Monday 9 December 2013

Another Update

First, I've added a topic list, as you can see from the bar below the blog header. Hopefully that'll make the site a bit easier to navigate - I've found it pretty cumbersome recently when I've been looking to provide links to old posts.

Actually, that reminds me: I must get round to testing/updating the links in the right-hand column. Oh, and while I'm on the subject, don't bother with the Wittgenstein discussion forum that's listed there. It's run by a Quinean naturalist who only thinks he's a Wittgensteinian and can't understand why linking meaning to brain-states isn't something Wittgenstein would've advocated. Seriously! [Actually, turns out this was untrue - see comments below.] Maybe he's Dan Dennett in disguise. Needless to say, I was barred from the forum after a few posts. And, yes, alcohol was probably a factor.

Finally, the next proper post should be up in a few days. It's an overview of the entire discussion of understanding. Hopefully there'll also be a link to a PDF version, as it's a bit long.

11 comments:

  1. I recently read Dennett's Explaining Consciousness and can't understand why he did not just land the obvious knock-down argument against his Cartesian target. It is obvious that all the best (movie) theatres serve popcorn. Exhaustive scientific research has demonstrated that there is no popcorn in the brain. Therefore it is clear that there can be no Cartesian theatre of the mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read it about 10 years ago as part of an MPhil in Consciousness Studies that I started. Alarm bells went off when he argued in the very first chapter that the reason we're not the victims of an Evil Genius-style illusion is that it would be far too much trouble to create. I started to think "Maybe this is not the course for me". Lasted one term.

      Delete
  2. ... sorry to hear about your drinking. But no, I'm not Quinean, and what you have there doesn't state my views. Not sure what you mean by being banned. We've never banned people. However, we did largely abandon the site in favor of a group blog: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/volume-15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,

      The forum was full of posts where you linked meaning, understanding and so on to physical processes. It was also full of posts from people pointing out that this was entirely contrary to Wittgenstein's views - and yet more posts saying it was pointless pointing this out because you wouldn't be shifted on the issue. You say you're not a Quinean naturalist - well fair enough, but that's certainly how you came across to me.

      As for not banning anyone, I posted a question about meaning, you replied, I was critical of your replies and the next thing I knew my posting privilege had been revoked. You might not call that "banning" but it's what happened.

      Having said all that, I hope the group blog is going well. I'll take a look when I get a chance.

      PS, my drinking is great! :)

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I don't even know who you are. I have no recollection of ever discussing with you. People never got banned: at worse, they were put on moderation until the thing that got them there (personal attacks) was under control. Walter Horn and a guy named Glen got this for a short while. We had two lists: one was pretty open, the other was designed for the best contributions. That was thought to accommodate all interests. I have no idea what post you are talking about that caused any problem. I'm completely clueless on this one!

      Also, I have never held the view that meaning was a function of physical processes. If anything, I was fending off misunderstandings that people had of a view I had given. My views are in my book.

      P.S. Your welcome to join our blog. There is no "owner." You can author entries about stuff you author here, if you like. We're just a Motley Crew looking for other Avengers. So feel free to join and participate if you like. Drinkers are very welcome.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Sean. Looks like I've misrepresented you and I apologise for that. As for being blocked (or whatever happened), don't worry about it. One of those things. :)

      Delete
  3. The Brown Bottle meets the Brown Book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't YOU start! :) I'm pretty sure I didn't curse or anything, but I might've been a bit... well - you know. Just look back at some of my comments on your blog!

      And now I'm trying to think of well known philosophers who "liked a drop". Any suggestions?

      Delete
    2. [Puts up sign saying "By order of the management: NO references to Monty Python's Philosophers Song"]

      Delete
    3. Your comments never seem drunken. Maybe I'm reading them wrong.

      Socrates could supposedly drink everyone else under the table, and I can imagine Hume liking a drink. Otherwise I think they have been pretty sober (apart from the drugs, of course).

      Delete
    4. That's good to hear.

      Philosophers on drugs? Well, it would explain David Lewis at least. And now I'm imagining Hilary Putnam's crack-pipe...

      Delete