Applying Rules: Philosophy Forums

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

Applying Rules
Wittgenstein's Rule Following Paradox

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 - 11:47 AM: Subject: Applying Rules	#1
I'm developing an analysis of Wittgenstein's private language argument and I thought it might be useful to learn how other people here view the rule following paradox (RFP). Briefly stated any application can be made to accord with and not accord with a rule, or be made to accord with another rule. For example, the series 1,2,3,4 and be continued 5, 6, 7, 8, ... or 6, 8, 10, ... the point being that either continuation can be made to accord with an algebraic function that does not contradict the beginning series. So, the question is how do we determine the correct continuation? Are they both correct? I'm open to solutions, how this fits Wittgenstein's overall philosophy or anything else you might find relevant. Cheers
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

ClaudeHooper
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 53

Posted 10/08/09 - 12:11 PM:	#2
In the field of recursion-theoretic inductive inference, a "learning machine" is shown the sequence one number at a time, and at each point it must either keep its old guess or make a new guess as to the function. The learning machine is said to correctly infer the sequence if it only makes a finite number of guesses, and the last guess is correct. For example, here is a learning machine algorithm that correctly infers all polynomial functions: At each point, output the formula for the lowest degree polynomial that fits all of the sequence that is seen so far. There are many theoretical results in this field, summarized in "Inductive Inference: Theory and Methods" by Dana Angluin and Carl Smith ( http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/356914.356918 ). For example, the set of all total recursive functions cannot be correctly inferred by a Turing machine.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 10/08/09 - 12:20 PM:	#3
Following a rule is something we do, not just express. This is the general case of "the meaning of a word is its use".
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/08/09 - 12:27 PM:	#4
I don't know. Most arguments portends W as if it were a dualitic when you require a triumphate analysis. Most arguments fail to extend the obersvational 'decider' from the equation. They completely ignore the fact that for any sentence - there are two inputs for any object conjecture - between the objects themselves and the observer. Holding true to something is entirely different then holding a physical object to another physical object. Even though both physical-object relationsals are the exact same system - derived from the same attribute.
"...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 10/08/09 - 12:50 PM:	#5
Currently the only real way to look at the "there is no private language" is to claim that instead of the existence of an actual private language we have multiple 'independent external language'(independent loci) sub-systems that only interact with each other if there is an equivlant external external language(dependent posit) existent within both independent systems. We can independently claim that any function that creates any singular answer to the first question (that set equation) is correct only if it exists within all indpendendent loci who is observing it.
"...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 10/08/09 - 01:38 PM:	#6
Thanks Claude! That is an angle that would not have occurred to me. Off hand, though I suspect that this approach will not dissolve the paradox except in narrow cases. For example, by analogy, the target function for the learning machine could be the intention of one language speaker to another. In everyday language we constantly guess at the target function of statements. In this case deciding the appropriateness of future applications is problematic, while in the case of a learning machine all we have to do is look at the correct answer. I may be wrong about this, but I'll have to read the article first. thanks again.
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 - 02:03 PM:	#7
Cadrache, I'd like to restrict this thread to the rule paradox and avoid the PLA. Also, could you express your point in simpler language? Your posts confused me.
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 - 02:17 PM:	#8
Banno wrote: Following a rule is something we do, not just express. This is the general case of "the meaning of a word is its use". Doesn't this commit W to a hard line conventionalism? A teacher trains her class to write the sequence 1...10. Any correct continuation will conform to the familiar counting sequence. We know that this is the correct application because that is the way it is done in that class. Now we go to the class next door and read the sequence 1...10 on a students paper. How do we decide that this is also a correct application? We certainly can not appeal to the use next door, since this student isn't part of that milieu. Am I wrong?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 10/08/09 - 02:38 PM:	#9
Gadfly II wrote: Doesn't this commit W to a hard line conventionalism? Yep.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/08/09 - 02:47 PM:	#10
You cannot choose any single answer as being 'correct' if the point of observation observes more then one outcome. If you choose F(x) or G(x) to complete the series - you do not have one that complies with the dictum that 'true and accurate knowledge' is derived from existing knowledge. Choosing one or the other excludes the pre-existing data that there are 'more then one outcome' to the series. If you have your computation modulus which shows all the correct possibilities and you choose just one of them - that is a wrong answer if you do not make notation of which answer you chose. If at any time you do not have each and every possibility mapped out for a system with multiple predicted outcomes you can claim a lesser truth - Or an independant truth. One that only deals with a specific aspect of attribution to the subject. Some 'thing' that is localized. About as low as I can get without using nonsense analagies. Does that help any? Edited by Cadrache on 10/08/09 - 02:57 PM. Reason: added stuff.
"...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.