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 06/20/09 - 09:10 AM:	#51
Aetixintro wrote: (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. It is not an explanation of Perry's behavior because, of course, it leaves out the fact that he must know that he himself is John Perry before he will come to act as he does. Calling it "context-specific" does not change that fact. He may just as well have come to believe that "Roger Daltry is making a mess" as that "John Perry is making a mess" if he does not believe that he himself is John Perry. Again, I will ask, since you still have not done so, what beliefs will you ascribe to Perry in this situation that will explain his behavior but will not make use of the first-person pronoun? If you cannot do that then you have not shown that Perry is wrong.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/20/09 - 09:47 AM:	#52
Philo1965 wrote: It is not an explanation of Perry's behavior because, of course, it leaves out the fact that he must know that he himself is John Perry before he will come to act as he does. Calling it "context-specific" does not change that fact. He may just as well have come to believe that "Roger Daltry is making a mess" as that "John Perry is making a mess" if he does not believe that he himself is John Perry. I find that normal people definitely know their name. It's so fundamental to us that people learn their own name before they learn the meaning of "I". Obviously, I can turn this on it's head to counter you and say that "He may just as well have come to believe that "Roger Daltry is making a mess" as that "John Perry is making a mess" if he does not believe that he himself is his own "I" when he calls himself "I"". If you take this stand, it's impossible to convince you no matter what description I put on the table. So in reality, you don't ask anything of me because no matter what I answer it falls short in your view. Instead of having me to try to eliminate the indexicals, why don't you come up with a situation where you think it's impossible to eliminate the indexical? While you're at it, you're welcome to add to the paper of John Perry. Is it really impossible to explain your behaviour without using indexicals? This problem should be rife in psychology then, but I find that psychologists are able to explain behaviour all the time, even the beliefs and belief-states as long as they are communicated honestly. I really think you may be some kind of an indexical-fundamentalist as you seem to make contradictory demands that ensures the continuation of your view of the indexicals. If there is nothing new to this discussion from you, I think we have finished.
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 06/20/09 - 10:12 AM:	#53
Aetixintro wrote: Instead of having me to try to eliminate the indexicals, why don't you come up with a situation where you think it's impossible to eliminate the indexical? Perry's example works just fine, as this discussion has shown.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 06/20/09 - 10:49 AM:	#54
Others are welcome to join this thread with views, situations, and creative twists! Obviously, Philo1965 and I are on each side of an abyss of disagreement. There's a link to the online paper in question in post #47. To an extent, I certainly see that this isn't the biggest dispute in life. I think people are likely to find other stuff more important, but the problem is nevertheless in the open. Welcome!
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

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/01/09 - 12:50 AM:	#55
Other than being 'wholly ripe for elimination', theoretically speaking, why do you want to get rid of indexicals? Perhaps I am being crude. Do you want to create an indexical free language?

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/01/09 - 01:09 AM:	#56
Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens and John does not know this. Mark Twain says "I wrote 'Huck Fin'". John thinks this utterance means that Mark Twain wrote 'Huck FIn'. On the other hand, the speaker thinks that the utterance means 'He himself, Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens wrote 'Huck Fin'. Now I know that this does not show that you can't have an indexical free language, but it does show that indexicals in an utterance mean different things to different people. John knew the utterer (the referent of 'I') was Mark Twain but not that he was also Samuel Clemens. The utterer knew that the referent of 'I' included Samuel Clemens. This indicates that your project would require different indexical reductions for different people. I mean that there would be a different description being filled in depending on what you know about the person. Does that make any sense?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 07/02/09 - 05:44 AM:	#57
jtoma wrote: Other than being 'wholly ripe for elimination', theoretically speaking, why do you want to get rid of indexicals? Perhaps I am being crude. Do you want to create an indexical free language? I want to show that indexicals are neither essential nor necessary. I want to create a potentially indexical free language. jtoma wrote: I mean that there would be a different description being filled in depending on what you know about the person. Does that make any sense? I think it certainly makes sense in this regard. From post # 36: "The indexical-free descriptions are dynamic and update as fast as new information is added to the situation." Maybe there is also something to learn from it in the process. Is this good? Cheers!
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

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/02/09 - 09:43 AM:	#58
Consider the indexical 'you' directed at my lover. Could any description ever adequately represent my conception of her? No, I am in love with her. A description might do for you, considering her (the referent of my 'you'), but you aren't in love with her. Indexicals in sentences involving faith-based commitments or expressions of love, are not reducible to description. Is that a response to your question? Edited by jtoma on 08/05/09 - 08:37 PM

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 07/02/09 - 10:26 AM:	#59
I bet that you are very sensitive to her name as well like if you hear it over the calling system at the mall. When you say "you, my lover" I think it comes close enough to your affection for the name like "Shania, my lover". In this situation I think there's equal affection for the unique identifier as when you use "you" for your lover. You obviously put a lot into it than a third person. This angle can be accommodated for in the descriptive situation, I hold. The extremity comes down to this: as long as there are thoughts or whatever that can be expressed in communication, they are. Rather, to save time, one economises slightly, but not when it's important. There may be mental imagery swirling around in a situation, but if one uses some time on it, it's really no obstacle. In the end there's some kind of "magic" put forward by the proponents of the indexicals. I think that is unfair in the communicative situation. Is it what is "heavenly"? Is it what is unique? Is it about "extra-sensory" qualities? I don't know. I rely on the descriptive power.
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

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:39 PM:	#60
I guess I still don't understand the question. What would be the virtue that an indexical free language would have that an indexical containing language does not have?

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.