But don't we have infinite grounds for telling how to take a thing? As finite creatures, we may not be aware of any of these grounds, but that does not mean the grounds are not there. For example, to know how to take “plus” we have the simple notion and the algorithm presented to us; then we can look in the world of arithmetic, for one, for the ground. We see subtraction and addition, the two being the same thing, as helpful notions that helps one to intuit a ground. There is also the notion of counting, where undoubtedly, the idea for the meaning of addition came from. We have a way to check our notion of “plus” based on our understanding of counting. We see that the total count of group A and then of group B must be the same as our count over the two groups. Thus, count A and B together and get c. Then a + b = c. To check ask, Does a = c - b? Does b = c - a? Now it is true that only those who make a study of most any particular thing “understand” it to any extent. But it is possible to understand its behaviors and properties, even if we can never understand its essence, reason for being, or true nature. That is, one cannot fully understand a thing that is known empirically, but one can form an analogy of it that will serve as an intuition. And non-empirical facts are often defined by man and are thus easier to fathom.
Question on the definition of necessity: Let's say that a god decides to flip a coin one time and use the result to choose the structure of the universe. suppose that if god had flipped the coin infinitely many times, it would have come up heads by pure chance, so that in all possible worlds, the resulting universe would be based on the coin coming up heads. Would the fact that the coin was heads be necessary?
The Quus question is really stupid. Addition has other properties that must hold for all operation. It doesn't just depend on the results any particular operation. For example, for all X : X + 1 > X. This doesn't hold for Quus. So I've never been doing Quus when I meant addition. The same thing probably goes for Blue and Grue, but it's harder to demonstrate. 2:05
Meaning is tied to consciousness. Consciousness is the ground for meaning. The written word or rune or symbol is made for the eye or other sense. There is no difference between a gesture or sound made by a human and a symbol. Their use is of the same kind- a signal to others. Meaning is acquired by human interactions with each other and the world, and is thus a habit of groups. The quandary Wittgenstein highlights is one involving computation. Does a calculator know the meaning of its symbols? No. A calculator has no consciousness of its own; it cannot learn from others "through consciousness". It does what it is built to do by those with consciousness. In and of itself it has not acquired the meaning of the runes on its screen. What a computer is doing is following rules: algorithms. It cannot do otherwise. There is no way for a computer to initiate quus not plus. Why? Because a computer has no algorithm capable of mimicking consciousness. For only consciousness can "recognize" something NEW. A computer has no free will: it has no open future. The future is completely determined for a computer. Thus there will never be a quus. Quus can only be encountered by means open to it: consciousness, the linguistic mind, or some other context processing existence. Text processing equipment will always be vulnerable to mistakes of meaning. Because no algorithm, even though it can be expressed as symbols, has access to consciousness. Every algorithm is, in fact, only a structural operation in a computer. Not everything has an algorithm and not all algorithms have a corresponding structural operation. How then is context and meaning accessed by consciousness? By a structure or web of structures in the brain? Or by means non-structural or a combination of structural and non-structural? What gives us access to function? Will?
Suppose socrates has disovered game theory and prisoner dilemma, the linguistic expression prisoner dilemma refers to or means the tought [prisoner dilemma ]. Has socrates acquired that meaning through interactions with other individuals ?
@@dennisfrancisblewett6480 Understanding requires both epimetheus: reflection or afterthought, and prometheus: reason or forethought. Reflection on the past informing "action" in the future. The context of a past or future is subjective to most living beings. To humans who go through parenting and indoctrination through schooling there are "objective" or general points of reference. How can we tell the difference between authentic vs inauthentic "understanding"? Simply by examining the source, if it eats or sleeps. If you mean by text or sign then the test is context: additional facts. If there is no precise syllogization then something's off
Enlightening lecture. Much love from Greece professor Bonevac!
thanks sir for uploading these lessons
Thank you so much for sharing!
But don't we have infinite grounds for telling how to take a thing? As finite creatures, we may not be aware of any of these grounds, but that does not mean the grounds are not there. For example, to know how to take “plus” we have the simple notion and the algorithm presented to us; then we can look in the world of arithmetic, for one, for the ground. We see subtraction and addition, the two being the same thing, as helpful notions that helps one to intuit a ground. There is also the notion of counting, where undoubtedly, the idea for the meaning of addition came from. We have a way to check our notion of “plus” based on our understanding of counting. We see that the total count of group A and then of group B must be the same as our count over the two groups. Thus, count A and B together and get c. Then a + b = c. To check ask, Does a = c - b? Does b = c - a?
Now it is true that only those who make a study of most any particular thing “understand” it to any extent. But it is possible to understand its behaviors and properties, even if we can never understand its essence, reason for being, or true nature. That is, one cannot fully understand a thing that is known empirically, but one can form an analogy of it that will serve as an intuition. And non-empirical facts are often defined by man and are thus easier to fathom.
Question on the definition of necessity: Let's say that a god decides to flip a coin one time and use the result to choose the structure of the universe. suppose that if god had flipped the coin infinitely many times, it would have come up heads by pure chance, so that in all possible worlds, the resulting universe would be based on the coin coming up heads. Would the fact that the coin was heads be necessary?
The Quus question is really stupid. Addition has other properties that must hold for all operation. It doesn't just depend on the results any particular operation. For example, for all X : X + 1 > X. This doesn't hold for Quus. So I've never been doing Quus when I meant addition. The same thing probably goes for Blue and Grue, but it's harder to demonstrate. 2:05
nice background for folding cloths
15:47 bookmark
Meaning is tied to consciousness. Consciousness is the ground for meaning.
The written word or rune or symbol is made for the eye or other sense. There is no difference between a gesture or sound made by a human and a symbol. Their use is of the same kind- a signal to others.
Meaning is acquired by human interactions with each other and the world, and is thus a habit of groups.
The quandary Wittgenstein highlights is one involving computation. Does a calculator know the meaning of its symbols? No. A calculator has no consciousness of its own; it cannot learn from others "through consciousness". It does what it is built to do by those with consciousness. In and of itself it has not acquired the meaning of the runes on its screen.
What a computer is doing is following rules: algorithms. It cannot do otherwise. There is no way for a computer to initiate quus not plus. Why? Because a computer has no algorithm capable of mimicking consciousness. For only consciousness can "recognize" something NEW. A computer has no free will: it has no open future. The future is completely determined for a computer. Thus there will never be a quus.
Quus can only be encountered by means open to it: consciousness, the linguistic mind, or some other context processing existence. Text processing equipment will always be vulnerable to mistakes of meaning. Because no algorithm, even though it can be expressed as symbols, has access to consciousness. Every algorithm is, in fact, only a structural operation in a computer. Not everything has an algorithm and not all algorithms have a corresponding structural operation.
How then is context and meaning accessed by consciousness? By a structure or web of structures in the brain? Or by means non-structural or a combination of structural and non-structural? What gives us access to function? Will?
Suppose socrates has disovered game theory and prisoner dilemma, the linguistic expression prisoner dilemma refers to or means the tought [prisoner dilemma ].
Has socrates acquired that meaning through interactions with other individuals ?
How can I tell whether or not you're just following rules rather than engaging in understanding?
@@dennisfrancisblewett6480 Understanding requires both epimetheus: reflection or afterthought, and prometheus: reason or forethought. Reflection on the past informing "action" in the future.
The context of a past or future is subjective to most living beings. To humans who go through parenting and indoctrination through schooling there are "objective" or general points of reference.
How can we tell the difference between authentic vs inauthentic "understanding"? Simply by examining the source, if it eats or sleeps. If you mean by text or sign then the test is context: additional facts. If there is no precise syllogization then something's off