Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

The 'responses' are all physical, an there's no private mental world in which we're shut off from each other.

I certainly agree there is no "mental substance," and that "mental" phenomena are processes in a physical system, but clearly there is a private world in which we are shut off from each other. Only I can have knowledge by acquaintance (Russell) of my pains, my thoughts, the sensations presented to my consciousness by my nervous system. Others can have knowledge of them only by description or by inferring them from my behavior. There is nothing wrong with referring to that private realm as "mental" as long as don't weave absurd metaphysical theories around the term.

[Terrapin Station]

How you get from a social event like an utterance or pointing to anything like a semantic association?

Public events like utterances and pointing determine whether there is a semantic association between a word and a thing, for a given person. There is no other basis for claiming that such an association exists.

Sure, and the way they extramentally determine that is?

[Terrapin Station]

His behavior alone answers the question of whether such an association exists.

Explain how any question is answered where minds aren't involved.

We'll leave aside for the moment how any question is asked where minds aren't involved.

Let's just assume that somehow we have a question of "Is Joe making some sort of association to that picture by pointing at it?"

Okay, then what objects do what, exactly, with respect to answering the question? Maybe the air does something, or a rock, or whatever. What objects do what to answer the question so that minds aren't involved?

[GE Morton]

Sure, and the way they extramentally determine that is?

We determine that, not them. We determine that they associate "dog" with canines by observing their behavior.

Are you suggesting that since all determinations, judgments, decisions, beliefs, etc., are "mental events," then whatever is determined, believed, etc., is also a "mental event"? There is no escape from the mind? You realize that is solipsism, don't you?

[GE Morton]

Let's just assume that somehow we have a question of "Is Joe making some sort of association to that picture by pointing at it?"

Okay, then what objects do what, exactly, with respect to answering the question? Maybe the air does something, or a rock, or whatever. What objects do what to answer the question so that minds aren't involved?

Not "some sort of association." A specific one --- between a certain word and a certain object. He may be making all sorts of other associations with either of those things, but they are irrelevant to that question. We answer that question by observing his behavior when presented with that word.

[Terrapin Station]

We determine that, not them. We determine that they associate "dog" with canines by observing their behavior.

Are you suggesting that since all determinations, judgments, decisions, beliefs, etc., are "mental events," then whatever is determined, believed, etc., is also a "mental event"?

Obviously. You weren't thinking that rocks, trees, etc. were the source of determinations, beliefs, etc., were you?

There is no escape from the mind? You realize that is solipsism, don't you?

Obviously not. The world doesn't consist solely of judgments, beliefs, etc. How confused would one have to be to think that?

But on the other hand, obviously, as above, rocks, trees, etc. aren't the source of judgments or beliefs.

Place things where they properly occur. Judgments and beliefs occur in brains functioning in mental ways. Trees occur outside of our bodies, rooted into the ground, etc. This should be kindergarten-level difficult.

[Terrapin Station]

We answer that question by observing his behavior when presented with that word.

We're not answering it by not thinking about it! lol

C'mon. This should be simple.

[GE Morton]

But on the other hand, obviously, as above, rocks, trees, etc. aren't the source of judgments or beliefs.

Oh, but they are, at least for some of them. E.g., the source of my belief that Paris is the capital of France is the external, physical fact that Paris is the capital of France. The belief may be a "mental event," or process, but its source, it's cause, is not. If you claim otherwise then you're committed to solipsism.

Judgments and beliefs occur in brains functioning in mental ways.

Yep.

Trees occur outside of our bodies, rooted into the ground, etc.

Yep. And those are the source of your belief that they are.

[GE Morton]

We're not answering it by not thinking about it!

That's true. But no amount of thinking about will give us the answer. That will require an observation of something external.

[GE Morton]

Are you suggesting that since all determinations, judgments, decisions, beliefs, etc., are "mental events," then whatever is determined, believed, etc., is also a "mental event"?

Obviously.

There is no escape from the mind? You realize that is solipsism, don't you?

Obviously not. The world doesn't consist solely of judgments, beliefs, etc.

Your second answer there contradicts the first.

[Terrapin Station]

But on the other hand, obviously, as above, rocks, trees, etc. aren't the source of judgments or beliefs.

Oh, but they are, at least for some of them. E.g., the source of my belief that Paris is the capital of France is the external, physical fact that Paris is the capital of France. The belief may be a "mental event," or process, but its source, it's cause, is not. If you claim otherwise then you're committed to solipsism.

The source of the belief=the place where the belief occurs/arises. It's where the belief, as a belief, is found.

As you say, the belief is a mental event or process. You say it is "my belief."

So it's NOT Paris's belief. Paris isn't having a mental event or process that amounts to a belief. Paris isn't the source of the belief.

You're confusing what the belief is about, what it's in response to, with the belief itself. This is basically a version of confusion about the use/mention distinction, confusion about subject matter versus methodology, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

We're not answering it by not thinking about it!

That's true. But no amount of thinking about will give us the answer. That will require an observation of something external.

Sure. But what you're observing isn't identical to the thought that amounts to the answer (the meaning, the associations in question). The pointing hand can't do this itself. You need to observe it and THINK about it.

So we can't talk about the gesturing hand as if it's identical to the thought about it (well, unless we want to say something confused, something that's projecting mental phenomena onto other things, etc.)

Re the comment about me stating a contradiction, I answered a question about As, Bs and Cs, and then I stated that not everything is an A, B, or C. How would that be contradictory? It's not contradictory to say As, Bs and Cs have property F, but not everything is an A, B or C, so not everything has property F.

[Peter Holmes]

The 'responses' are all physical, an there's no private mental world in which we're shut off from each other.

I certainly agree there is no "mental substance," and that "mental" phenomena are processes in a physical system, but clearly there is a private world in which we are shut off from each other. Only I can have knowledge by acquaintance (Russell) of my pains, my thoughts, the sensations presented to my consciousness by my nervous system. Others can have knowledge of them only by description or by inferring them from my behavior. There is nothing wrong with referring to that private realm as "mental" as long as don't weave absurd metaphysical theories around the term.

One problem with referring to anything as 'mental' is that what we call the mind and mental things and events are misleading metaphysical fictions. What and where are the mind and mental things and events? What can it mean to say I know I have a pain, a thought or a sensation? What is the self that experiences these things? What is the consciousness to which a nervous system 'presents' sensations?

Another problem is the in-built solipsism of such talk. In what way are we shut in a private world? The ways we talk about ourselves are all public, because language is a social phenomenon. I think your argument about what and where meaning 'goes on' is evidence for the conceptual confusion I'm talking about.

Do we think other primates and mammals are cut off from each other and their environments in private worlds? And if not, why not?

[Terrapin Station]

One problem with referring to anything as 'mental' is that what we call the mind and mental things and events are misleading metaphysical fictions. What and where are the mind and mental things and events?

It's a subset of brain states. So the where is the brain/in persons' heads.

What can it mean to say I know I have a pain, a thought or a sensation?

Your brain is in a particular state. That brain state has unique properties from the spatio-temporal point of reference of being the brain in question.

This isn't something unique to brains, by the way. All existents have different properties from different spatio-temporal points of reference.

What is the self that experiences these things? What is the consciousness to which a nervous system 'presents' sensations?

Again, simply a set of brain states.

Another problem is the in-built solipsism of such talk. In what way are we shut in a private world?

You're not "shut in" a private world. It's just that there are unique properties to brain states from the spatio-temporal point of reference of being the brain in question. The world isn't limited to that spatio-temporal point of reference though, of course.

The ways we talk about ourselves are all public,

Talk is public, but what we talk about isn't always public. Typically we talk about a lot of private things, too.

because language is a social phenomenon.

Parts of language are, sure. Not all of it is. Meaning isn't social (that is, it doesn't occur, it isn't located socially. This is not saying that it's not often in response to social things. "X is in response to Y" is different than "X is identical to Y.")

I think your argument about what and where meaning 'goes on' is evidence for the conceptual confusion I'm talking about.

Everything has a location on my view, even if it's a complex location.

Do we think other primates and mammals are cut off from each other and their environments in private worlds? And if not, why not?

I don't know why anyone would think of it as a "cutting off from." It seems like you're thinking in terms of a false dichotomy where either everything is accessible and the same from everywhere (in which case why was it so difficult for us to get to the moon?) or people are cut off from each other where they can't access anything public.

[GE Morton]

The source of the belief=the place where the belief occurs/arises. It's where the belief, as a belief, is found.

Er, no. I found my lost watch under a sofa cushion. But the sofa was not its source. Dogs are found in kennels. But they are not their source. "Source," in most cases, denotes origin or cause.

"Definition of source (Entry 1 of 3)
"1a: a generative force : CAUSE
"b(1): a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/source

As you say, the belief is a mental event or process. You say it is "my belief."

Paris isn't having a mental event or process that amounts to a belief. Paris isn't the source of the belief.

Use the word "source" correctly and it will answer your question.