Apustimelogist

I just don't understand what your view is saying other than ignoring the indeterminacy or saying it just doesn't matter (must be since it hasn't been ...

The brain idea is that it doesn't matter if rules are underdetermined because what causes our behavior is not platonic representations of rules but a ...

That the world exists in an objective way just means it exists when nobody is looking. I see no contradiction in what you quoted of me in this post. I...

I'm just trying to get a grip on what your solution is and how it actually differs from the skeptical one because I am not sure I understand. If your ...

Well, this is not what I said or meant. What I meant basically amounts to: you cannot know the intrinsic nature of the world but you can infer that th...

So your solution is basicallythat we just know things inherently? Or perhaps a functioning brain.

Why not? So how do people know that fire exists?

No, because the inability to know the intrinsic nature of things doesn't mean we cannot interact with their extrinsic consequences and make an inferen...

I wouldn't say the heart pumping blood is any different to saying that my hand is splashing water if I flap my hand in a filled up sink. You can put a...

My question is: in what sense do you mean meaning in the last paragraph? Is this a pre-Wittgenstein Augustinian thing or something else?

I'm not sure it is actually self-refuting. If anything it complements itself in a weird way. It would be self-refuting if there was a determinate mean...

You can't. But from our knowledge of the natural world, what is it that differs sentient creatures from non-sentient things? The activity of complicat...

Yes, I see no conflict with the idea that - all our knowledge is perspective-dependent yet we can make statements like "there is an objective way the ...

Science does not tell us about the intrinsic nature of things, but vicariously through our experiences and other technological extensions of our sense...

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think I have anything additional to say about Hoffman for this paragraph that isn't in recent previous posts ...

I disagree. For instance, I don't need to know what is happening on the slopes of Mount Everest right now to believe there are some definite events ha...

But you just said his view wasn't about certainty? Imo, I don't think you are offering any solution that is inherently different from the sceptical so...

I think its more about trying to be as clear as possible. I think its about the idea that there is an objective way the world is and the mind is embed...

Yes, I think we are basically in agreement, as far as I can tell!

I agree there with wayfarer there is a difference in these examples. In the heart example, what is being talked about is a single anatomical context o...

I honestly don't see inherent differences in any kind of knowledge whether scientific or everyday, just some choose to use vaguer words or reify vague...

I actually agree with much here albeit probably in a weaker sense than the authors. Sometimes these "fallacies" may be genuinely due to the way people...

Well he uses the word himself! That may be a good example; but I was more thinking that with "pointing" at something, it is similarly somewhat underde...

I think my criticism of your criticism is that you assume that consciousness is like a discrete thing that just pops up and then disappears under cert...

Yes but then there is the opposite perspective on these things where someone might say that we do not act blindly. And the reference in ostensive defi...

That people act blindly regardless of indeterminacy.

Well this is all just so antithetical to my viewpoint that I don't even have a response, ha. Yes, I am not suggesting that - we cannot conceive things...

Not at all. Acting blindly is primary. I just mean a view where there was no underdetermination, which is also related to this picture problem you tal...

Because its just acting blindly, and "social discursive practise" is just an extension of that involving many individuals. A picture of meaning would ...

Well, I would say that such rules and understandings are directly enacted within our experience. And so, just as we are unable to present a perspectiv...

Yes, I agree with this description!

Yes, we can say the same for all word meaning, I mean!

This is a general point about meaning and classification so it doesn't really matter where plus-ing came from.

Are you implying that a brain cannot invent or learn to use logic? Surely a position doesn't have to be true to considered a reasonable inference give...

I don't really know what you mean by different order but seems to me from neuroscience and machine learning that any kind of intelligence can be scale...

If natural causation didn't come up with our reasoning abilities then who ever did did a pretty bad job considering all the people who's reasoning err...

Doesn't seem incompatible with anything I said

I wouldn't say its a justification as opposed to an explanation for how people use words without being paralyzed by indeterminacy. I would only add th...

CTM involves mental representations which would determine the connection between a rule and an act, and would prescribe how to act directly from the d...

I don't see what any of this has to do with what was in my quote. I'm talking about people experiencing and justifying beliefs about their own behavio...

Never rated Hoffman. I remember thinking when I read one of the original "fitness beats truth" papers that the model he made was too rudimentary to re...

It's a special case. Changes in brain parameters (e.g. changes in membrane ion channels, synaptic receptor growth / recession, plasticity generally) o...

I think this is ass-backward. He starts with indeterminacy of rules and then uses sociality to explain why we seem to pick out specific concepts for o...

Originally an edit to my post that was replying to . But became too long I thought just make new self-contained post. - By blindly, I mean that if rul...

Without further elaboration/clarification, I am not sure what I see written here is much different from Kripke's sceptical solution. Rules are indeter...

Its appropriate where the description fits; you have agreed with the concept yourself when you said "There is no "One True Feature," to point to for d...

I feel like this response is suspect to the same criticism I have already brought up: Family resemblance isn't intended as a basis for biological theo...

I'm just saying any number of elements are valid since its the logarithmic base and you can choose any base you want without affecting the properties ...

Yes, this is pretty much the point of family resemblances so I just don't really understand what you are criticizing about it when you agree with it. ...

:up: :up: :clap: Pretty nice description, I thought.