• Shawn
    12.6k
    I've been reading the beetle in a box argument raised by Ludwig Wittgenstein and think it is illustrative of logical behaviourism. According to Wittgenstein, we can only infer intent from behaviour, there is nothing more to intent than the sum total of all behaviour displayed by any individual. The "beetle" is a beetle because we all agree that it is so.

    So, what happens to concepts like "subjectivity", "pains", and "intentionality"? Do we just throw them away or are they indicative that logical behaviourism is not all-encompassing in describing the affective aspect of the mind?
  • macrosoft
    674


    I'd love to reply, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't see what you are doing right now. But assuming I could understand you, I do wonder how you grokked this beetle in a box argument. Did Wittgenstein dance like a bee to communicate it? And I thought he had left us long since.

    (I'm joking with you, but maybe you see my concern. )
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    I'd love to reply, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't see what you are doing right now. But assuming I could understand you, I do wonder how you grokked this beetle in a box argument. Did Wittgenstein dance like a bee to communicate it?macrosoft

    Yes! It's almost as if I have to break down the puzzle and reassemble it in my own way to be able to understand what you mean. What do you think about this 'breaking down "process"'?
  • macrosoft
    674
    Yes! It's almost as if I have to break down the puzzle and reassemble it in my own way to be able to understand what you mean. What do you think about this 'breaking down "process"'?Posty McPostface

    That does sound more like it. But why breaking down? Why not building up? We somehow assemble a sequence of words and end up with a complete thought. In most cases (away from philosophy, right) it is as easy as breathing.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Plato called it noesis, or intelligibility. Bertrand Russell called it the Principle of Acquaintance.

    I think it's our ability to "reproduce" it in our own way.
  • macrosoft
    674


    Yeah, I like that. Noesis seems to be pointing at that dark place from where we listen. It makes sense that the brain is doing some kind of assembly. And that supports the non-instantaneous nature of meaning. It also supports the 'time' of meaning. Our eyes scan from left to right, with memory and expectation. There are spaces between the words, but I don't think reading-for-us is actually jagged like that. Meaning is continuous. A sentence is a musical whole.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Noesis seems to be pointing at that dark place from where we listen.macrosoft

    No, "noesis" is indicative of illuminating light (originating from the sun) according to Plato.
  • macrosoft
    674
    No, "noesis" is indicative of illuminating light (originating from the sun) according to Plato.Posty McPostface

    Surely not the literal sun. The question is what is this thing that illuminates everything else and yet itself recedes? I can't speak for Plato's intentions, but the sun reveals things. The sun comes up and the landscape is there in all its detail.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Meaning is continuous. A sentence is a musical whole.macrosoft

    Since you edited your post, I'll address it:

    The world is the totality of facts, not things. What do "facts" mean to you? There's nothing dark or mysterious about 'facts' is there?
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    I can't speak for Plato's intentions, but the sun reveals things. The sun comes up and the landscape is there in all its detail.macrosoft

    I'm deviating; but, are intents hidden from the sunlight?
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    If a behavioural solipsist were to come along and tell us s/he known intent inferred from behaviour, how could we prove s/he wrong?
  • Brianna Whitney
    21
    No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -Goethe
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -GoetheBrianna Whitney

    What do you mean?!
  • macrosoft
    674
    The world is the totality of facts, not things. What do "facts" mean to you? There's nothing dark or mysterious about 'facts' is there?Posty McPostface

    I think so. Facts are intelligible.The mystery is meaning itself. What facts versus things gets right is a nexus of relations, the world as a kind of object-networked field of meaning. I'd say just look at the world as you live in it. Remember how it is for you when you weren't thinking of yourself as a philosopher.
  • macrosoft
    674
    I'm deviating; but, are intents hidden from the sunlight?Posty McPostface

    I'm saying that language-as-a-hole or the 'operating system' lies coiled in the dark place from which we listen and speak. Since the operating system is purring in the background, doing its job, what you speak and hear makes since to you. These words make some kind of sense. What is hidden from the sunlight is the sun itself. That which makes visible/intelligible is itself in darkness. The thought of mind is not the mind itself, and 'mind' is a misleading word that already over-specifies by neglecting the essential sharedness of language. Or we can say that mind is surprisingly social, given our air-gapped skulls. On the other hand, the whole point of meaning would seem to be for humans to work together. We are so deeply social that we live in a kind of sense-making 'fluid' that we can only imperfectly make sense of. What whatever we say about this 'fluid' is said 'by' or 'within' this 'fluid.'

    It may sound mystical, but it's just phenomenological. It's just this space we share as we converse. We tend to take it for granted, use it without looking at it.
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    f a behavioural solipsist were to come along and tell us s/he known intent inferred from behaviour, how could we prove s/he wrong?Posty McPostface

    The amount of invalid inferences this behaviorist would make. Think about all the times we try to tell whether someone is lying, or fail to tell. Take a jury trying to decide if a defendant acts guilty during a trial. Or how often in true crime people's opinions will split over whether someone sounded suspicious on a 911 call.
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    So, what happens to concepts like "subjectivity", "pains", and "intentionality"? Do we just throw them away or are they indicative that logical behaviourism is not all-encompassing in describing the affective aspect of the mind?Posty McPostface

    Do you experience pains and mean things? If so, then why would you throw them away because of some philosophical argument?

    If the beetle in the box entails logical behaviorism, then it's flat out wrong.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    we can only infer intent from behaviour,Posty McPostface

    Yes, when we're talking about third-person observing other people.

    there is nothing more to intent than the sum total of all behaviour displayed by any individual.

    No, not at all. That's conflating the third-person observation problem with the first-person phenomenon. Not the same thing.

    So, what happens to concepts like "subjectivity", "pains", and "intentionality"?Posty McPostface

    What happens is we say that Wittgenstein apparently doesn't understand the phenomena in question.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Yes! It's almost as if I have to break down the puzzle and reassemble it in my own way to be able to understand what you mean.Posty McPostface

    Of course. That's obviously how meaning works.

    That does sound more like it. But why breaking down? Why not building up?macrosoft

    Probably don't be so literal about the phrase "break down."
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
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.