An Attack on Indexicality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » An Attack on Indexicality » An Attack on Indexicality

An Attack on Indexicality

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

An Attack on Indexicality

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/13/09 - 01:41 AM:	#31
RosenP wrote: Sure, it is not necessary. Can you say why?
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

basdirks
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2009
Location: Psychiatric ward

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/13/09 - 11:59 PM:	#32
Aetixintro wrote: If I'm to explain this without indexical, I: (John Perry is making a mess at time, t₁, in the supermarket, but he does not know this.) John Perry is looking for the person who is making a mess in the supermarket at time, t₂. After a while at time, t₃, John Perry finds that the person who is making the mess is himself. John Perry has been making a mess. John Perry takes action at time, t₄, to limit the mess. You're cheating: Aetixintro wrote: (John Perry is making a mess at time, t₁, in the supermarket, but he does not know this.) You summarize the whole ordeal before it even gets started... Do you think that's very practical?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 05/14/09 - 07:29 PM:	#33
Reinvigoration. I'm sorry for having taken so long. "The person that has the frame of mind of the person of context that is given" is "I". "The person already given"="the given person"=indexical "myself" "The description of location and person that gives the person"=indexical "I" I think "I" includes "here". I have therefore added location to the formula. "The moment has arrived"=indexical "now" I'll counter any argument from memory loss and say that one can lose the conception of the word "I" as well in the case of memory loss. I therefore think that the indexical and the exterior description is still on equal footing. Memory loss is also a matter of empiri of investigation, just to have mentioned it. Incision wrote: Now Schlitz, I'm not eager to disagree with you in phil of language, but it seems neither you nor Aexitintrohave addressed Perry's argument, to which I admit sympathy. I should be properly on it by now. What do you put into Perry's argument except linguistic focus and reflexivity? bert1 wrote: 1) The pain that Schlitz is experiencing is of no importance compared to the pain bert1 is experiencing because I am bert1. 2) The pain that Schlitz is experiencing is of no importance compared to the pain bert1 is experiencing because bert1 is bert1. I think 2) can be rephrased as 2') The pain that Schlitz is experiencing is of no importance compared to the pain bert1 is experiencing because bert1 is making the comparison. I think some people speak of "now" as a time frame within which a scene is being played out. Incision, I'm sorry I have included "himself" in the writing. It's a mistake and you are correct in pointing it out. I'll try to improve. 'I am bert1' usually means, in the indexical free world, that 'bert1 is introducing bert1 to others'. hurburble wrote: You might all want to check out David Lewis article titled 'Index, context and content'. I'm on it. Thanks for the tip. basdirks I just want to make clear what kind of situation that initiate the instance of analysis. To give the picture of the timeline in it, is also useful, I think. Edited by Aetixintro on 05/14/09 - 08:43 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/15/09 - 11:40 PM:	#34
Aetixintro wrote: I think 2) can be rephrased as 2') The pain that Schlitz is experiencing is of no importance compared to the pain bert1 is experiencing because bert1 is making the comparison. Hmm, yes I think that might be OK. Well done! I was getting a bit fixated on simply replacing names with 'I' and wasn't thinking laterally. Cuthbert wrote: Similarly, any time after now is in the future. Also, it's now 8:04am on 6 May 2009. But it's not the case that any time after 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the future. In the time it took to write the conclusion, 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the past. How would you (Aetixintro) handle Cuthbert's example above? Aetixintro wrote: 'I am bert1' usually means, in the indexical free world, that 'bert1 is introducing bert1 to others'. OK, so lets try and de-indexify this one: bert1 wrote: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." I say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, I meant that I am bert1". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" How about: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." I say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, bert1 meant that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the rest of the party". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" It's a bit weird, and bert1 might find himself standing in a corner with no one to talk to if he says sentences like that, but I think your solution might work there too, provided the other people could work it out. HOWEVER! What about the following situation: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." Two people (one of them me) simultaneously say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, bert1 meant that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the rest of the party". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" That doesn't work, does it? Everyone might figure out that one of the people who said 'bert1 is bert1' is probably bert1, but they wouldn't know which. There is a clue in the word 'meant', as how could the speaker know what bert1 meant if he wasn't bert1? But it's not conclusive. We often talk about what other people mean. To rescue it, perhaps we can use your idea of longitude and latitude coordinates: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." Two people simultaneously say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, bert1 meant that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the rest of the party, and bert1 is the person at coordinate 123N, 456W". "Oh!" says everyone after ten hours of looking at charts, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" That might be OK, I guess. Not quite sure, though. Are we allowed to use 'is'? Is there an implicit 'now' in 'is'? Maybe 'now' is harder to deal with than 'I', as the referent of 'I' is often a fixed target (i.e. a human body) which stays still for more than a moment, so we can fix on it with objective coordinates. 'Now' vanishes in the moment of it's fullness (to paraphrase Halliday). ----- Another related, but slightly different issue (which was first put to me by Stephen Priest, my philosophy tutor): Lets say we have a complete objective psycho-physical description of both bert1 and Aetixintro. Nowhere in these descriptions does it say which one of these people I am. When I say 'I am bert1, and not Aetixintro' that is an extra fact not contained in the descriptions. If your reduction is successful, it may be that we can do without this extra fact for practical day-to-day communication. But something is definitely removed from the language if we remove 'I', and not just convenience. Is it a metaphysical issue? Does 'I' always refer so something which is not simply a psycho-physical object? Schlitz and Cuthbert may have some insight on this. Edited by bert1 on 05/16/09 - 12:34 AM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

Maxvilly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 209

Posted 05/19/09 - 06:46 AM:	#35
bert1 wrote: "bert1 is bert1". I'm not used to complexity such these. Are I and "bert1 is bert1" are both ? the same ? Someone PM me the answer.
I had details here, ones.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/04/09 - 09:36 PM:	#36
Cuthbert wrote: Similarly, any time after now is in the future. Also, it's now 8:04am on 6 May 2009. But it's not the case that any time after 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the future. In the time it took to write the conclusion, 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the past. Similarly, any time after the sense of moment given is in the future. Also, it's in another moment given 8:04am on 6 May 2009. But it's not the case that any time after 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the future. In the time it took to write the conclusion, 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the past. bert1 wrote: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." I say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, I meant that I am bert1". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" Indexical free: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." bert1 says, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? Everyone in the party know that already." Then bert1 says "Sorry, bert1 is intending to say that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the others of the party and the person of the given location is in the moment doing so". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell the rest where the Ferrero Rocher are!" I think my solution also solves There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." Two people (one of them me) simultaneously say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, bert1 meant that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the rest of the party". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" Also, I don't think one should be forced to use the geocoordinates to designate a location. A good relative description can work just as well. The relative geocoordinates are supposed to solve the extreme cases. bert1 wrote: Are we allowed to use 'is'? Is there an implicit 'now' in 'is'? I certainly find that we are allowed to use a given tense as appropriate and the rest should now be obvious. Lets say we have a complete objective psycho-physical description of both bert1 and Aetixintro. Nowhere in these descriptions does it say which one of these people I am. When I say 'I am bert1, and not Aetixintro' that is an extra fact not contained in the descriptions. The indexical-free descriptions are dynamic and update as fast as new information is added to the situation. I think this is solved by what is already written. bert1 wrote: But something is definitely removed from the language if we remove 'I', and not just convenience. I disagree and you and the rest have not pointed to what this may be. bert1 wrote: Is it a metaphysical issue? I think there is little to find in metaphysics regarding the descriptive use of indexicals, but that's just my opinion. A funny fact. In G. E. M. Anscombe's book of Mind and Language - Wolfson College Lectures 1974 1975 p. 65 it says in a footnote: "In Latin we have "ambulo" = "I walk". There is no subject-term. There is no need of one." Edited by Aetixintro on 06/04/09 - 09:52 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 06/17/09 - 05:57 AM:	#37
Aetixintro wrote: Similarly, any time after the sense of moment given is in the future. Also, it's in another moment given 8:04am on 6 May 2009. But it's not the case that any time after 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the future. In the time it took to write the conclusion, 8:04am on 6 May 2009 is in the past. I'm not sure if this works or not! 'the sense of moment given' doesn't seem to me either to capture 'now' (or if it does, it's just a synonym for 'now' and is therefore an indexical) or to give an unambiguous alternative. I'm still a bit confused on this one. Cuthbert, can you help? Aetixintro" wrote: Indexical free: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." bert1 says, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? Everyone in the party know that already." Then bert1 says "Sorry, bert1 is intending to say that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the others of the party and the person of the given location is in the moment doing so". "Oh!" says everyone, "Then tell the rest where the Ferrero Rocher are!" Hmm, I'm still not sure! What makes 'the given location' the location where bert1 is? Instead of: "Sorry, bert1 is intending to say that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the others of the party and the person of the given location is in the moment doing so" you could have this: "Sorry, bert1 is intending to say that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the others of the party and the person speaking is bert1" But then we have problems if a duplicate bert1 is also speaking. I know you don't like to resort to geocoordinates, but they are there in a last resort. But I also want to challenge the use of them by considering further duplications. To take an example from earlier: There are ten people at a party. Someone says "bert1 knows where the host has hidden the Ferrero Rocher." Two people simultaneously say, "bert1 is bert1". Everyone else says "So what? We all know that already." Then I say "Sorry, bert1 meant that bert1 is introducing bert1 to the rest of the party, and bert1 is the person at coordinate 123N, 456W". "Oh!" says everyone after ten hours of looking at charts, "Then tell us where the Ferrero Rocher are!" This could be made problematic by supposing that there are two type-identical Earths, and so two bert1s at those co-ordinates. An alien intelligence that is at both parties at once won't know for sure which bert1 each bert1 is referring to. (It could hazard a pretty good guess, though!) Now bert1 could still specify which bert1 he was referring to, but he would have to use another co-ordinate based on some kind of galactic centre or something. So far so good. Now duplicate galaxies. Then bert1 would have to specify which bert1 he was referring to in relation to some other cosmic entity. Now duplicate that. And so on ad infinitum. So in this unlikely instance the indexical 'I' would be essential, and not just convenient. (I know this is taking the argument to a silly extreme, but that's what philosophers do. ) Aetixintro wrote: I certainly find that we are allowed to use a given tense as appropriate... Yes, maybe. I'm still not sure about that.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/18/09 - 03:20 AM:	#38
bert1 wrote: What makes 'the given location' the location where bert1 is? "given" is a short for a more comprehensive description of information that is not included in the situation that is being analysed. It is always possible to give that kind of information. This is part of the argument against the necessity of indexicals. As a quick response: twin people, twin planets and everything else that is a twin to something is usually given a separating name otherwise it runs counter to the custom of giving names. Twin objects with the same name are counter to intelligence. Edited by Aetixintro on 06/18/09 - 03:33 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 06/18/09 - 06:29 PM:	#39
Aetixintro wrote: Let's try with an example from John Perry's article. John Perry writes something like this: "I'm looking for the person who is making a mess in the supermarket. After a while I find that the person who is making the mess is myself. I'm making a mess. I'm taking action to limit the mess." If I'm to explain this without indexical, I: (John Perry is making a mess at time, t₁, in the supermarket, but he does not know this.) John Perry is looking for the person who is making a mess in the supermarket at time, t₂. After a while at time, t₃, John Perry finds that the person who is making the mess is himself. John Perry has been making a mess. John Perry takes action at time, t₄, to limit the mess. Coming to know that "John Perry is making a mess" does not explain Perry's behavior, unless he also knows that "I am John Perry." This point is glossed over in your statement that "John Perry learns that the person who is making the mess is himself." "Himself" is an indexical.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/18/09 - 10:04 PM:	#40
Philo1965 It has already been pointed out that "himself" is an indexical in the thread. "I am John Perry" is the equal to "John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry". The main issue has been to show that the indexical "I" is not essential.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.