parts of the introduction, which is not where the philosophy of language aspect can be most appreciated...

The Aeon chucklehead article by Nakul Krishna, edited by Nigel Warburton — Amity

Thanks for the source. :ok:

Sure it's quite useful, but if we go down that road of "what do you mean by X" too deeply, we end up yelling about a tree we're pointing at or about the colour of an apple.

Yes, Banno clearly knows this topic very well.

Ah, the internet. In less than a minute I can learn not only something new - that at first sounds like a disturbing effluvium from orifices to remain unnamed - but also what it is where it comes from and from Youtube videos how to make it - no effluvent orifices required. — tim wood

Actually, the Jimmy Neutron purple flurp was plagiarized. The one I was referring to came from Cracker Jack commercials in the 60s.

Actually, the Jimmy Neutron purple flurp was plagiarized. The one I was referring to came from Cracker Jack commercials in the 60s. — T Clark

Another memory dredged up, God help us - and to be sure the source of real wisdom for so many. Please no mas - my head might explode!

I can't well take my mind out of my brain and confirm that it has no mass. — Manuel

DO you lose weight when you go to sleep?

It's Sellars distinction. I think it's a good one. Manifest reality deals with mental entities. Science, if our theories are correct, deal with mind-indepdent entities. — Manuel

Can you explain this distinction to me? Are mental entities things like desires or beliefs?

DO you lose weight when you go to sleep? — Banno

I believe so. The more time passes the more calories you lose. I don't see the connection.

Can you explain this distinction to me? Are mental entities things like desires or beliefs? — Banno

It's complex in details, or at least Sellar's account of it is not always an example of clarity. From what I gather, the manifest image is the image we construct of the world in our daily life.

The computer you are typing on or the tree you may see outside your window, or the sun rising in the east: that's all manifest reality. It includes such things like getting in a car and driving to work or opening a fridge, etc.

As I understand it, the manifest image is also modified as time goes on. We no longer think that the Earth is the center of the universe nor that poking holes in our heads helps with diseases.

The scientific image is the image of the world as seen in science. In this aspect of the world we study the role that particles play in vision or how heat consists of molecules moving around at a faster rate.

This world is one in which the Earth goes around the sun. And so on with many scientific facts, which are generally hidden from us in our daily lives.

To give an account of mental entities is far too difficult. I can only say very general things. Are desires mental entities? Sometimes I guess, but I suspect most of the time we aren't aware of all our desires.

Beliefs are problematic, they carry religious connotations and even if we use it in a technical manner, I don't think we get entirely away from that aspect of the word.

Having said that, some beliefs can be made explicit, as when I'm asked whether I believe that global warming is a very serious threat or if you ask whether I "believe" that blue is prettier than pink. When it's explicit, its mental.

But at any single instance I have hundreds, if not thousands of beliefs. These can't be all be mental simultaneously, I could not possibly consciously entertain all my beliefs in a single instance.

One response to what I've said is simply to ignore it. If that's what you want, go ahead.

I find this odd. The Mac I type on is not an entity in my head; it's a laptop. It seems that a distinction is being made that not only isn't needed, it isn't helpful.

But I don't know Sellers.

The notion that belief is inseparable from religion strikes me as an intellectual impediment. A belief is simply a statement held to be true.

The concept of a laptop is in your head, but not the object you are typing on, that's in the world.

It carries some connotation related to faith. I don't actually believe that when I get up I'll melt through the floor, I understand that I wont. "Understanding" does not have that connotation, for example, nor does "comprehend".

Or to be more specific, it's so extremely improbable that it isn't worth taking into serious consideration.

@Manuel, on mind being material.

Material stuff is matter - hence the name.

Matter has mass. That's effectively the definition of what matter is, in physics.

If mind is matter, and consciousness is mind, then when one is unconscious, one ought be lighter, because one would lack the mass of one's mind.

The concept of a laptop is in your head, but not the object you are typing on, that's in the world. — Manuel

Is it? What sort of thing is a concept?

One cannot type on a concept-of-laptop; one types on a laptop. If "manifest reality" includes a concept-of-laptop, then it's not the sort of thing we would usually call real, when we talk about reality in comparison to ideas. That is, the concept-of-laptop is not a real laptop, because one cannot type on it.

What sort of thing is a concept? — Banno

As Aristotelians and Thomists use the term, intellect is that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts (like the concepts man and mortal), put them together into judgments (like the judgment that all men are mortal), and reason logically from one judgment to another (as when we reason from all men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal). It is to be distinguished from imagination, the faculty by which we form mental images and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the goings on in the external material world and the internal world of the body. — Feser

If mind is matter, and consciousness is mind, then when one is unconscious, one ought be lighter, because one would lack the mass of one's mind. — Banno

Ah, got it. Thanks.

I've been miss-speaking, which is why talking to people like you is good for me. I should use the word "physical stuff" instead of matter. Physical stuff includes things that have no mass. But this still leaves me unclear on something:

I don't know of what evidence could count for the claim that mind has no mass.

Is it? What sort of thing is a concept? — Banno

That's really hard. A concept is something like a kind of categorization we give to objects in the world.

One cannot type on a concept-of-laptop; one types on a laptop. — Banno

I agree. But if you didn't have the concept of a laptop, you wouldn't know you have one in front of you.

Sure. So what is it we grasp, when we grasp, say, the concept-of-laptop?

I know what it tis to grasp a laptop.

You see, as I've said before, I don't think there is anything more to "the concept of a laptop" than the ability to talk about and use a laptop.

And it would follow that

The concept of a laptop is in your head, — Manuel

is not quite right, since the capacity to talk about and use laptops presupposes laptops to be talked about and used, and laptops are not in heads.

I don't know of what evidence could count for the claim that mind has no mass. — Manuel

Spot on. Mass and mind do not seem to be related in this way. As if we could measure the mass of your love for your mother.

Talk of mass does not fit talk of mind.

I think that laptops were designed by a person before he had the physical object in the world. So there was no laptop prior to the first one.

I don't think there is anything more to "the concept of a laptop" than the ability to talk about and use a laptop. — Banno

Computers are entirely reliant on conceptual analysis - binary data processing, high-level languages, machine code, transistors - developed over many decades and the intellectual efforts of millions of people.

Besides, the point of the post you're commenting on, is differentiating concepts from imagination and sensation, which I say is a useful distinction even for you.

Spot on. Mass and mind do not seem to be related in this way. As if we could measure the mass of your love for your mother.

Talk of mass does not fit talk of mind. — Banno

Stated like this, I don't have a problem.

Only one last question on this topic: would you say the mind is made of physical stuff?

But if you didn't have the concept of a laptop, you wouldn't know you have one in front of you. — Manuel

Ah, but if you didn't have the concept, what is it that you would be missing?

I suppose it would be the ability to talk about and use the laptop as a laptop.

You might still se it as something to hold up the table leg to stop it wobbling.

would you say the mind is made of physical stuff? — Manuel

Well, I don't know of any cases of disembodied minds, if that's what you are asking -- although there are many folk who claim there are such things, their examples strike me as wishful thinking.

Back to:

It carries some connotation related to faith. I don't actually believe that when I get up I'll melt through the floor, I understand that I wont. "Understanding" does not have that connotation, for example, nor does "comprehend". — Manuel

I'd say certainty rather than faith. That serves to step away from the hegemony of religion.

Computers are entirely reliant on conceptaul analysis - binary data processing, high-level languages, machine code, transistors - developed over many decades and the intellectual efforts of millions of people. — Wayfarer

They are also reliant on refined sand. Your point?

...differentiating concepts from imagination and sensation... — Wayfarer

Seems to me an account of concepts as use does exactly that.

Well, I don't know of any cases of disembodied minds, if that's what you are asking -- although there are many folk who claim there are such things, their examples strike me as wishful thinking. — Banno

Here we entirely agree. :up:

I'd say certainty rather than faith. That serves to step away from the hegemony of religion. — Banno

Fair enough.

Ah, but if you didn't have the concept, what is it that you would be missing?

I suppose it would be the ability to talk about and use the laptop as a laptop. — Banno

If we didn't have a concept of a laptop, we couldn't come up with it in the first place.

What was the person who was thinking about laptops doing before he/she/they set up to build one?

I think that laptops were designed by a person before he had the physical object in the world. So there was no laptop prior to the first one. — Manuel

Sure. There is a history to the concept, going back tot he abacus.

Indeed, this is part of the reason for rejecting the subjective notion of concept; A the concept of laptop is not in your head alone, but in the heads of those around you, as well as embedded in the world in which you live and it's history.

But there are folk who insist that the concept is just a thing in your mind alone. Nothing could be more wrong.

If we didn't have a concept of a laptop, we couldn't come up with it in the first place. — Manuel

Think carefully about that. The same applies to everything else of which you conceive. If it is true, then we have no explanation for how we might learn anything.

And yet we do learn.

SO it seems something has gone astray.

Think carefully about that. The same applies to everything else of which you conceive. If it is true, then we have no explanation for how we might learn anything.

And yet we do learn.

SO it seems something has gone astray. — Banno

I have thought about it and I agree with the first part.

Putting aside things like facts in history and the like, I don't think we learn things. Rather they grow in each species: we don't learn puberty, or learn how to see, we grow and are able to see or reach puberty.

I think innate ideas are facts about human beings. How it happens is baffling and I couldn't explain it. But I think it's true.

I remember the Apple 2c. And the Powerbook 100. The notion of "laptop" developed over time.

I don't think we learn things. — Manuel

You did learn to count.

They are also reliant on refined sand. Your point? — Banno

That you should type your replies into refined sand, as it probably wouldn't make a difference.

How rude.

You did learn to count. — Banno

Someone pointed out some very basic notions of counting, such that 1+1 = 2. But nobody was taught how to count all the numbers we can count. There isn't enough time in this world for that.

But you do not need to count all the numbers in order to understand what it involves.

One learns counting by doing; pass me three block, tell me how many red ribbons there are; do you have as many lollies as she does...

Learning to count is not learning a thing, but learning a performance. It's not just memorising "1+1=2", it's knowing what to do with 1+1=2, and how to do similar things in other cases: "4-3=1", and you have three more lollies than I do.

The concept -if it is anything - is not a thing in the head, but a capacity to do stuff.

Edit: This is perhaps were @Wayfarer and others go astray, in my opinion. Perhaps Wayfarer tries to build an understanding from a misguided image of subjective stuff in his own head. This notion of mental furniture is as pernicious as it is ubiquitous. Blame Descartes.