Started by Cato, October 24, 2011, 07:14:12 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 04:02:40 AMwe do not have privileged access to our own states of mind.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 03:15:06 AMIt was indeed a bold claim, made one summer's day in an exam room. I think my point was that it was practically very hard to overcome the illusions of self deception, and that, as we say in English -- actions speak louder than words. Our mental natures, who we are and what we are and most importantlym, what we mean, are external (or so I argued.)@ultralinear has the idea, I now see.
Quote from: premont on February 01, 2023, 04:11:03 AMI find this an astonishing claim. Don't you have thoughts and impulses you keep for yourself either because you don't like them or because they are inappropiate in the given context.
Quote from: Wanderer on January 31, 2023, 11:30:17 PMOr maybe they eventually open the political threads and are disgusted by the toxicity.
Quote from: premont on February 01, 2023, 04:48:48 AMBut after all it's only philosophy, and who says the behaviorists are right?
Quote from: Brian on February 01, 2023, 05:29:23 AMI think that that user specifically was somebody who was on at least their second or third cycle of creating and deleting an account.It's a pity, because all their posts were interesting, but who knows what their struggle is.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 01, 2023, 05:48:51 AMAssuming it is due to "struggle" is perhaps a bit presumptuous. An individual may decide that the site is too addictive and likely to gobble up an unacceptable amount of time.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 04:02:40 AMYes, I think my point would be that the external observer is at least as well placed as we are to make hypothesis about our mental life. In particular, we do not have privileged access to our own states of mind. It's a fundamentally anti- Cartesian position.
Quote from: Maestro267 on February 01, 2023, 06:45:33 AMEveryone's struggling with something or other.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 05:43:53 AMIMO the foundation for this position is Wittgenstein's private language argument in The Philosophical Investigations.
Quote from: premont on February 01, 2023, 08:37:11 AMWould it be that mental processes do not exist because they cannot be described in a common language, perhaps not even in a private language? But in fact many mental processes are not linguistic, many of our thoughts are pictorial or perhaps especially intangible. How would you, for example, put all the sensations that flow through you when you listen to a piece of music. It has been very tellingly stated that music begins where language ends. And these intangible (private) mental processes can rarely be read from our behavior.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 09:31:08 AMI think you need to take it step by step, what applies to sensations may not apply in the same way to emotions or to cognitive states. Wittgenstein uses the idea of pain, he asks how the concept is acquired. On one model, someone has a sensation and kind of points to it in his head and says "I name this thing I'm experiencing pain" I think he shows very well that this model is incoherent, and he presents an alternative model where the meaning of pain is tied quite closely to its primitive expression -- cries etc. But the argument is a little bit complex to spell out here....,
Quote from: Mandryka on February 01, 2023, 09:31:08 AMIn my understanding of things, the private language argument can be extended to meaning generally. And thence to cognitive mental states, because believing that P, desiring that P etc are differentiated in part by the meaning of P. These states, beliefs and desires, are fundamental for making sense of human action in informal (so called "folk") psychology.
Quote from: Maestro267 on February 01, 2023, 05:09:26 AMNobody is obliged to stay here.
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 22 queries.