Topic: What is truth?

[spiney]

You made my point.

First you have to qualify the statement.

"What do I mean when I say 1 plus 1 = 1?"

If I can demonstrate the logic, then the statement remains true regardless of your own definition of the equation.

A real truth is not dependent on the statement.

Gravity is true whether we give it meaning or not.

Well then all you're saying is that language must be defined so that we all know what we're talking about.  You're not going to get any argument there.

But, how do you define definitions? It's just using words, to point ot other words.

This is the very basis of Wittgenstien's Language Games:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/blueandbrown/section6.rhtml

http://users.rcn.com/rathbone/lw1-10c.htm

Another example: Define left or right (handed), without re-using that concept!

[Hanes]

You made my point.

First you have to qualify the statement.

"What do I mean when I say 1 plus 1 = 1?"

If I can demonstrate the logic, then the statement remains true regardless of your own definition of the equation.

A real truth is not dependent on the statement.

Gravity is true whether we give it meaning or not.

Well then all you're saying is that language must be defined so that we all know what we're talking about.  You're not going to get any argument there.

But, how do you define definitions? It's just using words, to point ot other words.

This is the very basis of Wittgenstien's Language Games:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/blueandbrown/section6.rhtml

http://users.rcn.com/rathbone/lw1-10c.htm

Another example: Define left or right (handed), without re-using that concept!

If I had to define right handed without using the concept of left or right, I wouldn't use words at all, I would demonstrate.  When things become intangible, the meaning of the word becomes subjective.  This is the problem TB's of many stripes hit on when they say, "but you can't prove you love someone!"

It's not exactly a refutation of anything to point out that language is a best a mediocre medium for transmitting ideas.  It's pretty obvious.

[spiney]

"If I had to define right handed without using the concept of left or right, I wouldn't use words at all, I would demonstrate ......"

Unfortunately, you can't. That's one of WIttgenstein's points.

http://lefthand.domnik.net/ontology.shtml

[Hanes]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

[Evil Eye]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

"A 3.5/4 loop with a radial arm crossing back in, that sounds similar to "i" in "Lima" if you say it talking about a location."

[spiney]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

"A 3.5/4 loop with a radial arm crossing back in, that sounds similar to "i" in "Lima" if you say it talking about a location."

Yes, fine, but that's simply defining in terms of other concepts ..........

Wittgenstein's point was, partly, suppose you point to a brick and say "brick". You can;t say - from that alone -  whether the intended meaning is "that's a brick" or "bring me the brick". There's always something uncaptured - that can't be got - no matter how many levels back you go .........

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/investigations.html

[Sordid]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

"A 3.5/4 loop with a radial arm crossing back in, that sounds similar to "i" in "Lima" if you say it talking about a location."

Yes, fine, but that's simply defining in terms of other concepts ..........

Wittgenstein's point was, partly, suppose you point to a brick and say "brick". You can;t say - from that alone -  whether the intended meaning is "that's a brick" or "bring me the brick". There's always something uncaptured - that can't be got - no matter how many levels back you go .........

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/investigations.html

Yes, of course there's going to be something uncaptured if you rip the utterance out of context like that. 

[spiney]

Wittgenstein was saying, the whole idea of a "clear and constant" meaning is bogus; at best, there's only families of meanings, impossible to pin down and constantly changing ...........

This completely mucks up - for example - Frege's functional idea, and even W's own logical atomism .......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift

[Hanes]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

"A 3.5/4 loop with a radial arm crossing back in, that sounds similar to "i" in "Lima" if you say it talking about a location."

Yes, fine, but that's simply defining in terms of other concepts ..........

Wittgenstein's point was, partly, suppose you point to a brick and say "brick". You can;t say - from that alone -  whether the intended meaning is "that's a brick" or "bring me the brick". There's always something uncaptured - that can't be got - no matter how many levels back you go .........

Bullshit, I could pantamime another person bring me a brick.  Watch David Attenborough's last episode of the Life on Earth series.  He meets a tribe and shares almost no language in common, but he can still communicate with them on a basic level.  Language is, ultimatly, based on reality, and though it is a poor representative of reality, it's isn't a useless representative of it.  How do you think language evolved to the point of transmitting abstract ideas?  Ground up.  Start with something concrete, and go from there.

This whole, "can you comunicate ____ without using that concept?" is one big argument from personal incredulity.

[spiney]

Define the letter "e" without using it.

"A 3.5/4 loop with a radial arm crossing back in, that sounds similar to "i" in "Lima" if you say it talking about a location."

Yes, fine, but that's simply defining in terms of other concepts ..........

Wittgenstein's point was, partly, suppose you point to a brick and say "brick". You can;t say - from that alone -  whether the intended meaning is "that's a brick" or "bring me the brick". There's always something uncaptured - that can't be got - no matter how many levels back you go .........

Bullshit, I could pantamime another person bring me a brick.  Watch David Attenborough's last episode of the Life on Earth series.  He meets a tribe and shares almost no language in common, but he can still communicate with them on a basic level.  Language is, ultimatly, based on reality, and though it is a poor representative of reality, it's isn't a useless representative of it.  How do you think language evolved to the point of transmitting abstract ideas?  Ground up.  Start with something concrete, and go from there.

This whole, "can you comunicate ____ without using that concept?" is one big argument from personal incredulity.

No, that's just wrong.

When Attenborough meets natives, they're translating between already existing langauges! What if the natives didn't have a language ?

It's possible to claim that meanings are clear and precise. That's Aristotle, Frege, and logical atomism. But when you come down to how this is done, it gets a bit nebulous ....... you might think this is straightforward, but it isn't!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(philosophy_of_language)

One problem is, it's impossible to talk about how language works, without first having a meta-language for doing so. Out of which, you straight away get Tarski's theory of truth (which isn't nearly as crazy as it looks, from just a first glance!).

[Evil Eye]

Unless you define what language is FIRST... then you are wrong Spiney.

Dogs/wolves use body language and convey ideas quite specifically. There is no guessing between each other what is meant.

Babies use different cries to convey needs.

Art could even be considered a language conveying an idea without saying a word.

The point is.. that language (speaking out loud) does not have to be comprehendable to get a message across effectively.

[spiney]

No.

A proposition has intension (meaning) and extension (referent). All that can be demonstrated is extension. Thus, the private language argument. etc ......

http://consc.net/papers/intension.html

In the case of - for example - so called body language , this is instincltive behaviour, which exactly makes the point. Babies know to cry when hungry of hurting, but the rest is learned ......

The idea there's an accessible mental state - and that mine is like yours - is supposition, and one Wittgenstein suggests is useless, since a language can only defined in public.

For example, as to what the word red means. there's no possible way of comparing your "private mental sensation of red" with mine!

"The point is.. that language (speaking out loud) does not have to be comprehendable to get a message across effectively".

No. "Getting a message across" is saying that "one behaviour causes another behaviour", but that's just psychology, nothing to do with meaning!

[Evil Eye]

No.

A proposition has intension (meaning) and extension (referent). All that can be demonstrated is extension. Thus, the private language argument. etc ......

http://consc.net/papers/intension.html

In the case of - for example - so called body language , this is instincltive behaviour, which exactly makes the point. Babies know to cry when hungry of hurting, but the rest is learned ......

The idea there's an accessible mental state - and that mine is like yours - is supposition, and one Wittgenstein suggests is useless, since a language can only defined in public.

For example, as to what the word red means. there's no possible way of comparing your "private mental sensation of red" with mine!

"The point is.. that language (speaking out loud) does not have to be comprehendable to get a message across effectively".

No. "Getting a message across" is saying that "one behaviour causes another behaviour", but that's just psychology, nothing to do with meaning!

Eh....

If I mail you a wrapped present, and we both know that it is your birthday, you will know without any language what the meaning of the gift is and why it was sent.

[spiney]

Yeah, i would, but only because I know beforehand the concept "birthday"!

How would you explain this concept from scratch using just hand gestures ?

[Evil Eye]

Yeah, i would, but only because I know beforehand the concept "birthday"!

How would you explain this concept from scratch using just hand gestures ?

OK...

Let's say I drew a picture of a buffalo in a field you recognized on a cave wall.

Would you have no comprehension if you saw that field and a buffalo in it?

I say you would surmise that there are buffalo in that field.

If I drew above that buffalo, a sun behind it, you would guess that it was either sunset or sunrise. That narrows it down.

If I drew a picture of another animal into the picture that only came out at night... you could gather exactly what time (within a reasonable parameter) was depicted.

And you could use that information to look for food yourself using that information.