Whatever you may say about brain in vat, it's not illogical, and neither is indirect realism. — frank

I am a brain in a vat. How could it be illogical?

I know I'm breaking the rules.

But we've retreated to dogma and playing games. However, the orthodox "brain in a vat" thought experiment is just a game as well, only it has a pompous name. That's my point. It works if, and only if, you follow the rules. But the rules are deliberately designed to force you to a conclusion. So it is not argument, as such. An argument proceeds from agreed premises to a conclusion, not from an assumed conclusion through a set of rules designed to enforce it.

Which makes me consider that one of Austin's motivations, that I grant appear hidden, is to find (or defend) a truth between metaphysical certainty and radical skepticism (which would make his concerns less than trivial). — Antony Nickles

That's a very interesting way of putting it. Austin has to be familiar with the doctrines. But it has to be part of a more complicated version of the official programme. That's not an objection.

I believe Austin may be thinking that we know the concept of dreaming from 'one's own case'. — Richard B

notice that the following is phrased in the first person plural"

And we might add here that descriptions of dreams, for example, plainly can't be taken to have exactly the same force and implications as the same words would have, if used in the description of ordinary waking experiences. In fact, it is just because we all know that dreams are throughout unlike waking experiences that we can safely use ordinary expressions in the narration of them; the peculiarity of the dream- context is sufficiently well known for nobody to be mis- led by the fact that we speak in ordinary terms. — p.42, my emphasis

The argument is not that I know dreams are unlike waking experiences, it's that we know. If he were basing this on his own case, wouldn't that be "..it is just because I know that dreams are throughout unlike waking experiences that I can safely use ordinary expressions in the narration of them".

Not a knock-down case, but Austin, of course, was writing without the benefit of access to Wittgenstein's work, so it is no surprise that he doesn't place much emphasis on distinguishing one's own case from the communal case. It probably did not occur to him that folk might read it as you have.

So the test does not support your assertion, at least here.

Vat-brains. The nemesis of clear thinking.

The contents of your post doesn't seem to have any points against the fact that language is a tool to describe, express, criticise and diagnose the objects and world. — Corvus

:grin: As I said:

You'll be thinking "Yeah, but each of those is just more expressing and describing" — Banno

I can only set the argument before you. If you can't see it, that's down to you.

There's a curious myopia amongst those who see language as only "communication" or "information exchange", such that they have a great deal of difficulty seeing how words are actually used by people to build the world. Property, ownership, money, exchange, promises, hierarchies, the everyday paraphernalia of life is constructed by language.

Austin's student, John Searle, followed through on these ideas. I outlined his approach in Institutional Facts: John R. Searle.

I suppose this presents an argument for a follow-on thread examining How To Do Things With Words.

Such stuff is basic philosophical literacy.

By the way, there is no connection between words and the world. — Corvus

:lol: Not in your world, perhaps.

how would one know they are hacked when the point is for the hacker not to reveal they are hacking someone? — Antony Nickles

Yep.

Can you re-assure me that nothing disastrous will happen if I follow the link anyway? — Ludwig V

Nope. Worked for me, but like Antony I am using Safari.

Not a knock-down case, but Austin, of course, was writing without the benefit of access to Wittgenstein's work, so it is no surprise that he doesn't place much emphasis on distinguishing one's own case from the communal case. It probably did not occur to him that folk might read it as you have. — Banno

Not bad. However, I am not convinced of your or my argument. There is a nice youtube video titled “John Searle on Austin and Wittgenstein.” One rather humorous story Searle recollects was when he discussed the private language argument with Austin. From Searle's point of view Austin did not understand Wittgenstein’s point when the beetle in the box was brought up. Austin’s response was something like, “see the beetle is a something and a nothing, a clear contradiction.” It is a short video but funny and shows how very different these two philosophers were as people.

There is no logical ground for me to believe the world exists during my sleep — Corvus

:lol:
Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy. But if you insist that your words do not connect to the world and that you cannot tell if you are awake or asleep and that the world ceases to exist when you sleep, then there is little common ground on which we might move forward.

So I might leave this conversation there.

The fashion at present, as I understand it, is to think of Searle as having propagated a misinterpretation of Austin, that the Austin we see is often understood from Searle's perspective; and that it is well time to re-examine Austin afresh to remove that bias. There's a fair amount of truth in this, I suspect.

Can you change the tree with words? Ordering it cut down will certainly change it. — Banno

You spoke it to someone with a chainsaw, not to the tree. You still cannot distinguish words and actions.

Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy.

So I might leave this conversation there. — Banno

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. Please think about it carefully again. Leaving is fine. It just confirms you ran out of the ideas for the arguments. What can anyone do about it?

You spoke it to someone with a chainsaw, not to the tree. You still cannot distinguish words and actions. — Corvus

You say that as if the order can't change things. And yet it does.

if you insist that your words do not connect to the world and that you cannot tell if you are awake or asleep and that the world ceases to exist when you sleep, then there is little common ground on which we might move forward. — Banno

There's a curious myopia amongst those who see language as only "communication" or "information exchange", such that they have a great deal of difficulty seeing how words are actually used by people to build the world. Property, ownership, money, exchange, promises, hierarchies, the everyday paraphernalia of life is constructed by language. — Banno

Another confusion between words and things. :roll: You still seem to be hiding in Austin' well, and cannot see the world out there just staring at the well wall.

You say that as if the order can't change things. And yet it does. — Banno

But you don't see the fact it was the action which changed the tree not your word.

But you don't see the fact it was the action which changed the tree not your word. — Corvus

Words are actions. We do things by speaking and writing. Your view of language is far too passive.

Words are actions. We do things by speaking and writing. Your view of language is far too passive. — Banno

Hmmm I don't agree with you at all. You are still confusing the tools with the broken door. :(

how would one know they are hacked when the point is for the hacker not to reveal they are hacking someone? — Antony Nickles

Well, that's a question. My antivirus does notify me about trackers, though. And ransomware needs to draw attention to itself.

Thanks for this.

Nothing's perfect. I find it reassuring that someone else has used the site and not come to visible harm. There's no guarantee that the anti-virus software is always right, either.



Thanks for the reassurance.

I will download the book.

I don't agree with you at all. — Corvus

Obviously. It probably has not been pointed out to you before that we do things with words. A Big Learning for you.

"I promise to meet with you next Tuesday."

With that very utterance, the promise is made, and the obligation created. Uttering the sentence "I promise to meet with you next Tuesday" counts as placing myself under the obligation to meet with you next Tuesday.

Promises are an example of a type of performative utterance that makes something the case... Further examples would be:
A king in check with no legal move out of check counts as checkmate in a game of chess
A candidate who has the majority of votes in the Electoral college counts as the president-elect in US constitutional law.

That one ought keep one's promises is, on this account, not the result of some virtue on the part of the promiser, not an agreement between the promiser and the promisee, not something one is obliged to do because of the negative consequences that would ensue if folk broke their promises, not the result of convention or expectation, but simply what is done in uttering the word of a promise in suitable circumstances. — Banno

Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks. — Banno

Austin's writing is very clear, and his points are logical.  Anyone reading Austin will have no problem understanding him.  For some reason you seem to think, no one can understand Austin. 

For some reason you seem to think, no one can understand Austin. — Corvus

No. I think most folk here understand Austin. You are an exception.

Obviously. It probably has not been pointed out to you before that we do things with words. A Big Learning for you. — Banno

Yeah I gave you the reason why I don't agree with your points. I would have thought you would admit the problems in your statements which are full of confusions and contradictions.

No. I think most folk here understand Austin. You are an exception. — Banno

I never claimed I understand Austin in full.

I do not think the confusion mine. My Honours thesis was on this stuff, and was accepted by a panel of academics, receiving a first.

OK, I still think words are not actions. And words are not things. Saying they are same sounds not making sense.

And the repairing tools are not the broken doors to be repaired. Saying they are the same sounds illogical.

He wants (needs to) rule that distinction out [between appearance and reality], (i.e. show that the question "How do you mean?" cannot be answered in this context). But he doesn't quite get that far. — Ludwig V

I don't know what the standard would be to "rule... out" the distinction, but I don't think he wants to say our questions about the world cannot be addressed, and so does not need to show that the position has no meaning. The problem of our skepticism of the world and others is not going away here; Austin is only pointing out our sufficient ordinary criteria in order to normalize how we address these situations (rather than solving it for every case, forever).

What I take him to be doing in Lec VIII is showing there are other types of cases involved in the issue in order to break apart the forced dichotomy of appearance vs. reality, which dictates their definition and mechanics. This widening of cases allows for discussion of appearing and appearance, and reality and what's real, only with the requirements of a context and the ordinary criteria we use in those situations.

Austin’s response was something like, “see the beetle is a something and a nothing, a clear contradiction.” — Richard B

That's interesting. But it is curious that Austin's reaction would suit Wittgenstein fine. The idea of private experiences makes them a something and a nothing, which is a contradiction. Ergo, the idea of private experience is self-contradictory. QED.

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. — Corvus

I think the problem here is that you do not believe in the existence of unperceived objects and need an argument to prove them. I believe in the existence of unperceived objects and expect you to give me a reason not to. It's not a promising start for an argument, is it?

Berkeley doesn't do much better, either.



I think I'll wait and see what happens in VIII ff.

I still think words are not actions — Corvus

Speech Acts
(The end of that article has some critique of Austin for you).

Can you re-assure me that nothing disastrous will happen — Ludwig V

Just assume that terrible things are going to happen at any time, and then when they do happen you won't be surprised. Does that help?

This?

Good stuff. "This was Austin's most important idea: All utterances are the performance of speech acts"

I am a brain in a vat. How could it be illogical? — Ludwig V

It's not illogical. If you think it is, could you show how?