Luke

I was going to try and whittle it down (but wth), and there are plenty more, but some of my favourites: Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back 12 Angry Men...

When you say "the feeling of pain is not a reified object", it sounds like you're denying that people really have pains. The feeling of pain is not me...

My mistake. However, you've been saying for a few pages that the use of the word cannot give us any reified object, but now you say that there is alwa...

I don't follow why there cannot be a feeling of pain associated. What is "what the word means"? If I tell someone that I'm in pain, there's no feeling...

You did. And in your previous post you indicated that there is never any feeling of pain involved with the use of the word 'pain', as I quoted. Is the...

In your previous post you said the opposite: Therefore, it's difficult to get clear on your position.

Sure, one use it to say that he - someone else - is in pain. And Wittgenstein says you can doubt that. But you can't doubt it when you're in pain. The...

You agreed that people have pains. Did you mean only that people have words? Your "agreement" that people have pains seems to be no more than that peo...

Yes, a word that is often defined as a feeling or sensation. The full quote may help: You have agreed that it makes no sense for one to doubt that the...

Then it is not only about the use of words; it is also about actually having pain and being unable to doubt it. Whether or not this implies a "thinkin...

Why is "I doubt I'm in pain" nonsensical? If "the internal coherence of language" is about logic or logical necessity, then so is the use of the word ...

That’s a great article. Thanks for sharing! :up:

I don't see that he's only talking about "the internal coherence of the language". It does not seem to be by definition that it makes no sense for me ...

Still crickets to my latest reply? I guess you couldn't find any quotes to support your memory failure. The list of instructions either gives us the r...

Where or when did I make this error? Do you have a quote? I think your memory is failing you, @"Banno", This was your error, not mine. You were the on...

If, in the OP, you used the word "mean" to mean what I think you mean by it, and if its meaning has not changed in the meantime, then this means that ...

Which one is it? That "folk ought restrict themselves to not saying anything more about the ineffable than that it is ineffable" or that folk cannot c...

But that's saying something about it, according to you.

One does play patience by oneself, so what do you consider to be the point of this remark? Presumably, that sensations are private. Claiming that some...

It's been 11 days so I guess no response to my last post is forthcoming. You appear to consider Wittgenstein a supporter of your position, yet you pro...

I am trying to understand the test that brought about the results that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between smelling coffee and some common...

Does what too?

I never said it was some collection of neural activity.. I can only imagine that the findings that there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence comes from ...

In addition to communication, what’s common to many instances of the collection ‘smelling coffee’ is the smelling of coffee.

FWIW, "the deaf" also use language. And I wouldn't say "the dumb" in public.

Is this your response to my questions? I can possibly overlook all that you said about knowledge on page 1, including the set of instructions specifie...

Does that mean you are going to address my questions?

Do you intend to address these questions, Banno? I understand if you don't since it took you over 20 pages to acknowledge the contradiction I pointed ...

Sure we can make distinctions. I just thought we were discussing the possibility of ineffability according to its common definition, rather than your ...

"Ineffable" doesn't mean "not teachable". As per the definition I gave earlier, it means "ncapable of being expressed or described in words"; i.e. "no...

Wittgenstein also maintains in his later work that some knowledge is ineffable. From PI:

You said that we do talk about sensations. However, Wittgenstein says of his beetle that "The thing in the box doesn’t belong to the language-game at ...

Do we talk about them? Or do they drop out of the conversation as irrelevant?

I've never argued against the fact that "we do have to actually do something in order to learn". I take it that a person with a copy of 'The Dummy's G...

Okay, so what was the original intent if it wasn't about knowledge?

Do you believe it's impossible for someone to learn something only by telling them how? If I tell you how to turn the television on by saying "press t...

Yeah, I get "distracted" when you make contradictory claims.

Why are you asking me to suppose this? How about you reply to my previous post instead? But fine, I'll play along. Firstly, what counts as a "bike rid...

Allow me to try a different tack which may clarify the issue. Let's say I agree with you and @"Banno" that nothing is ineffable. Firstly, let's define...

Why not simply retract the claim that you made about incomplete knowledge back on page one (which I've quoted ad nauseum) since I've demonstrated it t...

That has nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE. You made a KNOWLEDGE claim. You said that the KNOWLEDGE (know how) provided by the instructions is incomplete n...

Then why can we not know how to ride a bike despite having a list of instructions to whatever detail we desire? As you said yourself: You say that no ...

You seem to keep forgetting that we are discussing tacit knowledge. I have never denied that tacit knowledge can be made explicit. The question I've p...

First explain in what sense either of them are tacit knowledge. These seem like things which - if known - could be included in the explicit instructio...

Not stateable = ineffable.

LOL. I must not understand my question because you don’t? Yes, what you described does not answer my question. The reason is because I asked about tac...

Sounds more like a lack of knowledge than any tacit knowledge. :roll:

That can be determined by finally answering my question: if tacit knowledge is effable, then why is it not included in the explicit instructions in th...