• apokrisis
    Not my cup of tea.Banno

    Always a devastating answer. Shows you take the big questions seriously.
  • Heiko
    I suppose Harry might have some variation of Kripke's causal chains of reference in mind; but it would be a long and odd stretch to say that causal chains of reference referred to mental images.Banno

    You can be wrong in statements about Harry because I understand such statements making a claim about something that is not inside your head. But reality is of negative nature.
  • Harry Hindu
    What shall "actual Harry Hindu" mean? The actual mental image?
    If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person.
    If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that.
    Did I not already explain that your mental image is an effect (a representation) of the the real thing? Mental images are real, just as a mirror image is real and part of the world. This is why we can use words to refer to either, and it is typically understood which one is being referred to within the context of the conversation. It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? It allows for us to be wrong or inaccurate, which happens often, when describing things outside of our minds. How do you explain the possibility of being inaccurate with your descriptions if you are always referring to something in the world?

    The problem with these arguments against my position is that they don't take into account all the attributes of communication and how we use words. No one elses' explanations have been able to account for how non-established uses of words arise within a language system or how we can be wrong in our descriptions of the world. Any description of language and meaning has to take these things into account to be of any value.

    Harry can't see it. Odd. Let's be clear: Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu. Yet if Harry's theory of meaning were right, he would be.

    your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, — Harry Hindu

    Indeed. Which of them is Harry Hindu?
    The one that is absent of your biased and skewed mental representations of me.

    Apart from solipsism I'm not aware of any philosophy where a statement about the world would not refer to something outside the mind.Heiko
    1) The mind is part of the world.

    2) We can talk about the contents of other people's minds. i.e "Banno is delusional and believes that he is a chicken."
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.