I'm ready when you guys are.

I have my copy of the Investigations ready.

Who wants to lead this reading group?

Ok. Then the argument idea was not a good one, then.

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -Goethe — Brianna Whitney

What do you mean?!

For a less philosophic answer, I'd put the question next to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. — Brianna Whitney

And what do you have to say about that?

That is it not behaviourism. — Banno

What is it?

If a behavioural solipsist were to come along and tell us s/he known intent inferred from behaviour, how could we prove s/he wrong?

I can't speak for Plato's intentions, but the sun reveals things. The sun comes up and the landscape is there in all its detail. — macrosoft

I'm deviating; but, are intents hidden from the sunlight?

Meaning is continuous. A sentence is a musical whole. — macrosoft

Since you edited your post, I'll address it:

The world is the totality of facts, not things. What do "facts" mean to you? There's nothing dark or mysterious about 'facts' is there?

Noesis seems to be pointing at that dark place from where we listen. — macrosoft

No, "noesis" is indicative of illuminating light (originating from the sun) according to Plato.

Plato called it noesis, or intelligibility. Bertrand Russell called it the Principle of Acquaintance.

I think it's our ability to "reproduce" it in our own way.

I'd love to reply, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't see what you are doing right now. But assuming I could understand you, I do wonder how you grokked this beetle in a box argument. Did Wittgenstein dance like a bee to communicate it? — macrosoft

Yes! It's almost as if I have to break down the puzzle and reassemble it in my own way to be able to understand what you mean. What do you think about this 'breaking down "process"'?

I split of this line of thought in a thread I thought deserves it's very own place. See if you like it.

Along with the natural disgust humans have for each other. — Valentinus

Oh dear. Anything but that. Hehe.

I like the idea of two threads addressing the same topic in different ways. Let's see if the moderators will allow it to happen. But, that might be too complicated for most folks. Let's see if anyone else has any suggestions.

Basically what I'm hoping to do in talking about arguments is encourage discussion and dialogue. Not sure if it's the best way to do so or flawed.

Thoughts?

What I learned from my previous reading group was that participants will get bogged down with terminology and understanding is hard achieved with two or more people talking past one another.

So, for example. Someone might ask about what Wittgenstein meant by the Beetle in a Box, as to whether it implies logical behaviorism on Wittgenstein so part. Or what Wittgenstein meant by a lion that could speak English but never being able to communicate with us in that language? Does it imply some form of intuitionalism on his part with respect to language?

And so on.

So, I've been contemplating about how to make this reading group organized, fun, and accessable without undue burden on the participants, since it's a long work. Here is what I propose:

We engage or approach the work in an organized fashion in addressing arguments raised by Wittgenstein. By which I mean we talk for example about the private language argument or language as a form of life or the beetle in a box or family resemblances.

Of course we would address each argument raised by Wittgenstein in some logical and coherent manner; but, I honestly doubt we could make it past a couple of pages reading each paragraph in logical order.

What are your thoughts about addressing arguments raised in the book instead of the entire book itself?

Yes, I did. But what is the name of a set? Its proper name or rigid designator?

Ok, see you around.

So, how is intent discerned apart from behavior? Is there any way to prove this as true?

I'm thinking more along the lines of a behavioral solipsist that inferrs wrongly that intent is wholly shown through behavior. Wittgenstein talks about this a lot in the Investigations.

What about intent? How do you address that finiky problem?

Have you looked into phenomenology? — macrosoft

Yes, I have. I like Husserl a lot. He got me into phenomenology. There's so much ambiguity that I see, everywhere around me, in regards to intentionality and affect. I don't know if you care to talk about this.



So, have you developed a meta-philosophy due to semantic-holism?

The number two or one-hundred or a million? These numbers dont denote anything in the real world but are snippets of information about it.

Well, if you like the physics analogy of the issue then we are living in a state of constant entropic decay and disorganization. It's hard to fight nature but we do try to with some success.

We're all blind, and Wittgenstein ensures that we proceed in this way, providing us with nothing in particular which we might see. So I'll follow, but I won't even pretend to lead because that would be the position of a fool. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nice.

If life and mind are defined by information that has material consequences, then be suspicious of all claims that talk about plays of information without material consequence — apokrisis

As far as I'm aware information doesn't equate with the "material" so, what do you think?

My approach is anti-atomistic to the extreme. Semantic holism is my jam. — macrosoft

I think you'll need to outline the main tenants of that philosophy of language for Terrapin Station to understand what you mean by that.

It's simply just the label of a/the set. Not the set itself.

Hmm, then I'm blind too. I don't have the qualifications of leading this reading group given the complexity of the material. Care to join us??

Well as long as it's constructive criticism, then criticise away.

I'm basically asking you why aren't proper names also referred to as tokens for things? Is this an issue?

It seems clear to me that types are the descriptive content of tokens. So why not include token under the monkier of proper names which would designate that descriptive content?

Then what are objects that instantiate concepts?

Thanks a bunch. Will do!

I don't want to keep saying this, and I've mostly tried not to, because I hate harping on the same thing all the time, but pretty much anything you write, at least when it's more than 30-40 words or whatever, is something where the more I read it, the more I really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about or "trying to say." I don't expect you to change your style because of this, but if the goal is to convey any ideas, to get folks to think in different ways, etc., it might be worth noting that at least for some of us, your approach isn't at all working. — Terrapin Station

Well, I understand him. I feel we're being a tad bit judgemental here. Sure, macrosoft can maybe engage in more atomistic approaches to language; but, it's an online forum, so no need to get pissy.

Proper names aren't sets or members of a set. — Terrapin Station

The can be rigid designators that denote an "object that instantiates concepts", though.

Interesting point. I wonder what other members think.

What are your thoughts about this?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/artificial-life-quantum-computing/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33125-3#Abs1

Those are proper names, not descriptions. Proper names aren't types or tokens of a type. — Terrapin Station

Ah, I'm sorry for the mistake. I meant to imply that 'proper names' (if they can be called that without a denoting token) such as "Posty McPostface" is an entity that exists on these forums or that "Harry Potter" is the main fictional character of the Harry Potter franchise.

Does that make better sense?

I’ve read Philosophical Investigations and own a copy. Not forking out for a guidebook though. I’ll try and chip in when I can.

When you starting this? — I like sushi

I'm thinking today maybe. I still don't have a companion to use, so I might put it off until tomorrow or later.

Thanks for the help. I will pay for any potential guidebook out of my own pocket. No need to waste money.

It is never too late, but in order to change one has to take action. — Tzeentch

What kind of action are you describing?