An Attack on Indexicality: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

An Attack on Indexicality

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 06/18/09 - 10:32 PM:	#41
Aetixintro wrote: Philo1965 "I am John Perry" is the equal to "John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry". They are not the same belief. If I believe that "John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry" that does not mean that I believe that "I am John Perry." As a matter of actual fact, I do hold the former belief, but not the latter. You cannot eliminate "himself" for the same reason that you cannot eliminate "I" in the explanation of Perry's behavior. To say that John Perry finds out that the person who is making the mess is himself is to say that John Perry finds out that "I am making the mess" (that is the belief that is required to explain Perry's behavior, because if John Perry believes that John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry then he will still not behave the way he does in the store unless he also believes that he is John Perry, i.e., unless he also has the belief that "I am John Perry").

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/19/09 - 04:17 AM:	#42
Philo1965 wrote: They are not the same belief. If I believe that "John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry" that does not mean that I believe that "I am John Perry." As a matter of actual fact, I do hold the former belief, but not the latter. They represent the exactly same meaning in that specific context in that situation. Obviously, when you put yourself into the equation, the situation, we are speaking of something entirely different and you fail to acknowledge this. I think you have skipped the information in this thread that says "The indexical-free descriptions are dynamic and update as fast as new information is added to the situation." Philo1965 wrote: You cannot eliminate "himself" for the same reason that you cannot eliminate "I" in the explanation of Perry's behavior. To say that John Perry finds out that the person who is making the mess is himself is to say that John Perry finds out that "I am making the mess" (that is the belief that is required to explain Perry's behavior, because if John Perry believes that John Perry knows that John Perry's name is John Perry then he will still not behave the way he does in the store unless he also believes that he is John Perry, i.e., unless he also has the belief that "I am John Perry"). I can very much eliminate indexicals with descriptions, but I and everyone else who do it must be very sensitive to what is contained in the actual situation. I don't think you try to eliminate indexicals even. You just seem to postulate the necessity of the indexicals. If you are up for the challenge, why don't you give an example of a situation where the indexicals are necessary? I'm more than willing to make the eliminations as I have done several times already in this thread.
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 06/19/09 - 10:53 AM:	#43
Aetixintro wrote: They represent the exactly same meaning in that specific context in that situation. Obviously, when you put yourself into the equation, the situation, we are speaking of something entirely different and you fail to acknowledge this. I think you have skipped the information in this thread that says "The indexical-free descriptions are dynamic and update as fast as new information is added to the situation." I can very much eliminate indexicals with descriptions, but I and everyone else who do it must be very sensitive to what is contained in the actual situation. I don't think you try to eliminate indexicals even. You just seem to postulate the necessity of the indexicals. If you are up for the challenge, why don't you give an example of a situation where the indexicals are necessary? I'm more than willing to make the eliminations as I have done several times already in this thread. You are missing Perry's point. The fact that indexicals change reference depending on the context of utterance means that indexicals function very differently in the attribution of beliefs than do proper names. Do you think Perry does not know that "I", when uttered by John Perry, and "John Perry" refer to the same individual? Of course he realizes this, but he is pointing out that the attribution of the belief that "John Perry is making the mess" and "I am making the mess" do not have the same explanatory efficacy. If Perry is wrong then there is a way to explain how Perry's coming to believe that "John Perry is making the mess" without his believing that "I am John Perry" explains his behavior in the store. So what attributions of belief do you make to Perry that explain his behavior but do not employ the first-person pronoun?

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 06/19/09 - 11:30 AM:	#44
Belief contexts are referentially opaque. This means that the substitution of co-referential expressions/proper names in sentences involving belief ascriptions can change the truth value of the sentences. Consider the true sentence “Lois Lane believes that Superman can fly.” Now substitute “Clark Kent” for “Superman” and we get “Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent can fly,” which is false. The reason why the second sentence is false is because Lois Lane does not know that Clark Kent is Superman. She has to know that Clark Kent is Superman before she will come to believe that Clark Kent can fly, despite the fact that she believes that Superman can fly, and despite the fact that Clark Kent is Superman. Likewise, if Perry believes that “John Perry is making the mess,” but does not believe that “I am John Perry,” then he will not act as he does in the store unless he also believes that "I am John Perry", and this despite the fact that "John Perry" and "I" (when uttered by John Perry) are co-referential.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/19/09 - 01:03 PM:	#45
I believe I'm not missing Perry's point, but I have no sympathy with it. I also think that attribution of belief and belief states can very well be done by proper descriptions. I think Perry is identifying more with his indexical "I" than he is with the unique identifier of a proper name. To a certain degree, I understand this, but not when it comes to the "full power" of description. Philo1965 wrote: So what attributions of belief do you make to Perry that explain his behavior but do not employ the first-person pronoun? I think the solution is to use the proper name and make a sufficient description to what it is supposed to explain including beliefs and belief states, respectively. Philo1965 wrote: Belief contexts are referentially opaque. This means that the substitution of co-referential expressions/proper names in sentences involving belief ascriptions can change the truth value of the sentences. I don't think this is the case if it's done thoroughly. Philo1965 wrote: Consider the true sentence “Lois Lane believes that Superman can fly.” Now substitute “Clark Kent” for “Superman” and we get “Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent can fly,” which is false. I agree that a simple switch of disguise-identities doesn't work. In this description we should compensate Lois Lane's belief by writing this: “Lois Lane believes that Superman can fly.” is equal to, in Lois Lane's eyes, “Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent in disguise can fly". This is true! We can indeed write "Superman" is identical with "Clark Kent in disguise" and vice versa to accommodate Lois Lane's view. Edit: Just a note. For Lois Lane, the two names are not interchangeable, but for us on the outside of the situation, they are. Philo1965 wrote: Likewise, if Perry believes that “John Perry is making the mess,” but does not believe that “I am John Perry,” then he will not act as he does in the store unless he also believes that "I am John Perry", and this despite the fact that "John Perry" and "I" (when uttered by John Perry) are co-referential. Let's turn the situation around: we can imagine, rather unlikely, that John Perry has no association to "I", but has a strong identification with his name. So when he believes "I'm making a mess", it's simply rubbish to him, but when he's in the belief that "John Perry is making a mess", there's an immediate reaction. We can hypothetically imagine that some people have brought up their child without making it learn what "I" is. This is, of course, very strange, but so and so. I believe that John Perry is simply making a postulation of our intimation of the indexical "I" and plays a psychological game around our recognition of our own name (and the power of descriptions), that is mostly an unique identifier. Edit: My use of "intimation" is to mean "what we make dear to our heart" or something like that. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to redefine the English language. Edited by Aetixintro on 06/19/09 - 01:33 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

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 06/19/09 - 02:39 PM:	#46
Philo1965 wrote: So what attributions of belief do you make to Perry that explain his behavior but do not employ the first-person pronoun? Aetixintro wrote: I think the solution is to use the proper name and make a sufficient description to what it is supposed to explain including beliefs and belief states, respectively. Please do so.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/19/09 - 02:51 PM:	#47
Philo1965 wrote: Please do so. I believe I have done so already in the first post of this thread. Perhaps you can cut out a piece of John Perry's paper given here, http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/00-01...dings/perry_indexical.html, so that we can really be specific?
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 06/19/09 - 04:05 PM:	#48
Aetixintro wrote: I believe I have done so already in the first post of this thread. With this? 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." If so, as I noted earlier, to say that John Perry finds out that the person who is making the mess is himself is just to say that John Perry comes to have the belief that "I am the one making the mess". So no, this does not eliminate the indexical.

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 06/19/09 - 04:15 PM:	#49
Aetixintro wrote: Let's turn the situation around: we can imagine, rather unlikely, that John Perry has no association to "I", but has a strong identification with his name. So when he believes "I'm making a mess", it's simply rubbish to him, but when he's in the belief that "John Perry is making a mess", there's an immediate reaction. In other words, if proper names functioned like the first-person pronoun in belief contexts, then we wouldn't need the first-person pronoun. But they don't, and so we do, and that is Perry's point. As he says, "When we replace "I" with other designations of me, we no longer have an explanation of my behavior." Again, if Perry is wrong you should be able provide belief ascriptions that do explain his behavior but do not use the first-person pronoun.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/19/09 - 06:11 PM:	#50
(John Perry is making a mess at time, t1, in the supermarket, but John Perry does not know the given fact.) 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 John Perry. John Perry has been making a mess. John Perry takes action at time, t4, to limit the mess. This is a context-specific description, explanation, of John Perry's behaviour.
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.