Applying Rules: Philosophy Forums

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Applying Rules » Applying Rules

Applying Rules
Wittgenstein's Rule Following Paradox

Print

Print

Page: 1 2 3

Applying Rules

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/08/09 - 04:54 PM:	#11
Cadrache wrote: You cannot choose any single answer as being 'correct' if the point of observation observes more then one outcome. what color eyes do points of observation have? Without using nonsense???
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/08/09 - 06:39 PM:	#12
Banno wrote: Yep. This is exactly what I'm interested in. If conventionalism is a position that accepts that the meaning of statements is established by being in accord with a rule that we stipulate (independent of an objective world) and if any application(Meaning) can be made to accord with a rule, then this position is useless for determining correct use. This kinda reminds me of an exit onto an interstate in Northern Kentucky. It was a particularly sharp turn into a decreasing radius. I once asked a deputy sheriff why there wasn't a sign warning people about it. He replied that it wasn't needed because everyone knew about it! Edited by Gadfly II on 10/08/09 - 07:33 PM
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/09/09 - 06:39 AM:	#13
At which point do specific rules govern 'perceived truth' without being independent of the interaction between two things? Hmm... I really don't have an answer beyond the 'dragon with green eyes riddle'; a position in which eye color effectively affects the outcome due to the loss of existence of the dragon themselves. The only other affect seems to be related to size and how green eyes could affect the photon wave-lengths that possibly affect QM interactions. The dragon riddle questions whether or not the observer themself creates which rules are applied to the subject at hand. The next is to question in what ways specific rules enhance or reduce possibility? (We cannot prove the universal law of gravity if the subject falling is within an atmosphere, for instance.)
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/09/09 - 04:14 PM:	#14
Gadfly II wrote: If conventionalism is a position that accepts that the meaning of statements is established by being in accord with a rule that we stipulate (independent of an objective world) and if any application(Meaning) can be made to accord with a rule, then this position is useless for determining correct use. Well, since no one seems to want to jump in, I'll continue. The above tension must be accounted for if W's position is to make any sense. Two possibilities I am investigating come from Ben-Menachem in her book Conventionalism and Hacker in his book Insight and Illusion. Ben-Menachem suggests that a conventionalism that justifies a correct application to a rule is seen by W. as an explanation, since he rejects philosophical explanation he must reject this sort of conventionalism. The problem now, as I see it, is to reconsile this position with the question of what use description only serves. Hacker's account, on the other hand, is difficult for me to grasp at the moment so I won't try to explain it. although it seems clear that he too would have W reject the sort of conventionalism I refer to earlier and he sees the RFP as a reducio argument against just that sort of conventionalist justification. Anyway, that's where I am at the moment. I'm interested in any input the rest of you might have.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/11/09 - 12:59 PM:	#15
I don't tend to post on weekends... it affects my game time (and I generally think more when I'm bored at work. Different kinds of boredom home/work.) Can you summarize Hacker's account? I think I am slightly familiar with it - or some varient. Now, on the technical side - I've never liked conventionalism. Most of the versions I have read account of tend to claim that the function conventionalism as a base form even though we do not ever see it outside of other forms. I guess upon listening to that youtube video - I might claim that "at best," conventionalism " merely allows for pictures to form." That quote concerning Wittgenstien's tractalus is where I generally end up with that.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/11/09 - 03:56 PM:	#16
I'll post my understanding of Hacker when I finish digesting his position. He is one of the foremost Wittgenstein authorities so his position is important to my project. Maybe you could help me by offering a formulation of conventionalism. There are many possible varieties, and I'm curious as to what you think is representative and why you think it fails.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:05 AM:	#17
It's not extremely well thought out. Large proponents of what I do see deals with the clause "For the sake of convention." Normally this translates as "We know that certain elements of a discussion affect the outcome we state as fact. We will however call this truth." As such - most of their statements are flawed. At best a partial truth. Yet they insist that 'For the sake of convention' is a good enough patch to let some concepts to bypass certain methodologies. Don't get me wrong - I normally don't mind applying a noumetic substrate in order to attain new knowledge. Just with the cavaet that it limits what you can find about said object. Like adding any 'number' line to your understanding limits not only the linearity of whatever answer you can claim as 'true' but it also limits which parts of the object you are allowed to claim as attributing to the object itself. (namely cartesian type information.) For instance - how many levels deep does the computer program that computes all valid functions go? You can have an entirely different set of answers if you have an f(x) ^ g(x) function. Like the f(x) might add 1 to all even positions while subtracting 1 from all odd numbers. You then possibly again have an entirely set of different answers for being true/false if you add another t(x) that relates f(x) and g(x) together. (think of this one as similar to the slit experiment that started the QM fad.) Edited by Cadrache on 10/13/09 - 10:29 AM
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:28 AM:	#18
We can look at numbers a little bit more. Let's ignore the +/- , = and the like. Not really important at this exact moment. We percieve each individual number as a solid entity. If you have the actual number "1" you cannot divide it. Sure we can claim that 2 -1 = 1 and any other such systems by way of equivilancy. However 2 is still a single solid object. No divisions. No actual attributes. Yet we insist that some thing that has no attributes is capable of being affected by a function? 1 + 1 = 2 creates a f(x) such that 1f(x) = 2. Yet that is impossible if we have no attributes to the solid entity. So 1 could have any number of 'attributes'. Each independant from the "+" sign which then turns 1 into 2. A f(x) = 2 F(a)^f(b) = 2 = Af(x) = 2 (where A can be any number.)
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 265

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:38 AM:	#19
So we are looking for the rules that allow for a change of rules. But, would these rules that allow for the change in rules be changing? If so what are the set of rules that allow for the rules that allow for a change in rules. Are all the rules subject to change?
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/13/09 - 01:56 PM:	#20
Mmmm... I wouldn't claim yes or no exactly. In some cases the rules remain the same - it is just the interpretation of the rules that creates a different outcome. Other times - it is a completely different idea. It is convention which claims that if you come to the same result for an answer - both are interchangable. Then we go to a different question and use the same two systems independantly and come up with a different answer. This occassionally happens with the 'shortcut' to first level differentiation. Most of the usage for convention that you see deals with choosing the specific function between entities. This in turn affects the specific form for the answer. Edited by Cadrache on 10/13/09 - 02:04 PM
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3

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