Philosophy of language and mind

okay so we're going to talk about the philosophy of language and mind in this the last lecture and then if you remember last week I asked if there were some of you who would like to stay on to look at the online courses and what I'm going to do is I'm going to run through what the online course looks like what you would have to do the sort of courses there are and how it works so I'll actually go online and do that for you so you can see exactly what it's like but you don't have to stay for that if you don't want to so at 3:30 you can even go and have a cup of coffee or stay on if you feel like it I'm not sure it'll be half an hour but something in that region okay so let's look at the language and mind a philosophy of language is literally the philosophy of language I think I've mentioned to you before that the thing about philosophy is because it's content-neutral logic the methodology we use it doesn't matter in what area you use logic language is one of the areas that you can do a philosophy of language and that's exactly what languages so that it looks and things like what is meaning because the thing about language is the words and sentences and what have you claimed to have meaning well what is meaning exactly a very very interesting and deeply philosophical question how do words refer to objects so I told you that the photographer's name was Richard okay how does the word Richard which is just a sound after all how does it refer to him how does it do that is it some sort of magical and if I mention Madonna okay I've done it without the person being here but you still know who I mean you know to whom I'm referring when I say Madonna some of you will anyway okay and another question and related to those two is how do we actually understand each other it's the way I understand you different from the way I understand the physical world so if I watch two billiard balls interacting and I explain them in terms of cause and effect and I watch to review conversing do I explain that to in terms of cause and effect or is that an explanation of a different kind okay so those are the questions that we look at many more questions in the philosophy of language but those are the three I'm going to have a quick look at today and then we'll go on to mind so let's look first at meaning so so how does language have meaning and all that is involved in language is the sounds that I'm making now which are hitting your ears I could be speaking in French and they could be hitting your ears without there being mild French is a bad example isn't it let's say Japanese okay and the sounds would be hitting your ears and and there would be no understanding there would that my words would have no meaning to you and lesser you spoke Japanese and I spoke Japanese as well and I could write on paper I mean I often write on the flip charts your reading writing on here how do these squiggles on paper have meaning to you how come you look at the word elephant or you hear the word elephant and you're immediately thinking of the animal elephant how does that happen and it's not just cause and effect either it's not just that you've associated that word with that animal because you can do it without the animal there okay there's more to meaning than just cause and effect one explanation of meaning is that we should think of meaning as the conditions of truth and falsehood so think about you're trying to explain the meaning of the word cat to a child and I think used this example before so I think you're picking it up straight away I hope what would you do you'd point out lots of different cats and some of them black some of them would be gingers some of them would be fat cats and some thin cats and some tabby and and so on some old some kittens no maybe not kittens and what you'd be hoping is that the child would abstract away the essential katniss of all the examples you're pointing to wouldn't you that's what you're trying to do and then what would you do to test the child's understanding that the the childhood acquired the meaning of the word cat how would you do that show another picture and what okay and what go on carry on carry on that won't do it you say is that a pussycat and you might say what is that okay B you'd probably start with is that a pussycat we're talking about teaching the child you've got to give us a few clues to start off with I reckon okay and what would you move wait for you said you've shown us a picture of a horse okay no okay so in testing the understanding that the child has got you'll show it pictures of cats and say is that a pussycat and hope to elicit the answer yes you'll show pictures of dogs and other animals and hope to elicit the answer no you'll sometimes say what is that and hope to elicit the answer a cat and so on so what are you actually testing for here well what you're testing for is that the child has grasped the conditions under which that is a cat is true and that is a cat is false do you see what I mean so you showed a picture of a cat and say is this a pussycat and it says yes thereby or you show it a picture of a cat and say what's that and it says it's a at and it's demonstrating that it knows the conditions under which this is a cat is true and then you show the dog and you say is this a pussycat and the child says no it's demonstrating that it's understood the conditions under which this is a cat is false do you see what so lots of people have thought that if you ask the question what is meaning the answer is meaning are the conditions of truth asari meaning is the conditions of truth and a falsehood of a sentence okay you've got to have the earth and falsehood in there because if you shirt the dog and it says this is a cat then it clearly hasn't got it has it it's not understood yet so what it's got to grasp in order to understand to grasp the meaning of the sentence this is a cat it's got to know the conditions under which this is a gat is true and this is a cat is false and once it's got those you think it now knows the meaning don't you there isn't anything more the child has to do to show that it has understood the meaning so lots of people have thought of the meaning as conditions of truth and falsity that's what we're grabbing and notice that meaning can't come apart from understanding to know the meaning of a sentence is to understand that sentence isn't it okay of so meaning if you construct a theory of meaning what you're doing is constructing a theory of what it is for people who speak a specific language to understand something okay so meaning and understanding go together okay so we're asking how does language have meaning we've got a hypothesis here maybe meaning constitutes the conditions of truth and falsehood but then we've got another question here well is that right because if I write a sentence like this Richard is a photographer I'm trying to make people forget you Richard okay if I write Richard is a photographer actually no I'm sorry that's actually a very bad example because he's here and you know what I'm talking about what I want to write is John is tall okay you understand that sentence don't you you understand what the meaning of that sentence is do you somebody said no no they went a bit to it anyway okay you answer what that means but now tell me it's truth value is it true or false it could be either couldn't it you don't know the truth value of that but but how can you know the meaning of something without being too able to determine whether it's true or false let me I'll start again how can you know the meaning of something without being able to determine whether it's true or false there is an answer to this question now I'll tell it to you in a minute but let's see if you can get it first and why not why can't you I mean that was that was very good but why and which information do you need you need to know what this word here refers to what else do you need to know what is tall means as well okay and what I've done here is I've written on the board a type of sentence and we're now talking about sentences of this type what I'm not doing here is using this sentence do you see what I mean that's why it's got to have quotes around because it's just a type of sentence isn't it it's a sentence that could be used to tell you something so this sentence and the reason I suddenly realized it was a bad example and if you see why it was a bad example you've understood what I'm saying okay this was a bad example because I said riches as a photographer having just introduced you to Richard the photographer so of course you can determine the truth value of that can't you so I wasn't I was mentioning that but I had just used it and therefore I confused you whereas this one I'm only mentioning I'm not using at all and it's only a sentence in use that has a truth value does that make sense hold on don't glue one two you can understand abstract sentences the don't refer to particular individual they have an internal coherence and obey the rules of grammar well in effect that's what I'm saying this is a type of sentence which which has a cape it has meaning but it doesn't have full meaning does it because you can't determine the truth value what you understand here this is a sentence type that could be used to say something okay it could be used to say something but it isn't being used to say something I'm just talking about it so I think Ana that's what you meant but but to use the technical terminology this is a sentence type not an abstract sentence a sentence type which could be used to say something and if I had anyone called John here no it must be the only room in this number of people in it hasn't got somebody called John that is so unfair I'm going to call you John sir yes you okay would you like to stand up this is John okay and now I'm going to use the sentence I'm going to say John is tall okay now I'm using the sentence and can you determine the truth value now of course you need to understand what tall is but but most people I think would say yes probably hear what height are you John five nine I know well we've I think that counselors tall okay but you see the difference between the meaning of a sentence that's not being used and the meaning of a sentence that is being used in the first place you grasp a meaning but it's not enough to determine the truth value in the second case you do grasp the meaning and you know enough to determine the truth value so in the first place you know only the conditions of truth and falsehood okay so you know a meaning that consists in nothing more than the conditions under which this sentence would be true are you with me whereas the minute I tell you to whom it refers assuming you all understand what is tall means you can then determine the truth value so if you know the truth conditions plus the context you can determine the truth value okay so some people have said that meaning isn't the conditions of truth and falsity it's actually at the use of the conditions of truth and falsity if you see what I mean so though this if I write that on the board without using it at all that doesn't have any meaning what you're grasping and grasping what at me it's very difficult to not say what it means is not the meaning okay you're doing you're grasping what it could be used to mean but not its meaning it's only when I actually make it concrete at a sudden I'm picking up your vocabulary it's only when I tell you to what John refers or to whom John refers that you then have proper meaning so some people talk about weak and strong meaning and some people say that weak meaning this meaning the meaning the way I'm not using it but just mentioning it isn't meaning at all and other people say this is meaning but there's meaning and there's use and they're two different things I you had a question personal aren't slapping link I'm sorry this is a specialist meaning of the word use because you're using some example no I'm oh I'm using it as an example but I'm not using the sentence to express something yeah which is why I've got the quotes around it because it's very important that if I I can if I write that and that of which of those could I say it has five letters I can't say what it says because then once it's chair and the other says chair with quotes around it okay of which of these could I say it has five letters the bottom one and only the bottom one because here I'm using it to mean chair and here because they're quotes around I'm talking about the word anti if I say chair with quotes around I'm not talking about chairs at all am i it's very difficult to do this orally of course but if I say chair has five letters that's a grammatical sentence isn't it whereas if I say chair has five letters is that a grammatical sentence no it isn't and that's because I I'm not making it clear that I'm mentioning the word chair not using the word chair so there's a huge difference between usin mention and incidentally hardly anyone these days understands that quotes are used very sparingly and often wrongly and actually it changes the meaning hugely so going back to this when I first used Johnny's I would have used when I first put that sentence there I wasn't using it I was mentioning it and then I was talking about it and then when I used it to say John is tall you could then determine the truth-value couldn't you and what point is there - meaning if you can't determine truth value in the end so if I after a sentence of Russian now have I given you a it's a meaningful sentence but are you able to determine the truth value not unless you speak Russian so the meaning that is completely useless to you it sounds if you don't grasp the meaning and while you don't trust me at all sentence is meaningful but you don't understand it well what do you think what do other people think okay I'm saying if I'm talking about John is tall in order to teach the verb to be am i using or mentioning the sentence John is tall I'd probably be I mean actually I could do both but if I'm saying John is tall John and Susan are tall John Susan and no I am - can't decline the verb what am i doing there I'm teaching grammar but am I using the sentence John is tall not mentioning it I'm mentioning it aren't I in I'm using the mention of it to teach grammar see what I mean I'm using the mention of the sentence to teach grammar I am not using the sentence John is tall I do not intend to convey to you the information that John is tall I intend to convey to you the information that is is the correct got it okay um right okay so we've got two hypotheses here about what meaning is one is that meaning is the conditions of truth and falsity of a sentence so when you grasp the meaning you grasp the conditions under which the sentence would be true or false if it were used okay so you look at John as tall and you grasp the meaning because you've grasped the conditions under which a sentence like that if it were used would be true or false or you say well actually it's a necessary condition of grasping meaning that you can determine the truth value so you don't actually grasp the meaning of this at all you only grasp the meaning when I say John is tall okay so one theory is truth condition theory so theories of meaning one is truth condition theory and the second is use theory and you may be interested to hear that both of them are attributable to other people as well but pre-eminently Wittgenstein the earlier Vic in Stine put forward truth condition theory the later Wittgenstein put forward use theory and he thought that if you if you accepted use theory you had to deny truth condition theory and vice-versa but in fact many people and I'm one of them think that actually you need both in order to have a full theory of meaning and if you draw a representation of meaning it's going to look something like this and I may already have done this for you at some point do you remember this is a representation of meaning first we've got the strict and literal truth conditions truth and falsity condition as I say through two conditions for short but you should always hear falsity conditions as well is that yeah okay can you still see the screen that's the how about that better okay so I've got several concentric circles here and in the center I've written strict and little truth conditions so the door is shut now you've all understood that haven't you you know what have you understood they're the use or the meaning of the sentence of sorry the the truth conditions or the the use of the sentence the door is shut truth conditions you've you've understood how that sentence could be used if I used it okay so I'll now use it the door it's not the case the door is shut okay and so I've used that sentence embedded in another sentence because I wanted to utter something true but let me now out of something false the door is shut was I using or mentioning that sentence I was using it then wasn't I and you can determine that it's false okay so well I shot it certainly I say I will okay now I can operate on that sentence in various ways I can say shut the door or I can say it's the door shut or I can say what else going to say the door is shut in each case I'm using a different tone anti asset or ik tone a little final case interrogative tone imperative tone etc so I'm operating on that sentence to change what I'm doing with it do you see what I mean I'm using it in different ways here so you've got one sentence or one set of strict and literal truth conditions plus a number of operations on that to change what I'm doing with it then I've got sorry that was force not that's the force with which I'm using the sentence not the tone tone is something different I mean it is the door shut yet okay that's tone wasn't very good I'm not a very good actress but do you see what I mean I'm being sarcastic aren't I or something like that tone would so tone can sometimes change things a lot I am NOT angry okay what have I just said you the meaning you will have got from that is that I'm angry won't you it's not at all that you know I'm using the strict and literal tooth conditions with an asset or ik force and a tone of that makes it absolutely clear that you understands the complete opposite of what the strict and literal truth conditions are okay so I can use those strict and literal truth conditions in many different ways depending on how I vary the force and the tone and here's another one ask me whether so-and-so is a good philosopher asked me whether sorry what's your name Peter asked me Peter's a good philosopher he's be very good philosopher his handwriting is excellent that'll teach you to say what you said earlier about us what have I just said exactly you've all understood immediately haven't you but have you understood because I used the strict and literal truth conditions in the normal way no the fact is the context changed everything didn't it but would you have understood what I said if you hadn't understood the strict and literal truth conditions know what you needed was the whole thing didn't you you needed to know that I was answering a question of with a certain meaning with an answer that would be a perfectly good answer to a different question but which is a insultingly irrelevant answer to this particular question and therefore it means something different the irrelevance alert alerts you to something some change of meaning if you like so if this is a representation of meaning some people think that this is meaning all on its own that's the truth condition theory of meaning and other people think that you've got to have all of this before you have meaning so that's the early bit constrain the truth condition theory and that's the late Vic and Stein the use theory and then there are people like me who think you've got to have both but actually you've got to understand a set of strict and literal truth conditions before you can then operate on those strict and literal truth conditions in all the different ways to generate strong meaning so I call that and sort of many other philosophers this is not not just me weak meaning and this is strong meaning so meaning is ambiguous the word meaning is ambiguous and there are lots of different meanings of the word meaning sadly but what I've done is gone through we've got question how do how do language how does language have meaning at all how two squiggles how do sounds have meaning one responses meanings are conditions of truth and falsity problem with that is we doesn't distinguish between use and meaning so other people think that meaning is use and how do things like context contribute well what they can suggest they might suggest that one or other of those theories is true or they could suggest that actually both are needed before you get full meaning because you certainly wouldn't have understood his handwriting is excellent if you hadn't understood both the strict and literal truth conditions and the context would you you had to get both of those two to understand and there are all sorts of other examples like that if I'm searching for a name here somebody give me a name what's your name yep Eleanor if Eleanor had been late every single time to this lecture and 10 minutes she runs in and slams the door as usual and I say hello Eleanor early again okay what have I said that she's late so you know that the tone of sarcasm together with the context that you knew turns the meaning round again and you know that because you are English speakers you understand the meaning of English okay um it's certainly the case that you you have to be in England there's any being in English speaking of being American speaker and there are different contexts different tones different forces why don't think the different forces I mean in lots of different languages they use different conventions to do the same thing so this is where the fact that i'm maanna Glatt doesn't help me but can anyone give me an example of where yes that's an interested okay that shows you that irish is it irish is different from english okay yeah good one and there are all sorts of others that year if you know i'm sorry i can't think of a single example but you can get tenses can be done differently in different languages can't they questions can be done differently in different languages so each language is different and of course the problem of how to individuate a language and you might say Irish and English are the same language or you might say there are difference for that very reason sorry right when people answer right let's talk uh some rather than irony isn't it i it's it's supposed to be the case that Americans don't use are any I'm sure I have heard Americans using irony the French don't do irony I'm sure that must be true for any French people when meaning well when you're doing philosophy of language you're not really interested in that you're interested in the normal conveyance of meaning and so on so oh yeah of course but they wouldn't particularly be interested in examining a malfunctioning speaker of language and in this case there is a malfunction do you see what I mean if you want to understand the phenomenon itself you you will look at normal functioning of that phenomenon and then you might go from that to look at abnormal functioning and that indeed might throw some light on it in fact we'll talk a bit about something like that later on but I hope that answers your question okay one more question but isn't it isn't truth valuable I mean if if I when I was talking ethics Oh about ethics I said to you what would happen if you couldn't suppose that most people are telling the truth most of the time what would happen if you couldn't rely on the fact that most people tell the truth most of the time a communication would break down completely wouldn't it because what would be the point of it I ask you what's on at the cinema you tell me and then I think well can I believe her so truth is hugely valuable and the exchange of information and of course we're not just talking about information about the cinema if I say I love you I'm of course mentioning that sentence rather than using at the moment but if I were to oh I'm sorry I'm sorry but if I say I love you I'm giving information on side but it but it's information of a different kind from the theater but it's still the case that you hope that the conditions under with it you know that make that sentence true you would actually obtain if I said that sentence to you in a situation the right situation and you'd be very upset if they didn't so there is a lot of value in meaning but the value is usually attached to truth and it's usually the truth about all sorts of things that we value like love for example or oh you're talking about meaning in a rather metaphorical sense here I mean there's another sense of meaning the meaning of a picture or a painting or something like that the meaning of a you know what's the meaning of the fat she's wearing that dress do you see what I mean that that's a secondary meaning of meaning isn't it right and I'm talking about philosophy of language so I'm talking about the meaning of sentences words and so on rather than the meaning of paintings or dresses or or whatever or life yes you've got to do 20 years of logic before you can do the meaning of life I'm on the meaning of life but you're not well we could do another few lectures if you like I think we need quite a few and now I'm only just starting the beginning of the meaning of life I've been lecturing for 22 years now I've just started on the meaning of life what does she was.but what's the meaning of her wearing that dress I mean that's an emotional thing is that she knows I have another she knows I was going to wear that dress today why is she wearing that one which he knows clashes with it that's an emotional thing you know I love you doesn't that have an emotional meaning I hate you yes of course there's an emotional meaning but but the meaning is that in order to get the emotion behind my utterance of something you've got to understand the strict and literal truth conditions of it if you don't understand the conditions under which I love you is true then you won't get any emotional response when I say I love you because you don't know what it means do you see what I mean the emotion is secondary it's nothing to do with the meaning it's to do with understanding the meaning but it's understanding the meaning is what causes whatever emotion you have were hora perhaps that man means something to me well that's the secondary metaphorical meaning of meaning so that painting has a certain meaning to me is not talking about languages it's talking about painting and I'm talking about philosophy of language that man is not a sentence he's a man so so that's not the meaning the sort of meaning I'm talking about I did I said to you that meaning is multiple ambiguous one more question and then I think we must move on well we can call it something like but I think most people use meaning to that use meaning in that context so you know we'd be changing language if we did that and that's not usually a good thing to do it's a much better thing to do to understand why the word meaning is used in that way as well as the other way okay so that's that's meaning we're going to run out of time here I can see and how do words refer to objects so far I've talked about meaning and meaning is actually a function of sentences it's sentences that have meaning not words let me convince you of this if I say chair what have I said thank you yes I have said Gemma well what what's a word how I said anything with meaning I haven't have I have I given you anything with conditions of truth and falsehood no have I given you anything I have I used the word chair in any meaningful way okay what I've got to give you to get meaning is a structured thing okay one word will not do it there are you might think there are one-word sentences if I say go I've given you a something with truth conditions haven't I or I've given you annoys not got its got fulfillment conditions because it was a command rather than truth conditions but you see what I mean but where is the structure in that go yes there's more to it than that there's a structure somewhere isn't it there actually you go there so the demonstration is part of the structure the implicit you which comes in fact it's an imperative form that you go there is a sentence you've got something that has truth conditions now whereas go if I don't talk to you and I don't demonstrate it has no meaning does it so in order to get meaning you've got to have a sentence something with structure a word does not have meaning except in its contribution to a sentence so when you're looking at a sentence like this I swear I won't be able to find it now John is tall and okay it's composed meaning of words and of course this is important because Mary loves John has a different meaning from john loves Mary doesn't it so it's not just the meaning of the words that matters or the contribution made by the words to the sentence it's also the way those words are combined so it's the grammar the syntax as well as the semantics of the word so to understand that you've got to understand to whom John refers and of course you might not even know that John is a name so you've got to know to what John refers and you've got to know what is tall means okay well how do we do this well let me tell you okay I'm going to introduce a new word for you here okay would you stand up and turn and face everyone and would you do the same and John would you do the same please and Roger and I think that's it okay now all these people are gross okay they're all gross I'm not gross neither is Anna stand up a lantern okay Anna's not gross either and I've gotten your name again Peter isn't gross okay have we understood what is gross means yet is wearing glasses yep okay sit down everyone thank you very much how do you spell gross do you think yes I think it's about that isn't it okay the way I got you to understand that was by identifying a class of people as Grolsch and identifying a few others do you see what I was doing I was giving you the truth conditions of is gross when it's true that something is growing when it's false that something's gross and so what you're doing when you're understanding words as opposed to sentences is understanding the contribution that they make to the truth conditions of a sentence okay so in understanding your sentence you're grasping the truth conditions and possibly also the use and in understanding a word you're grasping the condition that sorry the contribution made by those words to a sentence in which the words use and once you've understood is gross you can understand it in different contexts can't you would you stand up please and turn and face people yes are you is this person gross or not yes they are okay so you can understand things like here's a question do zebras wear overcoats not often someone says okay will you the fact is you've never heard that sentence before unless you've heard me lecture before in which case you probably have but you all understood it immediately don't you and this is because words so the if you like the tools the atoms that you put together in various combinations and this gives you an a potentially infinite understanding doesn't it you don't have to have heard a sentence before to understand what it means you understand the atoms and their combination so you understand the meaning of the words and the meaning of the rules of combination and that gives you a potentially infinite understanding okay so how do we get to know that words refer well some people have said ostensive definition if I had pointed to dot and said dot is gross stand up okay dot is gross and would you answer what I meant and say look she's gross why not you're new to the word but why look I'm essentially defining ya and what what is it as I'm pointing can I point to her Brosius even if I go like this no okay the thing is I can't point to any one aspect of anything can I if I point to a cat and say cat it could easily mean the color of the cat or the shape of the cat or the whiskers on the cat older I mean a coin on whom this incidentally a weekend school next weekend coin says if you're in a foreign country and somebody points at a rabbit and says gavagai okay do you assume that gavagai means rabbit or does it mean rabbit flies because in this particular country there are flies that always fly around rabbits so you never see a rabbit without seeing rabbit flies so am i ostensibly defining gavagai by pointing to the rabbit or the rabbit fly and how are you going to distinguish that or do I mean by gavagai on the detached rabbit part in other words I mean part of a rabbit that isn't detached from a rabbit because you never get those without getting rabbits do you so how do you know that gavagai means rabbit as opposed to rabbit fly or done detached rabbit part or oh shoot it yes exactly yes or something something like that that might be a bit different just thinking I think you if you were telling something that something was dangerous you'd probably do something more than ostensively defining so mobile you know something anyway never mind that's a maybe maybe you wouldn't in which case fine okay so extensive definition it can't be an explanation also how do you ostensibly define the word five it's impossible isn't it or how about the word and how do you ostensibly define the word and and yet somehow you've all managed to pick up the word and haven't you you know exactly what it means but it wasn't because your mum ostensibly defined it for you that might have been how you learned how the word is written but of course that's a very different thing from learning the meaning of the word so it means pointing demonstrative definition if you if you prefer another question is if we take a name like an ax okay it's the meaning of an ax notice I'm using quotes here so I'm mentioning the name rather than using it does the name Anna just have a reference and when you grasp the meaning you grasp its referent okay or does it have a sense as well okay so it is a word and here's another word I don't know if I'm spelling them properly this says for us this tears phosphorus okay now um these you might think if they're they're both the word the name for vivre they're sorry they are both names for Venus the planet Venus which appears both in the morning and in the evening so Hesperus became associated with and here's where I show my ignorance again I can't remember whether it is morning star on the evening star but let's say the morning star and phosphorus became associated with the evening star okay so Hesperus and phosphorus have the same reference but you don't know that do you initially I mean imagine yourself before astrology astrologers astronomers had shown that has for us was phosphorus that the star we see in the morning is the very same star that we see in the evening you would have been very interested to learn that Hesperus is phosphorus wouldn't you and yet if to grasp the meaning of a word all you need to know is its referent then surely you would have known that because you know the reference of Hesperus know the restaurant of phosphorus and they are the same thing so you should have known that long ago you didn't so the thought is that Hesperus and phosphorus must have something other than references meaning they must have a sense as well and some people have thought with what the sense is if here's Venus okay and phosphorus is one mode of presentation of Venus and Hesperus is another mode of presenting Venus so you could talk about me as Miss Talbot or you could talk about me as Marianne in both cases you refer to me but you use names with different different ways of presenting the same and of course every reference has numerous ways of okay so I could point to you as the woman in the orange and pink scarf or the woman sitting next to the chat with a beard and long hair or the woman sitting behind Anna and all these are different ways of getting at you different modes of presentation of you and I could associate a name with each of those like the woman with the pink anar in scarf is Susan okay the woman sitting next to the man with a beard and long hair is Jennifer and then I can tell you that Susan is Jennifer I don't know why I bother doing that but you can see the principal okay so offensive definition can't be an explanation of how words refer the reference of words can't be their their meaning all on their own they've got to have sense as well and then of course there are different types of reference okay dot stand up sorry keep your keeping your fit here okay now sit down again okay now everybody stand up please keep you all on your toes ain't it okay now sit down if you're male okay sit down if you're wearing dark colors all dark colors it is a bit ambiguous I know but okay sit down if you're not Grolsch no you're not at the moment so sit down okay shut up Anna sit down if you're wearing anything brown or fawn it's that form that jump oh okay but sit down there okay so you can sit down anyway sit down if your hair is dark sit down if you're wearing a pinafore sit down if you're wearing a white t-shirt sit down if you're wearing orange or if you've got on a black jacket or if you're wearing a grey jumper oh it's blue okay I've got left one person so dot is the person who is not wearing any of these things okay so I can uniquely I refer to dot either by throwing a harpoon at her using a referring term a designator dots stand up you can stand up or I can pick out dot by describing her uniquely and I could do this in another way here's another way of doing it sand oh no damn stand up if there's someone else wearing a pink jumper at the back which is very irritating sorry I was a very nice pink jumper because even stand up if you're wearing a pink pink jumper over a pink and grey shirt yes that was easier wasn't it and so do you see that there are different types of reference there's either a harpoon if you like I can go straight for the person or I can throw a net over everything and and pick out just one thing by a description okay I'm using a description to uniquely refer to so descriptions and designators as much as names are but of course they designate or refer in a completely different way don't they so ones like a harpoon the others like a net and we often have to use a net but we can often also go wrong if I say with person drinking martinis stand-up seeing you drinking from a martini glass no you can keep sitting down but actually she's got water in her martini glass and so my reference goes wrong very difficult questions about how do I succeed in referring to you nevertheless because you're not drinking martini so the description is false and yet I do manage to do that how do I do that well I didn't need to be more precise there I managed to get you even though my reference didn't fit didn't I so yeah yes okay but that was due to the lack of a martini glass rather than the lack of martini okay so lots of questions and how the words refer now just quickly we've got to get on to mind and this is let's how do we understand each other one group of people say we use a theory so just as I explained the physical world in terms of cause and effect and in terms of postulating theories and then looking for uniformity zin cause and effects so how do I understand you well I think you know well here's a person of a certain age of a certain type of a certain you know so when they say this it'll mean this lots of people would say well actually that's not good enough because if I've got to if I'm going to understand you I've got to understand you in all your individuality and what I ought to be doing is is if you say something crazy instead of saying well that person is obviously crazy and not listening to you anymore I've got say why is that rational person saying something that sounds crazy I must have misunderstood her okay so what do you mean you ask another question so this one says that we understand each other on the principle of the uniformity of nature exactly like any other part of the physical world there's no difference at all between you in this chair in terms of my understanding your behavior charity says no in order to understand things like you I've got to use the principle of charity not just the principle of the uniformity of nature and simulation theory tells me that not only have I got to use or actually not maybe not even but I can't just use this because what I've got to do is simulate you I've got to put myself in your position and when I do that it's I'm not putting myself in your position because when I do that I only get me don't I what I'm doing is I'm trying to see the world through your eyes so I'm not just putting myself in your position I'm transforming myself into you in my imagined nation in order to understand what you mean so when I hear you say there are tickets for Madonna tonight instead of thinking oh is that interesting I think oh my god and I know how much doc likes Madonna that is and I said oh fantastic dot because I've transformed myself into dot and I see that she's telling me this because she wants me to enthuse with her about Madonna do you see what I mean so the simulation so these are three different theories about how you understand people and believe me that people are nearly in blows on these theories at the moment because I I actually think that you've got to use all three and it seems to me that this isn't an either/or it's definitely a use of all three but some people think that it's either one or the other and whichever combination you can either get some people believe it's theory theory and charity but definitely not simulation and other people being it's simulation charity definitely not Syrian there are all sorts of permutations but the theory of interpretation is a very big area in philosophy sorry tell us again I don't think you can never be sure of understanding another person because I mean if if say you were not a natural English speaker I've no idea whether you are or not but you had learnt English from a dictionary and da da da da and I said his handwriting is excellent you use of theory theory she's speaking English this is an English sentence wouldn't get you anywhere would it use of charity you might see that the answer I'm giving is not an answer to the question but would you understand me use of simulation well again would you understand me as no so I think these are perhaps you know in whatever combination like necessary conditions for understanding but I doubt I I think it would be virtually possible to give any theory of meaning which would guarantee that were you to know that theory that would be sufficient to understand anyone because I speak English pretty well but that doesn't guarantee that I understand things that people say to me in fact often I don't which includes language and all sorts of other things yep yep no no well as I said I am NOT angry it's not just language you're understanding there is it and go it's not just language you're understanding there either is it okay let's move on to minds because we left all of half hour for this philosophy of mind focuses on questions like what is a mental state under what that was then okay okay what is a mental state how does the mental interact with the physical and what's the nature of rationality and consciousness and I'm going to look at those I think yes here we are each of them separately briefly okay to look at nature of mental states Descartes thinks that the mind is quite distinct from the body that they are not the same thing at all and the reason he thinks that if you remember is because he opens up a gap between the mind and the world and in that gap is this pussycat here the demon okay and but let's have a think about this for a minute in the world we've got things like pens chairs human bodies we've got relations between these things like causation haven't we so there are events also like sounds they're spatial relations so anna is sitting on a chair or there's a human body sitting on their chair there so there's space chill relations between these things there are temporal relations between events okay now now let's look at the mind what sort of objects are mental objects I'll give you a few there are beliefs aren't their desires intentions ok these are mental states now oh I'm sorry I forgot to do their properties here things like bloom hard square okay fair enough now are any of these blue no hard square it's completely wrong isn't it what are the properties of mental things so thinking about thinking about a belief at the moment what sort of property does a belief have this belief is strong yes ok there are degrees of certainty should we put so because a strong belief is a belief of which you're certain let's say degrees of justification is probably a better of justification sorry say let's again I think isn't that the same thing oh thank you no I'm going to put justification because colors come in intensities too but it's different thing isn't it ok what what else are beliefs beliefs are true or false they're justified or unjustified they're true or false what else are they acquired or innate you could say that yeah quiet or 1/8 ok what else are they unfair I'm not your beliefs are unfair intentions might be beliefs just seem to be truth related rather than value related aren't they again that would be degrees of justification wouldn't it because an untested belief would be an unjustified one what about they have contents there they have intentionality to use a technical term you can't have a belief that doesn't have a content can you okay could you have a belief that doesn't have the content the chair is blue or dots wearing pink or Peters wearing blue or every belief has got to have a content hasn't it that means it's got to have intentionality see on allottee it's got an S not a not a T it dates the technical term don't it all it means is about Ernest every belief has about anis that it's got to be about something or other okay what about relations between these things I did it have spatial relations do you get one belief on top of another you can metaphorically perhaps you know one beliefs coming on top of another but but not literally can you can you have one belief beside another and you can have one chair beside another can't you you could have one pen beside a flipchart can you have beliefs beside each other in that way again metaphorically but not literally that actually there aren't any spatial relations here at all other in the mind you don't get a desire on top of a belief you don't get an intention inside as a desire okay so there aren't any the other temporal relations between beliefs one thing and then that could be superseded by another there are temporal relations aren't there between mental states so I had that desire before I formed that belief okay now I've formed that belief I I've lost that desire so there are temporal relations there's another type of relation between beliefs and desires and those are rational relations normally I would have made you tell me that but we haven't got time so if I say if the dog barks if there are strangers the dog will bark there are strangers therefore the dog will bark okay there are rational relations between those two beliefs we talked about them when we did logic so if the first two beliefs are true the third belief will be true won't it so there are rational relations between beliefs okay now let's look at this again do pears pens and chairs enter into rational relations no okay do pens have intentionality are they about things no okay and do human bodies have rational relations with each other I'm not talking about human minds here okay human bodies have spatial relations don't they I'm in front of you what's your name Eileen Eileen Eileen okay I'm in front of Eileen so human bodies other is my mind in front of Eileen's mind it would be very funny thing to say wouldn't it what about can pens be true is this pen true it may make a sentence true mightn't it this pen is blue is made true by this pen but it is not itself true if there weren't any beliefs in facts or sentences that express beliefs there wouldn't be any truth one major question here is can beliefs cause are their causal racial relations between beliefs what you think okay you're right but actually causation within the mind is usually a malfunction if my desire that my husband's is have is havoc not having an affair not having an affair causes my belief that he isn't having an affair okay am i is something going right here it isn't is it because the fact is that the desire that my husband isn't having an affair is no reason at all for the belief he isn't having an affair is it what I've got there is wishful thinking and then there's Association one belief can cause another simply because I've associated the two beliefs in my mind but of course the relation you want between your beliefs and indeed between your desires and beliefs and so on it's rational relations not simply causal relations sometimes you know there's nothing wrong necessarily with having causal relations between your beliefs Association is quite useful in many cases but actually without reason you'd be in serious trouble it's rational relations you want between your beliefs not causal ones so when you ask are mental states physical states well um physical things like pens don't seem to have any of the properties or relations that mental states have mental states like beliefs don't seem to have any of the properties or relations that physical States go in for so beliefs can't be blue or square or hard or so why should we think that mental states are the very same thing as physical states and yet what fun enough we're about the first generation who has assumed that mental states are physical states because we know that the brain is very important to the mind and we just assume therefore that they are the same thing but how can they be ah what does it say a file is about to be sent to my machine alarming execute now I bought well do me um yeah so when you hear people on the televisions using the word brain instead of mind you should say more they shouldn't be doing that at all and when you hear yourself doing it you should be ashamed of yourself it's may be that mental states turn out to be physical states but actually it's hugely unlikely that they will and if you study philosophy of minds for any length of time you'll see that nija physicalism the idea that mental states are physical states so my belief that P is nothing more than a brain state of mine you'll see that actually that's hugely unlikely here's another reason for thinking it's unlikely okay I'm having a belief about no let's use dot she's got that nice pink jumper okay I'm happy ibly I'm thinking about dot now I'm thinking that dot is wearing a pink jumper now if dot didn't exist could I have that belief that's very belief do you think not I could have a belief very like it couldn't I I could have a belief about a woman wearing pink who's sitting a friend to me in other words I could have a belief about a description of someone very similar to dot but could I have the belief that dot is wearing a pink jumper could I have a belief about dots at all if dot didn't exist no it doesn't seem as if I could could I well if that's true given that I would have whatever brain state I have that underpinning my belief about dots wearing a pink jumper I could have that couldn't I whether dot existed or not because what is on inside my brain is goes on quite independently of dots existence or not and yet I couldn't have a belief about dot if dot didn't exist so my having a belief it's being true off Maryann that she has a belief about dot is dependent upon the existence of dot whereas Marianne's having the brain state that underpins her belief about dot is completely independent of dots existence or not so how can that brain state be the very same thing as my belief it couldn't be so it may well be that brain brain states are necessary conditions of having beliefs that the relation between brain States and mental states is hugely important but it is not one of identity they are not the same thing so when you hear yourself using brain States when you should be using mental state you'll SPAC yourself on the wrist and say Maryann wouldn't like that and you'll stop doing it and if you want to understand more about why you should do a course on philosophy of mind although you've got to pick your course because it would have to be a course on beliefs rather than qualitative States or something ok ah now they've asked an interesting question there because look you've asked where in space is my mind but minds don't enter into spatial relations so you you're because you're modeling the mind on the model of a physical object you're asking in question that would be a question you'd obviously have because no physical object could exist without existing in space but the question whether a mind exists in space well you won't say I want to say minds don't exist in space well no you can't ask that because it's not aware they don't exist where at all they don't venture into spatial relations if the mind were the brain then my mind would be inside my head wouldn't it and if my mines were inside my head my belief that dot is wearing a pink jumper would also be inside my head and

Channel: Oxford University Department for Continuing Education

Views: 31,524

Rating: 4.890244 out of 5

Keywords: philosophy, rationality, consciousness, marianne talbot

Id: g72d-OWq1RU

Length: 74min 15sec (4455 seconds)

Published: Wed Jun 26 2013