Thought and Thinking, Misc

Belief storage is often modeled as having the structure of a single, unified web. This model of belief storage is attractive and widely assumed because it appears to provide an explanation of the flexibility of cognition and the complicated dynamics of belief revision. However, when one scrutinizes human cognition, one finds strong evidence against a unified web of belief and for a fragmented model of belief storage. Using the best available evidence from cognitive science, we develop this fragmented model into (...) a nascent theory of the cognitive architecture of belief storage. (shrink)

As research on mind wandering has accelerated, the construct’s defining features have expanded and researchers have begun to examine different dimensions of mind wandering. Recently, Christoff and colleagues have argued for the importance of investigating a hitherto neglected variety of mind wandering: “unconstrained thought,” or, thought that is relatively unguided by executive-control processes. To date, with only a handful of studies investigating unconstrained thought, little is known about this intriguing type of mind wandering. Across two experiments, we examined, for the (...) first time, whether changes in task demand influence rates of constrained versus unconstrained thoughts. In both experiments, participants completed either an easy (0-back) or hard (2-back) task and responded to intermittently presented thought probes that gauged thought constraint throughout the task. In Experiment 1, we found that participants completing the easy task engaged in unconstrained thoughts more frequently than those completing the difficult task. In Experiment 2, we replicated this result and further demonstrated manipulations of unconstrained thought while also measuring task-relatedness (a common dimension of mind wandering). Finally, exploratory analyses showed associations between constrained thought and age, verbal intelligence, and an assessment of flow (‘deep effortless concentration’), thereby adding further evidence to indicate a dissociation between task-relatedness and constraint. We discuss the methodological and theoretical applications of our findings to the burgeoning field of research on unconstrained thought. (shrink)

Inner speech travels under many aliases: the inner voice, verbal thought, thinking in words, internal verbalization, “talking in your head,” the “little voice in the head,” and so on. It is both a familiar element of first-person experience and a psychological phenomenon whose complex cognitive components and distributed neural bases are increasingly well understood. There is evidence that inner speech plays a variety of cognitive roles, from enabling abstract thought, to supporting metacognition, memory, and executive function. One active area of (...) controversy concerns the relation of inner speech to auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia, with a common proposal being that sufferers of AVH misidentify their own inner speech as being generated by someone else. Recently, researchers have used artificial intelligence to translate the neural and neuromuscular signatures of inner speech into corresponding outer speech signals, laying the groundwork for a variety of new applications and interventions. (shrink)

Unconscious logical inference seems to rely on the syntactic structures of mental representations (Quilty-Dunn & Mandelbaum 2018). Other transitions, such as transitions using iconic representations and associative transitions, are harder to assimilate to syntax-based theories. Here we tackle these difficulties head on in the interest of a fuller taxonomy of mental transitions. Along the way we discuss how icons can be compositional without having constituent structure, and expand and defend the “symmetry condition” on Associationism (the idea that associative links and (...) transitions are perfectly symmetric). In the end, we show how a BIT (“bare inferential transition”) theory can cohabitate with these other non-inferential mental transitions. (shrink)

In recent years, the number of studies examining mind wandering has increased considerably, and research on the topic has spread widely across various domains of psychological research. Although the term “mind wandering” has been used to refer to various cognitive states, researchers typically operationalize mind wandering in terms of “task-unrelated thought” (TUT). Research on TUT has shed light on the various task features that require people’s attention, and on the consequences of task inattention. Important methodological and conceptual complications do persist, (...) however, in current investigations of TUT. As we argue, these complications may be dampening the development of a more nuanced scientific account of TUT. Here, we outline three of the more prominent methodological and conceptual complications in the literature on TUT, and we discuss potential directions for researchers to take as they move forward in their investigations of TUT. (shrink)

The target article attempted to draw connections between broad swaths of evidence by noticing a common thread: abstract, symbolic, compositional codes, i.e., LoTs. Commentators raised concerns about the evidence and offered fascinating extensions to areas we overlooked. Here we respond and highlight the many specific empirical questions to be answered in the next decade and beyond.

We argue that stereotypes associated with concepts like he-said–she-said, conspiracy theory, sexual harassment, and those expressed by paradigmatic slurs provide “normative inference tickets”: conceptual permissions to automatic, largely unreflective normative conclusions. These “mental shortcuts” are underwritten by associated stereotypes. Because stereotypes admit of exceptions, normative inference tickets are highly flexible and productive, but also liable to create serious epistemic and moral harms. Epistemically, many are unreliable, yielding false beliefs which resist counterexample; morally, many perpetuate bigotry and oppression. Still, some normative (...) inference tickets, like some activated by sexual harassment, constitute genuine moral and hermeneutical advances. For example, our framework helps explain Miranda Fricker’s notion of “hermeneutical lacunae”: what early victims of “sexual harassment” — as well as their harassers — lacked before the term was coined was a communal normative inference ticket — one that could take us, collectively, from “this is happening” to “this is wrong.”. (shrink)

The notion of belief appears frequently in cognitive science. Yet it has resisted definition of the sort that could clarify inquiry. How then might a cognitive science of belief proceed? Here we propose a form of pluralism about believing. According to this view, there are importantly different ways to "believe" an idea. These distinct psychological kinds occur within a multi-dimensional property space, with different property clusters within that space constituting distinct varieties of believing. We propose that discovering such property clusters (...) is empirically tractable, and that this approach can help sidestep merely verbal disputes about what constitutes “belief.”. (shrink)

I make a proposal about what wondering is and how it differs from other mental phenomena like curiosity. I argue that, though it's tempting to analyze wondering as a desire to know the answer to the question one wonders about, that would be wrong, since wondering is an activity rather than a state, i.e., something we do. I also argue that wondering about a question needn't even essentially involve a desire to know the answer to that question, even as a (...) necessary part of what rationalizes the wondering. Instead, on my account, to wonder about a question is to consider various possible answers as possible answers, guided by mechanisms whose function is to make the subject epistemically better off with respect to those answers, and which considering ceases at least when a person is consciously certain of the answer to their question. This allows wondering to not be objectionably metacognitive, and allows us to make sense of cases in which the motivating desire isn't to know an answer but just to wonder itself. (shrink)

When someone says she believes that God exists, is she expressing the same kind of mental state as when she says she thinks that a lake bigger than Lake Michigan exists⎯i.e., does she refer to the same kind of cognitive attitude in both cases? Using evidence from linguistic corpora (Study 1) and behavioral experiments (Studies 2-4), the current work provides evidence that individuals typically use the word “believe” more in conjunction with statements about religious credences and “think” more in conjunction (...) with factual statements, pointing to two different understandings of claims made with these two terms. These patterns do not appear to reflect low-level differences based on the amount of consensus surrounding a particular claim, the extent to which the truth of a particular claim is known to the participant, or linguistic differences between religious and factual statements. We discuss implications of these findings for religious cognition (e.g., as supporting the theory that religious credences are qualitatively distinct from factual beliefs) as well as cognitive processes more broadly. Finally, we relate the present findings to prior theoretical work on differences between factual belief and religious credence. (shrink)

A platitude about understanding is that it involves grasping. But what is grasping? In this thesis, I develop a novel account of grasping that is rooted in phenomenal consciousness. According to this account, grasping is a matter of having a distinct kind of conscious experience: clear perception. Clear perception has a distinct cognitive phenomenology that characterizes it. Call this the clarity account of grasping. I go on to argue that the dominant view of grasping in the literature, the ability account (...) of grasping, is false. Using the new clarity account, I argue that grasping is not only distinct from the cognitive abilities associated with understanding, but also explanatory prior to them. Finally, I argue that the clarity account implies that understanding cannot be transmitted through testimony, because clear perception cannot be acquired on the basis of testimony. As such, clear perception plays key cognitive and epistemic roles in understanding and coming to understand. (shrink)

Instinct and Intelligence is an essay about creative writing. The two elements of the title are present in human thought in general, but the writing process - especially in philosophy - pushes them to extremes. Through this process we can notice and document the nature of each side, conceptualising them in order to create a structural description of thought's creation that may become operative within creation itself.

Mind wandering is typically operationalized as task-unrelated thought. Some argue for the need to distinguish between unintentional and intentional mind wandering, where an agent voluntarily shifts attention from task-related to task-unrelated thoughts. We reveal an inconsistency between the standard, task-unrelated thought definition of mind wandering and the occurrence of intentional mind wandering (together with plausible assumptions about tasks and intentions). This suggests that either the standard definition of mind wandering should be rejected or that intentional mind wandering is an incoherent (...) category. Solving this puzzle is critical for advancing theoretical frameworks of mind wandering. (shrink)

我的论点是，这里突出的故意表（理性、思想、思想、语言、个性等）或多或少地准确地描述了我们思考和行为的方式，因此它不包括仅仅是哲学和心理学，但一切（历史，文学，数学，政治等）。特别要注意，故意和理性，因 为我（连同西尔，维特根斯坦和其他人）认为它，包括有意识的审议语言系统2和无意识的自动前语言系统1的动作或反射。 我提供了一个关键的调查，两个最杰出的学生的行为在现代的一些主要发现， 路德维希·维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔，关于故意的逻辑结构（思想、语言、行为），以维特根斯坦的基本发现为出发点——所有真正的"哲学"问题都是一样的——关于在特定上下文中使用语言的困惑，因 此所有解决方案都是相同的——研究如何在问题语境中使用语言，使其真理条件（满意条件或 COS） 是明确的。基本问题是，一个人可以说什么，但一个人不能意味着（状态明确的COS）任何任意的话语和意义只有在非常具体的上下文中才可能。我从现代两种思想体系（被推广为"思维快，思维慢"） 的角度分析各种著作，采用新的意向表和新的双系统命名法。我表明，这是一个强大的启发式描述行为。 因此，如果一个人采取正确的观点，所有行为都是密切相关的。现象幻象（遗忘我们的自动化系统1）是通用的，不仅延伸到整个哲学，而且贯穿整个生命。我确信，如果乔姆斯基、奥巴马、扎克伯格和教皇被告知他们患有与黑 格尔、胡塞尔和海德格尔同样的问题，他们将会难以置信（或者，他们只与毒品和性瘾君子在程度上有所不同，他们的动机是通过心室和核积体来刺激他们的前皮质（和其他100种化学品），这显然是事实。虽然现象学家只浪 费了很多人的时间，但他们却在浪费地球和他们后代的未来。 .

وزعم ي أن جدول التعمد (العقلانية والعقل والفكر واللغة والشخصية وما إلى ذلك) الذي يتميز بشكل بارز هنا يصف أكثر أو أقل دقة، أو على الأقل بمثابة الاستدلال ل، كيف نفكر وتصرفنا، وهكذا لا يشمل مجرد الفلسفة وعلم النفس، ولكن كل شيء آخر (التاريخ والأدب والرياضيات والسياسة وما إلى ذلك). لاحظ بشكل خاص أن التعمد والعقلانية كما أنا (جنبا إلى جنب مع سيرل، فيتغنشتاين وغيرها) نرى ذلك، ويشمل كل من النظام اللغوي التداولي واعية 2 واللاوعي الآلي قبل اللغوية نظام 1 (...) الإجراءات أو ردود الفعل. أقدم مسحاً نقدياً لبعض النتائج الرئيسية لاثنين من أبرز طلاب السلوك في العصر الحديث، لودفيغ فيتغنشتاين وجون سيرل، على البنية المنطقية للقصدي (العقل، اللغة، السلوك)، مع الأخذ كنقطة انطلاق اكتشاف فيتجنشتاين الأساسي - أن جميع المشاكل "الفلسفية" حقا هي نفسها - الالتباسات حول كيفية استخدام اللغة في سياق معين، وبالتالي فإن جميع الحلول هي نفسها - تبحث في كيفية استخدام اللغة في السياق المعني بحيث تكون ظروف هاهي (شروط الرضا أو COS) واضحة. المشكلة الأساسية هي أن المرء يمكن أن يقول أي شيء ولكن لا يمكن للمرء أن يعني (الدولة واضحة COS ل) أي النطق التعسفي والمعنى هو ممكن فقط في سياق محدد جدا. أنا تحليل الكتابات المختلفة من قبل وعنها من المنظور الحديث من نظامي الفكر (شعبية بأنها "التفكير السريع، والتفكير البطيء")، وتوظيف جدول جديد من التعمد وتسميات النظم المزدوجة الجديدة. أظهر أن هذا هو الاستدلال قوية لوصف السلوك. وهكذا، يتم ربط جميع السلوك بشكل وثيق إذا كان أحد يأخذ وجهة النظر الصحيحة. الوهم الظاهري (النسيان لنظامنا الآلي 1) هو عالمي ويمتد ليس فقط في جميع أنحاء الفلسفة ولكن طوال الحياة. أنا متأكد من أن تشومسكي، أوباما، زوكربيرج والبابا سيكون متشككا إذا قيل لهم أنهم يعانون من نفس المشكلة هيغل، هوسرل وهايدغر، (أو أنها تختلف فقط في درجة من مدمني المخدرات والجنس في أن يكون الدافع من خلال تحفيز القشريات الأمامية من خلال تسليم الدوبامين (وأكثر من 100 المواد الكيميائية الأخرى) عن طريق تيمنتوم البطني ونواة accumbens)،ولكن هذا صحيح بشكل واضح. في حين أن علماء الظواهر لم يضيعوا سوى الكثير من وقت الناس ، إلا أنهم يضيعون الأرض ومستقبل ذريتهم. (shrink)

私は奇妙な本や特別な人々に非常に慣れているが、ホーキンスは、あらゆる種類の声明の「真実」の鍵として筋肉の緊張をテストするための簡単な技術を使用して際立っています。よく知られているのは、画像、音、タッチ 、匂い、アイデア、人など、自分がさらしているものに対して、無意識の生理学的反応や心理的反応を示すことです。だから、彼らの本当の感情を見つけるための筋肉の読書は、それを「超常現象科学」を行うための使用棒 (より多くの筋肉の読書)として使用するのとは異なり、まったく過激ではありません。 ホーキンスは、認知負荷の増加に応じて腕の筋肉の緊張を低下させ、誰かの指の一定の圧力に応じて腕が低下する原因となると説明しています。「暗黙の認知」、「自動性」などのフレーズで言及されている社会心理学には 、長い間確立された広大な研究努力があり、「キネシオロジー」の使用が1つの小さなセクションであることを知らないようです。筋肉の緊張(あまり使用されない)社会心理学者に加えて、EEG、ガルバニック皮膚応答 、および刺激の数秒から数ヶ月後に時々変化する単語、文章、画像または状況に対する最も頻繁な言葉による反応を測定する。BarghやWegnerなどの多くは、S1(自動システム1)を介して意識を持たずに学び 、行動するオートマトンであることを意味する結果を取り、キールストロームやシャンクスのような他の多くの人は、これらの研究に欠陥があり、私たちはS2(審議システム2)の生き物であると言います。ホーキンスは 、高次思考の記述心理学の他の分野と同様に、見当がつかないようですが、ウィトゲンシュタインが30年代の心理学の無菌性と不毛さの理由を述べた時と同じくらい、「オートマチック」に関する状況はまだ混沌としてい ます。それにもかかわらず、この本は読みやすいもので、セラピストや精神的な教師の中には、それを使っている人もいるかもしれません。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

Pinker는 (우리의 진화 된 타고난 심리학의 기본 설정으로 인해) 마음의 기능에 대한 특정 편견과 Wittgenstein이 독특하고 깊은 통찰력을 제공하기 때문에 철학자 (심리학자) Ludwig Wittgenstein의 유명한 의견으로 시작합니다. 언어, 사고 및 현실의 작업 (그가 다소 공동 확장 적이라고 보았 음)은 다른 곳에서는 발견되지 않았습니다. 이 책에는 위트 겐슈 타인에 대한 언급 만 있으며, 이는 그가 가장 훌륭하고 독창적 인 언어 분석 가라는 점을 고려하면 가장 불행한 일입니다.. 마지막 장에서, 플라톤의 동굴의 유명한 은유를 사용하여, 그는 아름답게 마음 (언어, 생각, 의도적 심리학)의 개요와 (...) 책을 요약 - 맹목적인 이기심의 제품, 우리의 유전자의 사본을 들고 가까운 친척에 대한 자동화 된 이타주의에 의해 약간만 중재 (포함 피트니스)-- 자동으로 작동하지만, 우리가 결코 희망을 부여하여 낙관적 인메모에 종료하려고 하지만, 우리는 결코 우리가 희망을 부여하여 낙관적 인 메모에 종료하려고 합니다. 핑커는 확실히 알고 있지만 우리의 심리학에 대한 훨씬 더 포함보다 제외된다는 사실에 대해 거의 말한다. 방치되거나 최소한의 주의를 기울이는 인간의 본성에 대한 창 중에는 수학과 기하학, 음악 및 사운드, 이미지, 이벤트 및 인과 관계, 온톨로지 (사물의 클래스 또는 우리가 알고있는 것), 대부분의 epistemology (우리가 알고있는 방법), 성향 (믿는, 생각, 판단, 의도 등) 행동의 의도적 인 심리학의 나머지, 신경 전달 물질과 entheogens, 영적 상태 (예를 들어, 사토리와 계몽, 뇌 자극 및 기록, 뇌 손상 및 행동 적자 와 장애, 게임과 스포츠, 결정 이론 (포함. 게임 이론과 행동 경제학), 동물 행동 (매우 작은 언어하지만 십억 년). 많은 책은 의도적 인 심리학의 이러한 각 영역에 대해 작성되었습니다. 이 책의 데이터는 설명이지, 왜 우리의 뇌가 이런 식으로 하는지 또는 어떻게 수행되는지를 보여주는 설명이 아닙니다. 우리는 어떻게 그들의 다양한 방법으로 문장을 사용하는 것을 알 수 있습니까 (즉, 모든 의미를 알고)? 이것은 더 기본적인 수준에서 작동 진화 심리학 – 비트 겐슈타인이 가장 활동적인 수준. 그리고 단어가 사용되는 맥락 = 비트겐슈타인이 개척한 경기장에 대한 관심이 부족합니다. 그럼에도불구하고, 이것은 고전적인 작품이며 이러한 주의사항으로 여전히 읽을 가치가 있습니다. 현대 의 두 systems보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. (shrink)

É minha afirmação que a tabela da intencionalidade (racionalidade, mente, pensamento, linguagem, personalidade etc.) que apresenta proeminentemente aqui descreve mais ou menos precisamente, ou pelo menos serve como um heurista para, como pensamos e nos comportamos, e por isso engloba não meramente filosofia e psicologia, mas tudo o resto (história, literatura, matemática, política etc.). Note especialmente que a intencionalidade e a racionalidade como eu (juntamente com Searle, Wittgenstein e outros) a vêem, inclui tanto ações ou reflexos automatizados inconscientes do Sistema (...) 1. -/- Eu forneço uma pesquisa crítica de algumas das principais descobertas de dois dos mais eminentes alunos de comportamento dos tempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sobre a estrutura lógica da intencionalidade (mente, linguagem, comportamento), tendo como ponto de partida a descoberta fundamental de Wittgenstein – que todos os problemas verdadeiramente 'filosóficos' são os mesmos — confusões sobre como usar a linguagem em um contexto específico, e por isso todas as soluções são as mesmas — olhando como a linguagem pode ser usada no contexto em questão para que suas condições de verdade sejam (Condições de Satisfação ou COS) são claras. O problema básico é que se pode dizer qualquer coisa, mas não se pode significar (COS claro do Estado para) qualquer expressão arbitrária e significado só é possível em um contexto muito específico. Analiso vários escritos por e sobre eles da perspectiva moderna dos dois sistemas de pensamento (popularizados como "pensando rápido, pensando devagar"), empregando uma nova tabela de intencionalidade e nova nomenclatura de sistemas duplos. Eu mostro que este é um heurista poderoso para descrever o comportamento. -/- Assim, todo o comportamento está intimamente conectado se tomar o ponto de vista correto. A Ilusão fenomenológica (esquecimento ao nosso Sistema 1 automatizado) é universal e se estende não apenas ao longo da filosofia, mas ao longo da vida. Tenho certeza que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg e o Papa seriam incrédulos se fossem informados de que sofrem do mesmo problema que Hegel, Husserl e Heidegger, (ou que diferem apenas em grau de viciados em drogas e sexo em serem motivados pela estimulação de seus cortices frontais pela entrega de dopamina (e mais de 100 outros produtos químicos) através do tegmentum ventral e do núcleo accumbens), mas é claramente verdadeiro. Enquanto os fenomenologistas só perderam muito tempo de muitas pessoas, eles estão desperdiçando a terra e o futuro de seus descendentes. (shrink)

我已经习惯了奇怪的书和特殊的人,但霍金斯脱颖而出,因为他使用一个简单的技术来测试肌肉张力作为关键,任何种类的陈述的"真相"-即,不只是被测试的人是否相信它,但它是否真的是真的!众所 周知,人们会表现出自动的、无意识的生理和心理反应,就像他们接触到的任何东西——图像、声音、触觉、气味、想法、人。所以,肌肉阅读,找出他们的真实感受是一点也不激进,不像用它作为一个沉思的棍子(更多的肌肉 阅读)做"超自然科学"。 霍金斯描述了在认知负荷增加时使用降低手臂肌肉的张力,从而导致手臂在手指持续压力下下降。他似乎没有意识到,在社会心理学方面,有一个长期而庞大的持续研究,被诸如"隐性认知"、" ;自动性"等短语所指,而他使用"运动学"只是一小部分。除了肌肉张力(不常使用)外,社会心理学家还测量脑电图、电光皮肤反应,以及最常见的言语反应、句子、图像或情况,有时从刺 激后几秒钟到几个月不等。许多,如巴格和韦格纳,认为结果意味着我们是自动机,学习和行动在很大程度上没有意识通过S1(自动化系统1)和许多其他,如基尔斯特罗姆和尚克斯说,这些研究是有缺陷的,我们是S2的生 物(审议系统2)。虽然霍金斯似乎并不知道,就像在高阶思维的描述性心理学的其他领域一样,"自动性"的情况仍然像维特根斯坦描述心理学无菌和贫瘠的原因时一样混乱。在30年代。然而,这本书 是一个容易阅读,一些治疗师和精神教师可能会发现它使用。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

经过半个世纪的遗忘,意识的本质现在是行为科学和哲学中最热门的话题。从路德维希·维特根斯坦在20世纪30年代的开创性工作(蓝本和布朗书),到50年代到现在,他的逻辑继承者约翰·西尔尔(John Searle)的开创性工作开始,我创建了下表,作为推进这项研究的启发。行显示学习的各个方面或方式,列显示由意识逻辑结构(LSC)的两个系统(双过程)组成的非自愿过程和自愿行为,也可以视为逻辑结构理性( LSR-Searle),行为(LSB),人格(LSP),现实(LSOR),故意性(LSI)——古典哲学术语,意识的描述性心理学(DPC),思维的描述性心理学(DPT)——或者更好,思想描述心理学(LD PT)的语言,这里介绍的术语,以及我最近的其他著作中介绍的术语。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

É minha afirmação que a tabela da intencionalidade (racionalidade, mente, pensamento, linguagem, personalidade etc.) que apresenta proeminentemente aqui descreve mais ou menos precisamente, ou pelo menos serve como um heurista para, como pensamos e nos comportamos, e por isso engloba não meramente filosofia e psicologia, mas tudo o resto (história, literatura, matemática, política etc.). Note especialmente que a intencionalidade e a racionalidade como eu (juntamente com Searle, Wittgenstein e outros) a vêem, inclui tanto ações ou reflexos automatizados inconscientes do Sistema (...) 1. Eu forneço uma pesquisa crítica de algumas das principais descobertas de dois dos mais eminentes alunos de comportamento dos tempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sobre a estrutura lógica da intencionalidade (mente, linguagem, comportamento), tendo como ponto de partida a descoberta fundamental de Wittgenstein – que todos os problemas verdadeiramente 'filosóficos' são os mesmos — confusões sobre como usar a linguagem em um contexto específico, e por isso todas as soluções são as mesmas — olhando como a linguagem pode ser usada no contexto em questão para que suas condições de verdade sejam (Condições de Satisfação ou COS) são claras. O problema básico é que se pode dizer qualquer coisa, mas não se pode significar (COS claro do Estado para) qualquer expressão arbitrária e significado só é possível em um contexto muito específico. Analiso vários escritos por e sobre eles da perspectiva moderna dos dois sistemas de pensamento (popularizados como "pensando rápido, pensando devagar"), empregando uma nova tabela de intencionalidade e nova nomenclatura de sistemas duplos. Eu mostro que este é um heurista poderoso para descrever o comportamento. Assim, todo o comportamento está intimamente conectado se tomar o ponto de vista correto. A Ilusão fenomenológica (esquecimento ao nosso Sistema 1 automatizado) é universal e se estende não apenas ao longo da filosofia, mas ao longo da vida. Tenho certeza que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg e o Papa seriam incrédulos se fossem informados de que sofrem do mesmo problema que Hegel, Husserl e Heidegger, (ou que diferem apenas em grau de viciados em drogas e sexo em serem motivados pela estimulação de seus cortices frontais pela entrega de dopamina (e mais de 100 outros produtos químicos) através do tegmentum ventral e do núcleo accumbens), mas é claramente verdadeiro. Enquanto os fenomenologistas só perderam muito tempo de muitas pessoas, eles estão desperdiçando a terra e o futuro de seus descendentes. (shrink)

एम making सामाजिक दुनिया पर विस्तार से टिप्पणी करने से पहले(MSW) मैं पहली बार दर्शन पर कुछ टिप्पणी की पेशकश करेगा (वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान) और समकालीन मनोवैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए अपने रिश्ते के रूप में Searle के कार्यों में उदाहरण के रूप में (एस) और Wittgenstein (डब्ल्यू), जब से मुझे लगता है कि यह सबसे अच्छा तरीका है Searle या व्यवहार पर किसी भी टीकाकार जगह है, उचित परिप्रेक्ष्य में. यह बहुत वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान के इन दो प्रतिभाशाली द्वारा पीएनसी, TLP, पीआई, (...) ओसी, TARW और अन्य पुस्तकों की मेरी समीक्षा देखने में मदद मिलेगी. एस TLP में तंत्र के रूप में मन के डब्ल्यू prescient बयान के लिए कोई संदर्भ नहीं है, और उसके बाद के काम में इसे नष्ट. डब्ल्यू के बाद से, एस व्यवहार के इन यांत्रिक विचारों के प्रमुख deconstructor बन गया है, और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण वर्णनात्मक मनोवैज्ञानिक (philosopher), लेकिन पता नहीं कैसे पूरी तरह से डब्ल्यू उसे प्रत्याशित और न ही, कुल मिलाकर, दूसरों को करते हैं (लेकिन कई कागजात देखते हैं और डब्ल्यू, ट्यूरिंग और एअर इंडिया पर Proudfoot और Copeland की किताबें). एस का काम डब्ल्यू की तुलना में पालन करने के लिए काफी आसान है, और हालांकि वहाँ कुछ शब्दजाल है, यह ज्यादातर शानदार स्पष्ट है अगर आप इसे सही दिशा से दृष्टिकोण. अधिक जानकारी के लिए डब्ल्यू एस और अन्य पुस्तकों की मेरी समीक्षा देखें. कुल मिलाकर, MSW Wittgenstein पर कई पर्याप्त अग्रिमों का एक अच्छा सारांश है काम की एस आधी सदी से जिसके परिणामस्वरूप है, लेकिन मेरे विचार में, डब्ल्यू अभी भी बुनियादी मनोविज्ञान के लिए असमान है एक बार तुम समझ कि वह क्या कह रहा है (मेरी समीक्षा देखें). आदर्श रूप में, वे एक साथ पढ़ा जाना चाहिए: S2/S3 के संचालन पर स्पष्ट सुसंगत गद्य और सामान्यीकरण के लिए Searle, S1/S2 के संचालन के W's perspicacious उदाहरण के साथ सचित्र, और उसके शानदार aphorisms. अगर मैं बहुत छोटा था मैं एक किताब लिखना होगा कि वास्तव में कर रही है. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019) . (shrink)

É minha afirmação que a tabela da intencionalidade (racionalidade, mente, pensamento, linguagem, personalidade etc.) que apresenta proeminentemente aqui descreve mais ou menos precisamente, ou pelo menos serve como um heurista para, como pensamos e nos comportamos, e por isso engloba não meramente filosofia e psicologia, mas tudo o resto (história, literatura, matemática, política etc.). Note especialmente que a intencionalidade e a racionalidade como eu (juntamente com Searle, Wittgenstein e outros) a vêem, inclui tanto ações ou reflexos automatizados inconscientes do Sistema (...) 1. Eu forneço uma pesquisa crítica de algumas das principais descobertas de dois dos mais eminentes alunos de comportamento dos tempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sobre a estrutura lógica da intencionalidade (mente, linguagem, comportamento), tendo como ponto de partida a descoberta fundamental de Wittgenstein – que todos os problemas verdadeiramente 'filosóficos' são os mesmos — confusões sobre como usar a linguagem em um contexto específico, e por isso todas as soluções são as mesmas — olhando como a linguagem pode ser usada no contexto em questão para que suas condições de verdade sejam (Condições de Satisfação ou COS) são claras. O problema básico é que se pode dizer qualquer coisa, mas não se pode significar (COS claro do Estado para) qualquer expressão arbitrária e significado só é possível em um contexto muito específico. Analiso vários escritos por e sobre eles da perspectiva moderna dos dois sistemas de pensamento (popularizados como "pensando rápido, pensando devagar"), empregando uma nova tabela de intencionalidade e nova nomenclatura de sistemas duplos. Eu mostro que este é um heurista poderoso para descrever o comportamento. Assim, todo o comportamento está intimamente conectado se tomar o ponto de vista correto. A Ilusão fenomenológica (esquecimento ao nosso Sistema 1 automatizado) é universal e se estende não apenas ao longo da filosofia, mas ao longo da vida. Tenho certeza que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg e o Papa seriam incrédulos se fossem informados de que sofrem do mesmo problema que Hegel, Husserl e Heidegger, (ou que diferem apenas em grau de viciados em drogas e sexo em serem motivados pela estimulação de seus cortices frontais pela entrega de dopamina (e mais de 100 outros produtos químicos) através do tegmentum ventral e do núcleo accumbens), mas é claramente verdadeiro. Enquanto os fenomenologistas só perderam muito tempo de muitas pessoas, eles estão desperdiçando a terra e o futuro de seus descendentes. (shrink)

पुस्तक पर टिप्पणी करने से पहले, मैं Wittgenstein और Searle और तर्कसंगतता की तार्किक संरचना पर टिप्पणी की पेशकश करते हैं. निबंध यहाँ ज्यादातर पहले से ही पिछले दशक के दौरान प्रकाशित कर रहे हैं (हालांकि कुछ अद्यतन किया गया है), एक अप्रकाशित आइटम के साथ, और यहाँ कुछ भी नहीं जो अपने काम के साथ रखा है के लिए एक आश्चर्य के रूप में आ जाएगा. डब्ल्यू की तरह, वह अपने समय का सबसे अच्छा standup दार्शनिक के रूप में (...) माना जाता है और अपने लिखित काम एक चट्टान और groundbreaking भर के रूप में ठोस है. हालांकि, बाद में डब्ल्यू को गंभीरता से लेने में उनकी विफलता कुछ गलतियों और भ्रमों की ओर ले जाती है। बस कुछ उदाहरण: p7 पर वह दो बार नोट है कि बुनियादी तथ्यों के बारे में हमारी निश्चितता हमारे दावों का समर्थन कारण के भारी वजन के कारण है, लेकिन डब्ल्यू निश्चित रूप से 'पर कुछ' में दिखाया है कि वहाँ की सच केवल स्वयंसिद्ध संरचना पर शक की कोई संभावना नहीं है हमारी प्रणाली 1 धारणा, यादें और विचारों, क्योंकि यह अपने आप में निर्णय के लिए आधार है और खुद को न्याय नहीं किया जा सकता है. p8 पर पहले वाक्य में वह हमें बताता है कि निश्चितता संशोधन योग्य है, लेकिन 'निश्चितता' है, जो हम Certainty2 कह सकते हैं इस तरह के अनुभव के माध्यम से हमारे स्वयंसिद्ध और nonrevisable निश्चितता (Certainty1) का विस्तार करने का परिणाम है और पूरी तरह से अलग है के रूप में यह है प्रस्तावात्मक (सही या गलत)। यह निश्चित रूप से "भाषा द्वारा हमारी बुद्धि के मोहित के खिलाफ लड़ाई" जो डब्ल्यू पर और फिर से प्रदर्शन की एक क्लासिक उदाहरण है. एक शब्द- दो (या कई) अलग-अलग उपयोग। अपने पिछले अध्याय "प्रस्ताव की एकता" (पहले अप्रकाशित) भी पढ़ने से बहुत लाभ होगा डब्ल्यू "पर निश्चितता" या डीएमएस ओसी पर दो किताबें (मेरी समीक्षा देखें) के रूप में वे सच केवल S1 का वर्णन वाक्य और सच है या गलत के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट कर S2 का वर्णन करने वाले प्रस्ताव. यह मुझे एस के लिए एक दूर बेहतर दृष्टिकोण के रूप में हमलों के प्रस्ताव के रूप में S1 धारणा ले रही है क्योंकि वे केवल टी या एफ बन के बाद एक S2 में उनके बारे में सोच शुरू होता है. हालांकि, उनका कहना है कि प्रस्ताव वास्तविक या संभावित सत्य और झूठ के बयान की अनुमति, अतीत और भविष्य और कल्पना की, और इस तरह पूर्व या protolinguistic समाज पर एक बड़ा अग्रिम प्रदान करते हैं, cogent है. के रूप में वह यह राज्यों "एक प्रस्ताव सब पर कुछ भी है कि संतुष्टि की स्थिति निर्धारित कर सकते हैं ... और संतुष्टि की एक शर्त ... यह है कि इस तरह के और इस तरह की स्थिति है। या, एक जोड़ने की जरूरत है, कि हो सकता है या हो सकता है या मामला होने की कल्पना की जा सकती है. कुल मिलाकर, पीएनसी काम के एस आधा सदी से जिसके परिणामस्वरूप Wittgenstein पर कई पर्याप्त अग्रिमों का एक अच्छा सारांश है, लेकिन मेरे विचार में, डब्ल्यू अभी भी असमान है एक बार तुम समझ कि वह क्या कह रहा है. आदर्श रूप में, वे एक साथ पढ़ा जाना चाहिए: स्पष्ट सुसंगत गद्य और सामान्यीकरण के लिए Searle, डब्ल्यू perspicacious उदाहरण और शानदार aphorisms के साथ सचित्र. अगर मैं बहुत छोटा था मैं एक किताब लिखना होगा कि वास्तव में कर रही है. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019). (shrink)

반세기 후에 잊혀진 의식의 본질은 이제 행동 과학과 철학에서 가장 인기있는 주제입니다. 1930 년대 (블루와 브라운 북)의 루트비히 위트 겐슈 타인 (Ludwig Wittgenstein)의 개척적인 작품부터 시작하여 50 년대부터 현재까지 그의 논리적 후임 존 시일 (John Searle)이이 연구를 추론하기위한 휴리스틱으로 다음 표를 만들었습니다. 행은 다양한 측면 또는 연구 방법을 보여주고 열은 LCS (의식의 논리적 구조) 의 두 시스템 (이중 프로세스)을 포함하는 비자발적 프로세스와 자발적인 행동을 보여줍니다. -Searle), 행동 (LSB), 성격 (LSP), 현실 (LSOR), 의도 (LSI)-고전적 철학적 용어, 의식적 심리학 (DPC), 사고 적 (...) 심리학 (DPT) 또는 더 나은 것은, 여기에 그리고 나의 다른 최근 저술에서 소개 된 사고의 묘사 심리학 (LDPT)의 언어입니다. 현대 의 두 시스템 보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. (shrink)

Como la mayoría de los escritos sobre el comportamiento humano, estos artículos carecen de un marco coherente y por lo tanto dudo en recomendar este libro a cualquier persona, ya que los experimentados deben tener la misma perspectiva que yo, y los ingenuos en su mayoría estarán perdiendo su tiempo. Dado que encuentro la mayoría de estos ensayos obviamente fuera de la marca o simplemente muy aburrido, no puedo generar mucho entusiasmo por comentar sobre ellos, así que después de proporcionar (...) lo que considero un precis razonable de un marco (ver mis otros artículos para una versión ampliada) proporciono comentarios superficiales sobre los diversos artículos. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo y actualizado para el comportamiento humano desde la vista moderna de dos sistemas pueden consultar mi libros Talking Monkeys 3ª ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle 2a ed (2019), Suicidio por Democracia 4ª ed (2019), La estructura Lógica del Comportamiento Humano (2019), La Estructura Lógica de la Conciencia (2019, Comprender las Conexiones entre la Ciencia, la Filosofía, Psicología, Religión, Política , Economía, Historia y Literatura (2019), Delirios Utópicos Suicidas en el Siglo XXI 5ª ed (2019) y otras. "La confusión y la estérilidad de la psicología no debe explicarse llamándola "ciencia joven"; su estado no es comparable con el de la física, por ejemplo, en sus inicios. (Más bien con la de ciertas ramas de las matemáticas. Teoría del conjunto.) Porque en psicología hay métodos experimentales y confusión conceptual. (Como en el otro caso, confusión conceptual y métodos de prueba.) La existencia del método experimental nos hace pensar que tenemos los medios para resolver los problemas que nos molestan; aunque el problema y el método se pasan unos a otros". Wittgenstein (PI p.232) . (shrink)

Avant de commenter le livre, je vous propose des commentaires sur Wittgenstein et Searle et la structure logique de la rationalité. Les essais ici sont pour la plupart déjà publiés au cours de la dernière décennie (bien que certains ont été mis à jour), avec un élément non publié, et rien ici ne viendra comme une surprise pour ceux qui ont suivi son travail. Comme W, il est considéré comme le meilleur philosophe standup de son temps et son travail écrit (...) est solide comme un rocher et révolutionnaire tout au long. Cependant, son incapacité à prendre le W plus tard assez au sérieux conduit à quelques erreurs et confusions. Juste quelques exemples: sur p7, il note deux fois que notre certitude sur les faits de base est due à l’importance écrasante de la raison à l’appui de nos revendications, mais W a montré définitivement dans «Sur la certitude» qu’il n’y a aucune possibilité de douter de la véritable seule structure axiomatique de notre système 1 perceptions, souvenirs et pensées, car il est lui-même la base du jugement et ne peut pas lui-même être jugé. Dans la première phrase sur p8, il nous dit que la certitude est révisable, mais ce genre de «certitude», que nous pourrions appeler Certainty2, est le résultat de l’extension de notre certitude axiomatique et non révisible (Certitude1) par l’expérience et est tout à fait différent car il est proposé (vrai ou faux). C’est bien sûr un exemple classique de la « bataille contre l’envoûtement de notre intelligence par la langue » dont W a démontré maintes et maintes fois. Un mot- deux (ou plusieurs) utilisations distinctes. Son dernier chapitre "L’unité de la proposition" (précédemment inédit) bénéficierait également grandement de la lecture de W "On Certainty" ou les deux livres de DMS sur OC (voir mes commentaires) car ils font clairement la différence entre les phrases vraies seulement décrivant S1 et les propositions vraies ou fausses décrivant S2. Cela me semble comme une approche bien supérieure à S de prendre S1 perceptions comme propositionnelle car ils ne deviennent T ou F après que l’on commence à penser à eux dans S2. Cependant, son point que les propositions permettent des déclarations de vérité réelle ou potentielle et de fausseté, du passé et du futur et de la fantaisie, et donc fournir une énorme avancée sur la société pré ou protolinguistique, est convaincante. Comme il l’affirme : « Une proposition est tout ce qui peut déterminer une condition de satisfaction... et une condition de satisfaction... est que tel ou tel est le cas. Ou, il faut ajouter, qui pourrait être ou aurait pu être ou pourrait être imaginé pour être le cas. Dans l’ensemble, PNC est un bon résumé des nombreuses avancées substantielles sur Wittgenstein résultant du demi-siècle de travail de S, mais à mon avis, W est toujours inégalé une fois que vous saisissez ce qu’il dit. Idéalement, ils devraient être lus ensemble: Searle pour la prose et les généralisations clairement cohérentes, illustrés par les exemples perspicaces de W et les aphorismes brillants. Si j’étais beaucoup plus jeune, j’écrirais un livre faisant exactement cela. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deuxemssyst peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

«Les gens disent encore et encore que la philosophie ne progresse pas vraiment, que nous sommes toujours occupés avec les mêmes problèmes philosophiques que les Grecs. Mais les gens qui disent cela ne comprennent pas pourquoi il doit en être ainsi. C’est parce que notre langue est restée la même et continue de nous séduire à poser les mêmes questions. Tant qu’il continue à y avoir un verbe qui ressemble à s’il fonctionne de la même manière que de manger et (...) de boire, tant que nous avons encore les adjectifs 'identiques', 'faux', 'false', 'possible', tant que nous continuons à parler d’une rivière du temps, d’une étendue d’espace, etc., etc., les gens continueront à trébucher sur les mêmes difficultés déroutantes et se retrouveront à regarder quelque chose qui ne semble pas capable de se dégager. Et qui plus est, cela satisfait un désir pour le transcendant, parce que, dans la mesure où les gens pensent qu’ils peuvent voir les ‘«limites de la compréhension humaine », ils croient bien sûr ce ils peuvent voir au-delà de ceux-ci. Cette citation est de Ludwig Wittgenstein qui a redéfini la philosophie il ya 70 ans (mais la plupart des gens n’ont pas encore de le savoir). Dennett, bien qu’il ait été un philosophe pendant une quarantaine d’années, est l’un d’entre eux. Il est également curieux que lui et son antagoniste principal, John Searle, étudié sous les célèbres Wittgensteiniens (Searle avec John Austin, Dennett avec Gilbert Ryle) mais Searle plus ou moins obtenu le point et Dennett n’a pas, (bien qu’il est étirer les choses à appeler Searle ou Ryle Wittgensteinians). Dennett est un déterministe difficile (bien qu’il essaie de se faufiler la réalité dans la porte arrière), et peut-être cela est dû à Ryle, dont le célèbre livre "Le concept de l’esprit" (The Concept of Mind) (1949) continue d’être réimprimé. Ce livre a fait un excellent travail d’exorciser le fantôme, mais il a quitté la machine. Dennett aime faire les erreurs Wittgenstein, Ryle (et beaucoup d’autres depuis) ont exposé en détail. Notre utilisation des mots conscience, choix, liberté, intention, particule, pensée, détermine, vague, cause, arrivé, événement (et ainsi de suite sans fin) sont rarement une source de confusion, mais dès que nous quittons la vie normale et entrer dans la philosophie (et toute discussion détachée de l’environnement dans lequel la langue a évolué-c’est-à-dire le contexte exact dans lequel les mots avaient un sens) chaos règne. Comme la plupart, Dennett n’a pas un cadre cohérent - que Searle a appelé la structure logique de la rationalité. J’ai développé sur ce considérablement depuis que j’ai écrit cette revue et mes articles récents montrent en détail ce qui ne va pas avec l’approche de Dennett à la philosophie, que l’on pourrait appeler Scientism sur les stéroïdes. Permettez-moi de terminer par une autre citation de Wittgenstein-- «L’ambition est la mort de la pensée. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systèmes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2020) et autres. (shrink)

ここで顕著に特徴付ける意図的性(合理性、心、思考、言語、人格など)のテーブルは、多かれ少なかれ正確に記述されているか、少なくともヒューリスティックとして機能し、私たちがどのように考え、振る舞うか、そし てそれは包含されないという私の主張です。単なる哲学と心理学、しかし、他のすべて(歴史、文学、数学、政治など)。特に、私が(サール、ヴィトゲンシュタインなどと共に)それを見るように、意図的性と合理性には 、意識的な審議言語システム2と無意識の自動言語前システム1の行動または反射神経の両方が含まれていることに注意してください。 私は、現代の行動の最も著名な学生の2人の主要な調査結果のいくつかを批判的な調査を提供し、 ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールは、意図的性の論理的構造(心、言語、行動)について、私の出発点として、ウィトゲンシュタインの根本的な発見を取り入れ、真の「哲学的」問題はすべて同じであ り、特定の文脈で言語を使用する方法についての混乱が生じ、すべての解決策は同じであり、言語が文脈でどのように使用できるかを見て、その真実の条件を見て(満足の条件またはCOS)は明確です。基本的な問題は、 任意のanything発話と意味が非常に特定の文脈でのみ可能であることを意味することはできません(明確なCOSを明確にする)ことを意味することはできません。私は、2つの思考システムの現代的な視点(「速 く考え、ゆっくり考える」と一般的)から、意図的性と新しいデュアルシステム命名法の新しいテーブルを採用して、それらによる様々な著作を分析します。これは、動作を記述するための強力なヒューリスティックである ことを示しています。 したがって、正しい視点を取れば、すべての行動は密接に結びついています。「フェノメノロジカル・イリュージョン(自動化システム1の忘却)」は普遍的であり、哲学を通してだけでなく、生涯を通じて広がっています 。私はチョムスキーが、 オバマ、ザッカーバーグ、教皇は、ヘーゲル、フッサール、ハイデガーと同じ問題に苦しんでいると言われた場合(または、腹側テグメンタムと核を介してドーパミン(および100以上の他の化学物質)の送達によって前 頭間皮質の刺激によって動機づけられることで、薬物中毒者や性中毒者とは程度だけが異なると言われた場合、信じられないでしょう。月論者は多くの人々の時間を無駄にしただけで、地球とその子孫の未来を無駄にしてい ます。 .

Es mi afirmación que la tabla de intencionalidad (racionalidad, mente, pensamiento, lenguaje, personalidad, etc.) que presenta prominentemente aquí describe más o menos con precisión, o al menos sirve como heurística para, cómo pensamos y nos comportamos, y por lo tanto no abarca simplemente filosofía y psicología, sino todo lo demás (historia, literatura, matemáticas, política, etc.). Tenga en cuenta especialmente que la intencionalidad y racionalidad como yo (junto con Searle, Wittgenstein y otros) lo veo, incluye tanto el Sistema Linguístico deliberativo consciente (...) 2 como las acciones o reflejos inconscientes automatizados del Sistema 1 automatizado. -/- Proporciono una encuesta crítica de algunos de los principales hallazgos de dos de los estudiantes más eminentes de comportamiento de los tiempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle, sobre la estructura lógica de la intencionalidad (mente, lenguaje, comportamiento), tomando como punto de partida el descubrimiento fundamental de Wittgenstein -que todos los problemas verdaderamente "filosóficos" son los mismos—confusiones sobre cómo usar el lenguaje en un contexto particular, y por lo tanto todas las soluciones son las mismas— mirando cómo se puede utilizar el lenguaje en el contexto en cuestión para que sus condiciones de verdad (Condiciones de Satisfacción o COS) son claras. El problema básico es que uno puede decir cualquier cosa, pero no se puede significar (indicar COS claro para) cualquier expresión arbitraria y significado sólo es posible en un contexto muy específico. Analizo varios escritos por y sobre ellos desde la perspectiva moderna de los dos sistemas de pensamiento (popularizados como 'pensar rápido, pensar lento'), empleando una nueva tabla de intencionalidad y nueva nomenclatura de sistemas duales. Demuestro que esta es una heurística poderosa para describir el comportamiento. -/- Por lo tanto, todo comportamiento está íntimamente conectado si uno toma el punto de vista correcto. La Ilusión Fenomenológica (olvido a nuestro Sistema automatizado 1) es universal y se extiende no sólo a lo largo de la filosofía, sino a lo largo de la vida. Estoy seguro de que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg y el Papa serían incrédulos si se les dijera que sufren del mismo problema que Hegel, Husserl y Heidegger, (o que difieren sólo en grado de los adictos a las drogas y el sexo en estar motivados por la estimulación de sus cortices frontales por la entrega de dopamina (y más de 100 otros productos químicos) a través del tegmentum ventral y el núcleo accumbens),pero es claramente cierto. Mientras que los fenomenólogos sólo desperdiciaron mucho el tiempo de la gente, están desperdiciando la tierra y el futuro de sus descendientes. (shrink)

Expertise is traditionally classified into perceptual, cognitive, and motor forms. I argue that the empirical research literature on expertise gives us compelling reasons to reject this traditional classification and accept an alternative. According to the alternative I support there is expertise in forming impressions, which further divides into expertise in forming sensory and intellectual impressions, and there is expertise in performing actions, which further divides into expertise in performing mental and bodily actions. The traditional category of cognitive expertise splits into (...) two--expertise in forming intellectual impressions and expertise in performing mental actions. I consider and address a challenge to my case in favor of adopting this alternative classification of expertise that derives from dual process theories of cognition. (shrink)

The professor of psychopathology Simon Baron-Cohen claims that males are on average stronger at systematizing than empathizing and females are on average stronger at empathizing than systematizing. Systematizing is defined as the drive to construct or understand systems. In this paper, I observe that Baron-Cohen overlooks certain examples of systems, examples which lead to doubts about his claim.

According to McHugh and Way reasoning is a person-level attitude revision that is regulated by its constitutive aim of getting fitting attitudes. They claim that this account offers an explanation of what is wrong with reasoning in ways one believes to be bad and that this explanation is an alternative to an explanation that appeals to the so-called Taking Condition. I argue that their explanation is unsatisfying.

The paper offers an account of inference. The account underwrites the idea that inference requires that the reasoner takes her premises to support her conclusion. I reject views according to which such ‘takings’ are intuitions or beliefs. I sketch an alternative view on which inferring consists in attaching what I call ‘inferential force’ to a structured collection of contents.

While we can judge and believe things by merely accepting testimony, we cannot make inferences by merely accepting testimony. A good theory of inference should explain this. The theories that are best suited to explain this fact seem to be theories that accept a so-called intuitional construal of Boghossian’s Taking Condition.

Thought’s Pathway was published in the third Zeno Press anthology. Edited by Christian Patracchini, the subject of the anthology was the themes present in Elmmino Olmi’s A Tree of Wooden Clogs. The essay explores the relationship between thought and the natural environment, the places where Heidegger and Nietzsche chose to think, and the dual-meaning of the title in terms of the representational unity of the inner line of thinking and outer natural area.

The thesis that in order to genuinely think about a particular object one must be (in some sense) acquainted with that object has been thoroughly explored since it was put forward by Bertrand Russell. Recently, the thesis has come in for mounting criticism. The aim of this paper is to point out that neither the exploration nor the criticism have been sensitive to the fact that the thesis can be interpreted in two different ways, yielding two different principles of acquaintance. (...) One principle uses the notion of content in distinguishing genuine thinking-about things from a merely derivative kind of thinking-about things. The other principle is quiet about content, focusing instead on a distinction between satisfactional and non-satisfactional means of bringing things into thought. Most work has focused on the first, content-based principle of acquaintance. But criticisms of this principle do not apply straightforwardly to the non-content-based principle. I shall argue that the latter principle merits independent assessment as part of the broader effort to account for genuine thinking about particular objects. In the final section of the paper, I will sketch a roadmap for this assessment. (shrink)

Публикация (#5) из научно-популярного цикла: "Структурная онтология познания с доктором Шимко".

This book is the result of Searle's stay in the Munster University Philosophy Dept in 2009 and all the papers except his introductory one and his final response are from persons associated with Munster. However, all the papers were written or revised later and so are one of the most up to date looks at his views available as of mid-2013. S has in my view made more fundamental contributions to higher order descriptive psychology (philosophy) than anyone since Wittgenstein (W), (...) and has been writing world class material for over 50 years. He is also (like W before him) regarded as the best standup philosopher alive and has taught and lectured worldwide. He is also one of the clearest and most careful writers in the field, so one would think that every philosopher writing an article on his work would have an up to date and accurate understanding of his ideas. Unfortunately, this book shows that this is far from true. All the 11 articles make major mistakes regarding his views and regarding what he (and I) would regard as an accurate description of behavior. -/- Searle's obliviousness (which he shares with most philosophers) to the modern two systems framework, and to the full implications of W’s “radical” epistemology, as stated most dramatically in his last work ‘On Certainty’, is most unfortunate (as I have noted in many reviews). It was Wittgenstein who did the first and best job of describing the two systems (though nobody else has noticed) and OC represents a major event in intellectual history. Not only is Searle unaware of the fact that his framework is a straightforward continuation of W, but everyone else is too, which accounts for the lack of any significant reference to W in this book. As usual one also notes no apparent acquaintance with Evolutionary Psychology, which can enlighten all discussions of behavior by providing the real ultimate evolutionary and biological explanations rather than the superficial proximate cultural ones. -/- However, his comment on p212 is right on the money—the ultimate explanation (or as W insists the description) can only be a naturalized one which describes how mind, will, self, intention work and cannot meaningfully eliminate them as ‘real’ phenomena. Recall Searle’s famous review of Dennett’s ‘Conscious Explained’ entitled “Consciousness explained away”. And this makes it all the more bizarre that Searle should repeatedly state that we don’t know for sure if we have free will and that we have to ‘postulate’ a self (p218-219). -/- As he notes “The neuro-biological processes and the mental phenomena are the same event, described at different levels” and “How can conscious intentions cause bodily movement? …How can the hammer move the nail in virtue of being solid? …If you analyze what solidity is causally…if you analyze what intention-in-action is causally, you see analogously there is no philosophical problem left over.” -/- Also, I would state “The heart of my argument is that our linguistic practices, as commonly understood, presuppose a reality that exists independently of our representations.” (p223) as “Our life shows a world that does not depend on our existence and cannot be intelligibly challenged.” -/- This book is valuable principally as a recent synopsis of the work of one the greatest philosophers of recent times. But there is also value in analyzing his responses to the many basic confusions manifested in the articles by others. Since this review, I have written many articles extending the framework of the logical structure of rationality and commenting in depth on Searle and Wittgenstein which are all readily available on the net. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable world— technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers. (...) -/- America and the world are in the process of collapse from excessive population growth, most of it for the last century and now all of it due to 3rd world people. Consumption of resources and the addition of 4 billion more ca. 2100 will collapse industrial civilization and bring about starvation, disease, violence and war on a staggering scale. Billions will die and nuclear war is all but certain. In America this is being hugely accelerated by massive immigration and immigrant reproduction, combined with abuses made possible by democracy. Depraved human nature inexorably turns the dream of democracy and diversity into a nightmare of crime and poverty. The root cause of collapse is the inability of our innate psychology to adapt to the modern world, which leads people to treat unrelated persons as though they had common interests. This, plus ignorance of basic biology and psychology, leads to the social engineering delusions of the partially educated who control democratic societies. Few understand that if you help one person you harm someone else—there is no free lunch and every single item anyone consumes destroys the earth beyond repair. Consequently social policies everywhere are unsustainable and one by one all societies without stringent controls on selfishness will collapse into anarchy or dictatorship. Without dramatic and immediate changes, there is no hope for preventing the collapse of America, or any country that follows a democratic system. Hence my concluding essay “Suicide by Democracy”. -/- Those wishing to read my other writings may see Talking Monkeys 2nd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle 2nd ed (2019), Suicide by Democracy 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Stucture of Human Behavior (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

TLP is a remarkable document which continues to seduce some the best minds in philosophy, with new books and articles dealing partly or entirely with it appearing frequently over a century after it was first conceived. The first thing to note is that W later rejected it entirely for reasons he spent the rest of his life explaining. He was doing philosophy (descriptive psychology) as though the mind was a logical mathematical machine that processed facts, and behavior was the result. (...) Thus, long before computers W gave the ultimate statement of what was half a century later to become known as strong AI, CTM (Computational Theory of Mind) and most recently DSM (Dynamic Systems Theory). Eventually, W realized that perception and memory were the raw material acted upon by our innate psychology (EP) and logic and math were some of the results. Being able to say or understand anything presupposed EP and trying to make logic primary leads to incoherence, as is evident throughout TLP (and the explanation for its many bizarre statements-see e.g. Hutto). Even so, one can “understand” TLP in the sense that one can state the confusions he labored under and which most of the world still does. I briefly review Wittgenstein’s work in modern context. Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable world— technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers. (...) -/- America and the world are in the process of collapse from excessive population growth, most of it for the last century and now all of it due to 3rd world people. Consumption of resources and the addition of 4 billion more ca. 2100 will collapse industrial civilization and bring about starvation, disease, violence and war on a staggering scale. Billions will die and nuclear war is all but certain. In America this is being hugely accelerated by massive immigration and immigrant reproduction, combined with abuses made possible by democracy. Depraved human nature inexorably turns the dream of democracy and diversity into a nightmare of crime and poverty. The root cause of collapse is the inability of our innate psychology to adapt to the modern world, which leads people to treat unrelated persons as though they had common interests. This, plus ignorance of basic biology and psychology, leads to the social engineering delusions of the partially educated who control democratic societies. Few understand that if you help one person you harm someone else—there is no free lunch and every single item anyone consumes destroys the earth beyond repair. Consequently social policies everywhere are unsustainable and one by one all societies without stringent controls on selfishness will collapse into anarchy or dictatorship. Without dramatic and immediate changes, there is no hope for preventing the collapse of America, or any country that follows a democratic system. Hence my concluding essay “Suicide by Democracy”. (shrink)

Materialismo, reducionismo, behaviorismo, funcionalismo, teoria dos sistemas dinâmicos e computacionalismo são visões populares, mas eles foram mostrados por Wittgenstein para ser incoerente. O estudo do comportamento abrange toda a vida humana, mas o comportamento é em grande parte automático e inconsciente e até mesmo a parte consciente, principalmente expressa em linguagem (que Wittgenstein equivale com a mente), não é perspicaz, por isso é fundamental ter um quadro que Searle chama a estrutura lógica da racionalidade (LSR) e eu chamo a psicologia (...) descritiva do pensamento de ordem superior (DPHOT). Depois de resumir a estrutura trabalhada por Wittgenstein e Searle, como estendido pela pesquisa de raciocínio moderno, eu mostro as inadequações nas visões de Carruther, que permeavam a maioria das discussões de comportamento, incluindo a conduta comportamental contemporânea Ciências. Eu mantenho que seu livro é um amálgama de dois livros, um um sumário da psicologia cognitiva e o outro um sumário das confusões filosóficas padrão na mente com algum jargão novo adicionado. Eu sugiro que este último deve ser considerado como incoerente ou como uma visão dos desenhos animados da vida e que tomar Wittgenstein em sua palavra, podemos praticar a autoterapia bem sucedida, em relação à questão da mente/corpo como uma questão de linguagem/corpo. -/- Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia- Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) y outras. (shrink)

Antes de comentar sobre el libro, ofrezco comentarios sobre Wittgenstein y Searle y la estructura lógica de la racionalidad. Los ensayos aquí son en su mayoría ya publicados durante la última década (aunque algunos han sido actualizados), junto con un artículo inédito, y nada aquí vendrá como una sorpresa para aquellos que han mantenido su trabajo. Al igual que W, es considerado como el mejor filósofo de su tiempo y su obra escrita es sólida como una roca y pionera en (...) todo. Sin embargo, su fracaso para tomar la W más tarde lo suficientemente seriamente conduce a algunos errores y confusiones. Sólo algunos ejemplos: en P7, dos veces señala que nuestra certeza sobre los hechos básicos se debe al peso abrumador de la razón que respalda nuestras afirmaciones, pero W demostró definitivamente en ' on certidumbre ' que no hay posibilidad de dudar de la verdadera estructura axiomática de nuestro sistema 1 percepciones, memorias y pensamientos, ya que es en sí la base para el juicio y no puede ser juzgado. En la primera frase del P8 nos dice que la certeza es revisable, pero este tipo de ' certeza ', que podríamos llamar Certainty2, es el resultado de extender nuestra certeza axiomática y no revisable (Certainty1) a través de la experiencia y es completamente diferente, ya que es proposicional (verdadero o falso). Este es, por supuesto, un ejemplo clásico de la "batalla contra la hechizamiento de nuestra inteligencia por el lenguaje" que W demostró una y otra vez. Una palabra-dos (o muchos) usos distintos. Su último capítulo "la unidad de la Proposición" (anteriormente inédito) también se beneficiaría en gran medida de la lectura de W "en la certeza" o de los dos libros de DMS sobre OC (ver mis comentarios), ya que hacen claro la diferencia entre verdaderas sólo frases que describen S1 y verdadero o falso proposiciones que describen S2. Esto me parece un enfoque muy superior a S tomando percepciones S1 como proposicional ya que sólo se convierten en T o F después de que uno comienza a pensar en ellos en S2. Sin embargo, su punto de que las proposiciones permiten declaraciones de la verdad y la falsedad real o potencial, del pasado y del futuro y de la fantasía, y por lo tanto proporcionar un gran avance sobre la sociedad pre o protolingüística, es convincente. Como dice, "una proposición es cualquier cosa que pueda determinar una condición de satisfacción... y una condición de satisfacción... es que tal y tal es el caso. " O, uno necesita agregar, que podría ser o podría haber sido o podría ser imaginado para ser el caso. En general, PNC es un buen Resumen de los muchos avances sustanciales sobre Wittgenstein resultantes del medio siglo de trabajo de S, pero en mi opinión, W todavía es inigualable una vez que se comprende lo que está diciendo. Idealmente, deben leerse juntos: Searle para la clara prosa y generalizaciones coherentes, ilustradas con los ejemplos perspicaces de W y aforismos brillantes. Si yo fuera mucho más joven escribiría un libro haciendo exactamente eso. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punto de vista puede consultar mi libro 'La estructura lógica de la filosofía, la psicología, la mente y lenguaje En Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle ' 2nd ED (2019). Los interesados en más de mis escritos pueden ver 'Monos parlantes--filosofía, psicología, ciencia, religión y política en un planeta condenado--artículos y reseñas 2006-2019 3rd ED (2019) y delirios utópicos suicidas en el 21St Century 4TH Ed (2019) y otras. (shrink)

The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable world— technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers. (...) -/- America and the world are in the process of collapse from excessive population growth, most of it for the last century and now all of it due to 3rd world people. Consumption of resources and the addition of 4 billion more ca. 2100 will collapse industrial civilization and bring about starvation, disease, violence and war on a staggering scale. Billions will die and nuclear war is all but certain. In America this is being hugely accelerated by massive immigration and immigrant reproduction, combined with abuses made possible by democracy. Depraved human nature inexorably turns the dream of democracy and diversity into a nightmare of crime and poverty. The root cause of collapse is the inability of our innate psychology to adapt to the modern world, which leads people to treat unrelated persons as though they had common interests. This, plus ignorance of basic biology and psychology, leads to the social engineering delusions of the partially educated who control democratic societies. Few understand that if you help one person you harm someone else—there is no free lunch and every single item anyone consumes destroys the earth beyond repair. Consequently, social policies everywhere are unsustainable and one by one all societies without stringent controls on selfishness will collapse into anarchy or dictatorship. Without dramatic and immediate changes, there is no hope for preventing the collapse of America, or any country that follows a democratic system. Hence my essay “Suicide by Democracy”. It is also now clear that the seven sociopaths who rule China are winning world war 3, and so my concluding essay on them. The only greater threat is Artificial Intelligence which I comment on briefly in the last paragraph. (shrink)

The article analyzes the main aspects of the interpretation of philosophical thinking by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowskі (1927–2009). He is more known as a brilliant disputant on the history of Marxism and the prospects for the further development of Marxist theory, but his thoughts on the nature and functions of philosophical thinking in the broadest sense are of no less importance, since they address the painful issue of the autonomy of thinking. The purpose of the article is to reconstruct (...) the principles that, according to the philosopher, would allow thinking to maintain its autonomy under the pressure of ideas and ideologies. Utopia and nihilism in the interpretation of L. Kolakowskі appear as temptations of the modern world. It is in the quest for defending from these “monsters” (L. Kolakowskі) that the philosopher comes to the conclusion that the basis of utopia and nihilism are certain ideas about the truth. Through the prism of this theoretical discovery, he reveals the importance of consensus, tolerance, compromise, and non-consistency (inconsistency) as epistemological tools of support or undermining of ideologies. The basic epistemological model the philosopher used has been reproduced by means of theoretical reconstruction. This is the attitude of the subject to the truth, which is realized in two ways: to either master the truth on the basis of certain beliefs or neglect the truth on the basis of other beliefs. With the help of this model, the philosopher comes to understanding that dogmatism and unification are not only utopian diseases but also nihilists. The reason for this is loyalty to one’s own truth, that is, thinking without gaps based on unchanging principles and aimed at reproducing certain institutional and social constants. Instead, inconsistency as a principle forms a completely different setting, the advantage of which is that it extends to itself and frees a thinker from the need to be or not to be consistent, but does not relieve the search of truth and meaning, without which human existence is impossible, according to L. Kolakowskі. The reconstruction was carried out on the basis of analysis of articles and essays of various years, combined with the development of concepts of utopia and nihilism as alternative projects of human existence, rooted in the epistemological directions of the subject. (shrink)

Adverbialist theories of thought such as those advanced by Hare and Sellars promise an ontologically sleek understanding of a variety of intentional states, but such theories have been largely abandoned due to the ‘many-property problem’. In an attempt to revitalize this otherwise attractive theory, in a series of papers as well as his recent book, Uriah Kriegel has offered a novel reply to the ‘many-property problem’ and on its basis he argues that ‘adverbialism about intentionality is alive and well’. If (...) true, Kriegel will have shown that the logical landscape has long been unnecessarily constrained. His key idea is that the many-property problem can be overcome by appreciating that mental states stand in the determinable–determinate relation to one another. The present paper shows that this relation can’t save adverbialism because it would require thinkers to think more thoughts than they need be thinking. (shrink)

No debate acerca da singularidade de, pelos menos, alguns de nossos pensamentos sobre o mundo, assume-se corriqueiramente que o responsável pela natureza singular do episódio mental não é o próprio episódio e, sim, a proposição singular expressa quer por um proferimento assertórico de sentença singular autônoma, quer pela cláusula complementar em um relato de atribuição de atitude proposicional. As rotas semânticas padrão assumem que a singularidade do episódio mental (conceitual) é por assim dizer “herdada” da singularidade do conteúdo. Argumento que (...) este pressuposto apresenta uma lacuna, pois desconsidera o papel desempenhado em certos atos de pensamento, chamados de episódicos, por habilidades cognitivas tais como a capacidade de perceber objetos particulares, de vivenciar (novamente) ou de projetar-se mentalmente em direção a acontecimentos particulares pessoais, diretamente responsáveis por sua singularidade. No entanto, contra a tese de que haveria capacidades episódicas aí envolvidas, argumento que a singularidade dos atos de pensar episódicos se dá pelo exercício pontual no espaço e no tempo dessas capacidades e há, portanto, um sentido não derivado em que eles podem ser qualificados como singulares. (shrink)

This article brings forth a new perspective concerning the relation between stupidity and thinking by proposing to conceptualise the state of non-thinking in two different ways, situated at the opposite ends of the spectrum of thinking. Two conceptualisations of stupidity are discussed, one critical which follows a French line of continental thinkers, and the other one which will be called educational or ascetic, following the work of Agamben. The critical approach is conceptualised in terms of seriality of thinking, or thinking (...) captured by an apparatus, whereas the ascetic-educational approach is discussed by tracing the links between studying and stupidity. Both accounts assume that stupidity as non-thinking is a condition for thinking, either placed before thinking emerges or as an after-thought. However, the political implications concerning the role of philosophy in the public realm are divergent: for the critical approach, the task of the philosopher is to criticise the world, whereas for the ascetic approach, the task is to work on one’s own self and hope that the world will be changed through thinking. The wider aim of this article is to contribute to the debate concerning the public role of the intellectual starting from the assumption that there is a duty to think publicly and then clarifying what this duty entails in relation to the self and the others. (shrink)

We exist inside a Game of Thinking. We call it the universe, life, reality. But it is the Game of Thinking, a game not played by us, but by thought. Thinking is a fact; everything else is theory. Thought wants us to think. If that was not true, we would be able to stop thinking. But we are not. Our thinking process runs our lives, yet we do not control it, create it, or guide it. Nor can we switch it (...) off. For it to be real, freedom has to not be a thought. By acquiring more thought, thought acquires you. By acquiring less thought, you acquire you. There is no need to understand black holes or string theory. Those things don’t matter, and they may not even exist. There is, likewise, no need to understand ourselves. The benefits of understanding a fool are minimal, and we are all fools. But there is a need to understand understanding itself, which is the Game of Thinking. This book is the first of its kind that questions what is never questioned, namely thinking itself. The purpose of this book is to acquire less thought, not more. (shrink)