5 ms·

To be a good Philosopher is to understand the limits and dangers of language. By beginning to treat the concept (e.g something in our heads) of Information as

by ukj 7y ago

To be a good Philosopher is to understand the limits and dangers of language. By beginning to treat the concept (e.g something in our heads) of Information as physical [1] (e.g outside of our heads) we are committing a Reification fallacy [2]. In a way good Philosophers understand the Dao (but don't say it). The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

mistermann 7y ago
> To be a good Philosopher is to understand the limits and dangers of language. This is something I am keenly interested in - I'm going to dig into reification, but any other recommendations/links specifically related to the limits and dangers of language (&/or the related pitfalls inherent in human communication, and therefore perception) would be appreciated.
- ukj 7y ago
  Disclaimer: take everything I say with a pinch of salt and form your own ideas. Philosophy is about the journey, not the destination. With regards to danger this 5 minute video [1] by Stephen Fry conveys a powerful idea. I think all of Western Philosophy in the last 120 or so years has concerned itself with the "linguistic turn" [2]. If you follow the breadcrumbs from Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, Dumett, Chomsky, Quine etc. at a high-level you may begin to observe a common thread, patterns and concepts between Logic and Language which have been crystalized in Programming Language Theory [3]. At the risk of being a little too radical (with some intent of shock value) my view is that Truth is constructed not discovered [4]. This is also an argument Richard Rorty makes in "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity" [5]. Ultimately, language is a tool [6]. The responsible use of any tool (be it language or a gun) is a moral concern and an individual responsibility. For unpacking the question "What is communication?" there's no better starting point than Shannon's "The Mathematical theory of Communication" [7] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity#Part_I:_Contingency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solida... [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78&t=1s [7] https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Communication-Claude-Shannon-ebook/dp/B00VVH4UE8 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Communication-Cla...
  - mistermann 7y ago
    What a great reply, I will watch all of this, thank you. > Truth is constructed not discovered. This is pretty interesting if you think about it, especially from multiple universe or counterfactual perspectives. It's probably mostly true even just here, but not so easy to see.
dwaltrip 7y ago
Why must physical information be outside of our head? It seems to me that the patterns, processes, and representations in our brains are physical information.
- ukj 7y ago
  Because nobody has a good idea where the brain (hardware) stops and where "the mind" (software) starts [1]. And nobody has any idea what "information" is beyond the Mathematical equation which define it. They are just linguistic/conceptual distinctions - useful models, but that is all they are - models. The map is not the territory [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    Hmm, thanks for the response. Obviously, this is a complex topic, but I don't find the points you bring sufficient to imply anything about the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean, if it could be precisely defined in a scientific way.
    - ukj 7y ago
      >the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean It's all just words - Philosophical language games [1]. Physical and non-physical are just words that we, humans made up. They are concepts - useful distinctions. Nothing more. There is no methodical way - no experiment you can perform that can confirm OR falsify the claim "Existence is physical". It's not a scientific claim - it's a philosophical one. It's not even wrong. It can't be wrong because it's an axiom. People who axiomatically assume that existence is "physical" (whatever that means) are called physicalists [2]. >if it could be precisely defined in a scientific way. Big IF. Does the absence of a scientific definition make it non-physical until a definition is produced? Even if it could be precisely defined then all you have produced is a definition of the mind in the language of Mathematics. A Mathematical model. Are Mathematical models "physical"? In 2019 some people even say that the Turing Machine is a model of the human mind. Are Mathematical models physical? If the mind is indeed a Turing Machine, does that mean the mind is physical? Myself, I am not a physicalist. I am not a non-physicalist either. I am a Model-dependent realist [3]. But more than that - I am a Linguistic Determinist [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

by ukj 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> To be a good Philosopher is to understand the limits and dangers of language. This is something I am keenly interested in - I'm going to dig into reification, but any other recommendations/links specifically related to the limits and dangers of language (&/or the related pitfalls inherent in human communication, and therefore perception) would be appreciated.

ukj 7y ago
Disclaimer: take everything I say with a pinch of salt and form your own ideas. Philosophy is about the journey, not the destination. With regards to danger this 5 minute video [1] by Stephen Fry conveys a powerful idea. I think all of Western Philosophy in the last 120 or so years has concerned itself with the "linguistic turn" [2]. If you follow the breadcrumbs from Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, Dumett, Chomsky, Quine etc. at a high-level you may begin to observe a common thread, patterns and concepts between Logic and Language which have been crystalized in Programming Language Theory [3]. At the risk of being a little too radical (with some intent of shock value) my view is that Truth is constructed not discovered [4]. This is also an argument Richard Rorty makes in "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity" [5]. Ultimately, language is a tool [6]. The responsible use of any tool (be it language or a gun) is a moral concern and an individual responsibility. For unpacking the question "What is communication?" there's no better starting point than Shannon's "The Mathematical theory of Communication" [7] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity#Part_I:_Contingency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solida... [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78&t=1s [7] https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Communication-Claude-Shannon-ebook/dp/B00VVH4UE8 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Communication-Cla...
- mistermann 7y ago
  What a great reply, I will watch all of this, thank you. > Truth is constructed not discovered. This is pretty interesting if you think about it, especially from multiple universe or counterfactual perspectives. It's probably mostly true even just here, but not so easy to see.

dwaltrip 7y ago

Why must physical information be outside of our head? It seems to me that the patterns, processes, and representations in our brains are physical information.

ukj 7y ago
Because nobody has a good idea where the brain (hardware) stops and where "the mind" (software) starts [1]. And nobody has any idea what "information" is beyond the Mathematical equation which define it. They are just linguistic/conceptual distinctions - useful models, but that is all they are - models. The map is not the territory [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Hmm, thanks for the response. Obviously, this is a complex topic, but I don't find the points you bring sufficient to imply anything about the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean, if it could be precisely defined in a scientific way.
  - ukj 7y ago
    >the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean It's all just words - Philosophical language games [1]. Physical and non-physical are just words that we, humans made up. They are concepts - useful distinctions. Nothing more. There is no methodical way - no experiment you can perform that can confirm OR falsify the claim "Existence is physical". It's not a scientific claim - it's a philosophical one. It's not even wrong. It can't be wrong because it's an axiom. People who axiomatically assume that existence is "physical" (whatever that means) are called physicalists [2]. >if it could be precisely defined in a scientific way. Big IF. Does the absence of a scientific definition make it non-physical until a definition is produced? Even if it could be precisely defined then all you have produced is a definition of the mind in the language of Mathematics. A Mathematical model. Are Mathematical models "physical"? In 2019 some people even say that the Turing Machine is a model of the human mind. Are Mathematical models physical? If the mind is indeed a Turing Machine, does that mean the mind is physical? Myself, I am not a physicalist. I am not a non-physicalist either. I am a Model-dependent realist [3]. But more than that - I am a Linguistic Determinist [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism