tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post5443602164621165188..comments2024-03-11T10:32:34.217+00:00Comments on Conservative Tendency: Meaning and informationMark Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-70626556283138211062011-12-05T09:20:21.925+00:002011-12-05T09:20:21.925+00:00I had a colleague who also favoured a no-theory th...I had a colleague who also favoured a no-theory theory of meaning. It led him to have a no-theory theory of everything. There are no things, he thought. Things are just fictional shadows of fictional meanings.<br /><br />There was no room for physicalism in his non-world!Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-6111814032828655422011-12-05T04:23:54.159+00:002011-12-05T04:23:54.159+00:00And, Alan, you talk about Lloyd's theory of me...And, Alan, you talk about Lloyd's theory of meaning, but I don't think he has one. I don't think we need one. The best book I ever read on this was Stephen Schiffer's <em>Remnants of meaning</em> which gives up on trying to find a satisfactory theory and settles for a no-theory theory of meaning. <br /><br />You're just trying to draw me into that conceptual torture chamber, Searle's Chinese room!Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-41336337571509470302011-12-05T04:04:08.187+00:002011-12-05T04:04:08.187+00:00Alan, I'm saying that people's religious e...Alan, I'm saying that people's religious etc. beliefs will inform their approaches to ethics and metaphysics and the philosophies of language, logic and mind. I'm not saying they all explicitly attack physicalism or explicitly defend anti-physicalism. Often the commitments are implicit.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-88863085208429005302011-12-04T21:59:38.623+00:002011-12-04T21:59:38.623+00:00If I understand your account of Lloyd's theory...If I understand your account of Lloyd's theory of meaning, it amounts to saying that meaning is simply syntax and semantics is not needed. For him (and you?) the idea of "interpreted information" merely means "instructions mechanically followed". There is no semantic interpretation happening. Is this what he is saying?<br /><br />It has a few problems!Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-88142528734066375312011-12-04T21:51:53.952+00:002011-12-04T21:51:53.952+00:00"The meaning of meaning" was a 1923 book..."The meaning of meaning" was a 1923 book title by Ogden and Richards. Maybe that was what Mr Glew was writing about?<br /><br />Wikipedia says it has been in print ever since! That's impressive.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-3774472821600586012011-12-04T21:41:04.086+00:002011-12-04T21:41:04.086+00:00You're right that these people are religious (...You're right that these people are religious (I didn't know about Nozick). But are they anti-physicalist? Yes, in the cases of Geach and Popper.<br /><br />I can't think of anywhere that the others have criticised physicalism. Some are ethicists, not metaphysicians.<br /><br />Rescher is a "conceptual idealist", not a metaphysical idealist, I believe.<br /><br />You might say that these people ought to be anti-physicalist if they are to be coherently religious. Maybe...Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-46163072550216733882011-12-04T08:21:14.698+00:002011-12-04T08:21:14.698+00:00CONSVLTVS, if indeed information is fundamental, t...CONSVLTVS, if indeed information is fundamental, this could be seen to have theological implications, I suppose, though both Seth Lloyd and Vlatko Vedral insist that information is physical.<br /><br />I see the new approach as potentially giving us a fuller and truer account of reality. The old scientific approaches tended to be tied to an old-fashioned and discredited materialism which left a space which was filled for many by panpsychism or philosophical idealism.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-25159741191168394542011-12-04T07:32:25.924+00:002011-12-04T07:32:25.924+00:00Alan, I see things rather differently. A few more ...Alan, I see things rather differently. A few more names ...<br /><br />Karl Popper was a Cartesian dualist. Hilary Putnam is a religious Jew, as was Robert Nozick. Peter Geach and Elizabeth Anscombe, Michael Dummett, Alastair MacIntyre, Nicholas Rescher and Charles Taylor are/were all Roman Catholic.<br /><br />And Wikipedia calls Rescher one of the first of an <em>increasing</em> number of contemporary exponents of philosophical idealism.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-85799695572544503572011-12-03T15:01:28.269+00:002011-12-03T15:01:28.269+00:00The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the less...The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the less I understand it. Fundamentally, for a layman in that area, much of quantum physics has to be taken on authority. Even the authorities themselves do not pretend to understand what is going on (e.g, Feynman). So, when I read recently that the universe itself seems to be made up of information, I had to file it away with all the other challenging concepts from the modern physics lab. Still, if true, would that idea have theological implications?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-17408747628826764032011-12-03T05:29:05.393+00:002011-12-03T05:29:05.393+00:00Mark, physicalists outnumber anti-physicalists by ...Mark, physicalists outnumber anti-physicalists by about five to one, in my rough estimate.<br /><br />The only well-known anti-physicalists that I can think of are David Chalmers and Richard Swinburne. On the other side we have Dennett, Davidson, Smart, Armstrong, Lewis, Rorty, Searle, Churchland and Churchland, Kim and Fodor.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-17282159700751198192011-12-03T01:20:36.671+00:002011-12-03T01:20:36.671+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-30793821334484746702011-12-02T09:51:48.514+00:002011-12-02T09:51:48.514+00:00Yes, sophont1107, language is at the heart of all ...Yes, sophont1107, language is at the heart of all things social and reflects levels of social cohesion, values, etc. And there is no guarantee that our languages will continue to work as well as they have. Now English has the added stresses of being a global language as well as - in its various varieties - a first language for many geographically, socially and culturally disparate groups. <br /><br />I agree with you that the exploration of meanings through the analysis of what is said and written is a valuable activity but I don't know if it can have a decisive effect or halt the insidious influence of political correctness.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4964847228497363438.post-53880407538463383212011-12-01T18:19:15.676+00:002011-12-01T18:19:15.676+00:00A great deal of philosophy seems to be stuck on th...A great deal of philosophy seems to be stuck on the idea of purpose and existence.<br />The age old favourite, prove you exist (based on Descartes' efforts) still troubles some as they strive to prove something on the basis of the approving party's obnoxiousness and facetiousness.<br />The exploration of meaning as in the interpretation of what is meant in our communication is valid and useful. Especially in the age of LOLz and increasingly poor grammar habits (I actually had someone criticize my criticism of their post ona chat site because they 'nu wat tey wur sayin adn i had no write to censur tehm'<br />If we drift beyond a certain point in our shared rules of meaning and use, we drift beyond a shared language. Even a shared mindset. Like Orwell's Newspeak Dictionary writers said, "a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com