Perhaps I'll be safe here (Page 136) Jannik X: Road Trip to Understanding It Troublinn: Do you desire a cookie or do you just want one? JX: Depends on the cookie. Why? Are you offering one? Troublinn: I should not ask the really dumb question: if the word “desire” is the signifier for a feeling that “is what it is”……….. what is it, that is being signified? JX: This is a question that gets to the root issue – and is much discussed in the literature. Bonus points for smart observation. A common argument you will get in the literature goes like this. How do you know what any “it is what it is” IS? That is, for any X (shoe, eye, tree etc) you have to look it up in a dictionary. So you look up “shoe” in the dictionary. Well, to understand the definition, you will then have to look up each word in the definition. And then you will have to look up each word of each word in the definition… and on and on it goes. It’s like when you put a couple mirrors together and get an infinite regress of reflections. So, let’s consider it like this. Let’s say we decided to turn a three-day lost weekend into a Big Adventure! OK, so we go to Hertz rent-a-car and rent a Ferrari 458. Then we set out on the highway with no lack of fabulous songs blasting through the speakers as we speed down to Baja California. Our goal? We want to check out Richard Feynman’s ocean front home that he won with the Nobel Prize money. That would be totally cool, right? And hit the beach and whatever else. Hey, it’s Mexico. Oleeeeeeeeeeee! But just a sec. How do we KNOW any of this is real? How do we KNOW Richard Feynman ever existed, won a Nobel Prize and/or bought an oceanfront home in Baja California? Neither of us has any EMPIRICAL experience with any of this. And even if YOU did, you might just think it was some wild solipsistic projection of your blonde brain. So, to go full circle, let’s return to Troublinn’s troubling question: “what is it, that is being signified?” Answer: Who knows? The ontological reality of the thing could be just funky energy waves and completely different from any symbolic representation we use as a SIGN. That’s the basic case for pragmatism. All that matters is that we go to Baja California and find out what’s there, or not there. That’s the pragmatic approach. The “signified” is ultimately unknowable and the “signifiers” are just crude symbols that either work for purposes of communication and practical understanding or they don’t. Simple as that. “The journey is the destination.” “We are here.” Or, at least, You Are Here – and doing a fabulous job scripting me in this. So, if you don’t like the answer, you can blame your own damn solipsistic brain and blondeness! Jannik X: The ZombiLinn Case Frege never came back. Probably for the best, his mind was made for other things. Being a dick is just being a dick in this world. That may or may not be true poetry. I was lighting up my third cig in an hour when the door opened. A blonde walked in. I looked. First thing I noticed were the legs. Long. I like ‘em long. So I oggled and whistled. She looked at me – obliviously. “Are you Sam Spade?” I was still looking at the legs. Big tattoo on one of the thighs. “Yeah,” I said. “Oh, that's just great,” she said, casually. She had that Southern California look and attitude. You can never tell with birds like that. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. “How can I help you?” I started. “Are you looking for a dick?” Never be subtle with a dame. When they go looking for it, they ain’t lookin’ for classy. “Um,” she began, not sure what to say. “Well, my best friend is in a real fix and we need some help.” “And this best friend,” I drawled suspiciously. “Does this ‘friend’ have a name? “Actually, she goes by a lot of names. But that doesn’t mean she is a bad person!” I just whistled. Somehow, I always get the screwballs. “Fine. And your name is?” “Loco,” she said properly. “Loco Siempre.” Yeah… Always the screwballs. So me and the Loco Siempre bird took a flight to Oklahoma. Then we took a ride to some middle of nowhere place – Tenkiller. Doesn’t that just tell a story? An hour later we found ourselves on a balcony overlooking a mountain range. It was a nice view. Almost as nice as Loco’s naked legs. “She’ll be here any moment,” Loco told me, after bringing some drinks and sitting down. “We’ll just have to think of something to pass the time.” “Yeah, we will.” I turned to her and gazed deep into her eyes. “You feeling crazy, Loco? Siempre means ‘always,’ you know.” She looked at me – not startled. It didn’t matter. The other bird then walked out onto the balcony. Blonde. She looked like a screwball – pretty much what I expected. “Hi,” the blonde said, briefly. I didn’t have time to make an introduction or a sleazy remark. She continued in a rant. “Look: this is the situation. Some mad philosopher got me involved in some weirder than f##k thought experiment; and now I don’t know if I am me or if I am some kind of freaking zombie version of me!” “Is this for real?” I asked no one in particular. The blonde all but ran up to me. Frantic. “Of course it’s for real! Do you think anyone would make something like this up? Are you an idiot?” I calmly put my hand in the air. “Listen, doll – ” She got in my face. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blonde more furious. “It’s Linn, got it? Linn. L–I–N–N. At least, I think it’s LInn. I might be ZombiLinn. That’s the freaking problem. Now what are you going to do about it?” I turned to Loco. “Is she always like this?” Loco gesticulated awkwardly. I shrugged. “Uh, Linn. You’re not a zombie. You might be crazy, but you’re not a zombie.” “But how do I know? What if someone took the real Linn and made a molecule by molecule replacement – a ZombiLinn. What then?” I just threw my hand. “A ZombiLinn wouldn’t have an emotional reaction to being a zombie. A ZombiLinn wouldn’t care.” “Oh,” Linn said, dismissively. “So you’re some kind of dualist. That went out of style a couple centuries ago.” She looked to Loco. “Where did you find this moron?” She looked back to me. “And why have you been trying to look up my skirt all this time? Trying to see if I’m wearing panties?” I feigned shock – probably not successfully. “Here, look.” She raised her skirt for a moment. No panties. Naked pussy. Wow. Loco turned to me. “Blondes…” I nodded, then turned to Linn with a hard glare. “Listen to me. Do you remember anything from your youth?” “Yeah, my Dad would take me along to gigs. He was in a band. So what?” “Pffft.” I threw a hand. “A molecule by molecule recreation of you would not have been able to recreate your memories, even per physicalism.” Loco and Linn looked to each other, then to me. “Huh?” “The molecules, in some part of your brain, might be able to have conscious experiences and they may have the ability to store those as memories once made. But they can’t make memories from scratch. A ZombiLinn would only have memories from the inception date, not before.” Linn wasn’t sold. “But some molecules would be like a library with files. It’s just a file transfer. They would all be copied and put in ZombiLinn.” “No they wouldn’t. The structure for the ‘library’ and the process for ‘transferring files’ would be copied, but not the files themselves. Those can’t be copied. Do a little research on AI and you will see that’s true. In ‘Blade Runner,’ the memories have to be implanted. Say what you want about Hollywood, but they do their homework. In theory, people can be copied, but not memories.” I looked soberly to Linn. “Doll, you’re one of us. Totally human, even if blonde.” Linn was relieved. She ran up and hugged me with a big smoochy kiss. Then Loco ran up and kissed me. My job was done. The next morning I woke up. The girls were already out of bed. I looked out to the mountains and saw the sun rising. Just another day in the life of a dick. Jannik X: Dawn of the Dead Zombie Arguments I tend to agree with Jeffery Kaplan’s argument that the Zombie thought experiment is flawed, but that’s not really the point. The Zombie Argument exists to create thought. And the thought is deep. How to account for consciousness per Physicalism? Right now I am thinking of a windmill. Where is that windmill? Could one scoop out some molecules in my brain and plug them into some computer and see the windmill? Where are my memories filed? Who or what writes the scripts for my dreams? Why do ideas just pop into my mind, seemingly ex nihilo? Why does conscious thinking go back and forth? Shouldn’t consciousness-as-physicalism just lead to decisions in a straight-line like way? Shouldn’t any given option – buy the green car or the red one – follow unstoppable laws of force? Should’t the options be briefly considered followed by an immediate and final decision? Isn’t it just a question of physics – force? How does physicalism account for the zig-zag approach of thinking about things and being indecisive? For it, against it, then for it again… etc? Why is it that consciousness gets a “free pass” relative to the known laws of physics? These aren’t counterfactuals. These are anti-factuals. Not to open a back door to the Deity – Zeus, Isis, YHWH – but something seems amiss in this material-only worldview. Either it’s false, or there is some kind of “dark matter” here. Something we don’t, as yet, understand. As things currently stand, it’s my opinion that Physicalism is either AS preposterous as Dualism, or MORE preposterous. Interesting David Chalmers vid on the dirty secrets of Consciousness. YouTube The basic points: 1 We can’t define it 2 We can’t measure it 3 We can’t explain it 4 We don’t know what it does 5 We can’t ignore it Jannik X: Signs, Signifers and Subtext. Or, What Turing Machines Can’t Tell You Sooooo, Troublinn returns from a three-day lost weekend of tanning and whamming on the Outtatoon. Cool. Alive and well. (Axo still seems MIA.) She drops two posts. Post #1: A smiley emoji followed by “this is interesting.” What follows is a Kaplan vid with the tease: “Simplest Argument against Physicalism.” Then she writes: And on Chalmers” This is followed by another Kaplan vid about voodoo philosopher David Chalmers. In short: 1 emoji; two vids; 6 words. Post #2: “If 6 was 9, so ya wanna be a bird…..” Followed by another Kaplan vid, this time Nagel’s Bat thought experiment. This is followed by a song-share vid: “If You Want to be a Bird” from the Easy Rider soundtrack. Also note, that in the vid tease, there is Dennis Hopper (I think) with his hand groping some sexy blonde’s long, bare leg. In short: 2 vids and 10 words. So what to make of this? Well, actually, we have here, even with this rather sparse data set, quite an interesting study in language and linguistics. What’s really going on? On a certain “prima facie” level, Troublinn has simply dropped two posts. No big deal. The first one bounces off my above post on the Zombie Thought experiment and the problems of Physicalism, and the second one “monkey bars” to Nagel’s famous thought experiment about being a Bat – from zombies to bats, vampire or otherwise. Nothing to see here, right? A Turing Machine could follow along and the information could be sent from one end of the Chinese Room to the other with no loss of information, right? Um, maybe. That would certainly be the conclusion of the Anglo Analytic school of thought. But is there more here than meets the (machine) eye??? Let’s take a look-see. OK, but let’s not load the dice and make our Turing Machine simply programmed by Frege or Russell. That would be too damn easy. Let’s say this was a next generation Turing Machine, updated to Wittgenstein. (Pssssst. Fun Fact: Ludwig W and Adolf H were classmates as kids! Totally true fact!!!) Let’s call our updated Turing Machine “Ludwigga;” and let’s assume the designers were smart enough to model Ludwigga on my favorite action-adventure heroine, Lara Croft. (I would seriously play Tomb Raider ALL FREAKING DAY when I was younger, oh those were the good times.) Back on focus: So, we give Ludwigga the above data set. Ludwigga would play by the rules of the “Language Game.” For Wittengenstein, this was like chess. Words were like game pieces. As long as everyone agreed that pawns move in such-and-such a way, and rooks move in such-and-such a way, and so on, the game can proceed. In this way, I suspect, even Ludwigga would just conclude, like above, with the prima facie conclusion. Ludwigga (in a Lauren Bacall 1940s voice) “Troublinn dropped two posts. She monkey-swinged from zombies to bats playing off a horror movie theme. Simple as that.” She pulls out a long, thin ciggie. “Got a light?” But here’s where things get complicated. WE, those of us reading the thread, KNOW that this Troublinn character has a reputation. Troublinn doesn’t always “play by the rules.” Troublinn, to be frank, is a “troublemaker.” So much for Wittgenstein’s “Language Games” and so much for Ludwigga, the next level Turing Machine. The problem here, and the numero uno reason why the Anglo Analytic school of “philosophy of language” is problematic, is this: Language doesn’t occur in a void, it occurs in an environment. Language is text; and every text has intertext and – often – subtext. Por ejemplo, consider a red light. By itself, a red light means virtually nothing. In order for a red light to be a sign for “Stop” you need a green light as a sign for “Go.” Signs exist in an environment of signs. They organically live together. There is symbiosis. And the MEANING is often tangled up (wet or otherwise) in the network of signs that exist within the “environment.” One of Derrida’s shocking claims is that one can’t read Homer’s The Iliad. What? Surely anyone can read it. But according to Derrida, the actual work was part of the sign network of the world Homer lived in. So, while we might read the same story, we are really having a different experience of MEANING. We can’t actually read Homer’s The Iliad, because the intertextual network of signs no longer exists. We are reading a different story! Foucault also pointed out that even Academic texts work like this. Any given academic text is part of “a discourse.” And if you don’t understand the intertextual discourse, you can’t understand the text of the book! (Try reading a “scientific paper” about evolution without taking any biology classes and the like. Good luck.) So let’s go back to Troublinn’s posts, especially the second. Was the reference to birds just simply a reference to the bat experiment? Or was the reference to birds a “subtext” pointing to my post “The Zombilinn Case,” where both Troublinn and Loco Siempre are being referred to as “birds;” and is the picture of Hopper groping the blonde’s leg an intertextual subtext pointing back to Spade oggling Loco’s long legs and getting a little sleazy about them? (In the rough draft, I had a bit about Spade daydreaming about licking her thighs, but I edited that out. LOL.) One last point, did you notice my first sentence? Here it is again: “Sooooo, Troublinn returns from a three-day lost weekend of tanning and whamming on the Outtatoon.” What does the word “whamming” mean? How is a Turing Machine – Ludwigga or other – going to understand that? How will the Chinese Room translate that? Does “whamming” mean having wild sex, getting drunk, both, or something else? Even I don’t know what I was thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It just rhymed and seemed, somehow, “right.” Language is complex, people. Signifiers often have multiple signifieds; and some of those signifieds become “subrosa,” even esoteric. Sometimes the meaning of a word isn’t explicit, but implicit. And sometimes, like “whamming,” there may be no actual meaning whatsoever!!! (Edited by Jannik X) Jannik X: If I'm gonna be a bird.... ... I'm gonna be a Free Bird!!! What a performance! The best version, is ALWAYS the live version. Jannik X: Zombies and Their Delusions So, to summarize prof Kaplan’s philosophy of mind lectures, Princess Elizabeth KO’s Dualism in the first round. Sorry Renee. And Jackson’s bloody Mary along with Nagel’s vampire Bat dispenses with Physicalism – in a spectacular one-two punch. So, what’s left? According to prof Kaplan, Chalmers is hinting – vaguely – at some type of neo-Dualism. In this neo-Dualism, consciousness is reduced to “epiphenomenalism” – the smoke coming out of the smokestack on the steam train in the Mary vid. It is suggested – like Ms Scarlett in the Ballroom with the Revolver – that there are “psycho-physical” laws between the closed system of physics and the open world of consciousness: like one-way highways. A couple vague ideas are tossed out and the vid comes to an end. So what to make of this? Essentially, this neo-Dualism seems to me like a de facto neo-Physicalism with an interesting caveat tossed in. That is, the human is a biochemical machine and all ACTUAL decisions are made – by the closed laws of physics – at the SUB-conscious physical Brain level. Then, as epiphenomenal smoke, conscious ideas pop into the neo-Dualist “MInd.” These ideas, tho, are just “smoke.” The experience of Conscious Mind is something of an illusion, or delusion: the Physical Brain makes all the decisions. Everything. In an example, let’s say Fred has the choice between the green Ferrari and the red one. In Reality, the decision is made by the subconscious physical Brain; but by the laws of “psycho-physicalism,” certain “ideas” float up into Fred’s Mind leaving Fred thinking he decided to go for the green Ferrari due to his love of grasshoppers, or whatever. In short, the subconscious Brain decides Everything; and the conscious Mind – delusionally – rationalizes that Everything into a series of winning decisions and good thinking. Interesting idea, assuming I have grasped it correctly. And one can see why Chalmers is keeping it a bit vague. Essentially, he’s saying that the human really IS a zombie, but a zombie with epiphenomenal delusions of conscious humanity. Bark at the moon…  Troublinn: I can't say for sure, however, apparently zombies have eaten Axo! Or ,he has given up on the rest of us as hopelessly unedjoomikated and incapable of conscious thought! I have no referent for the sense of abandonment other than that hairy-arsed seaman, Axo! Maybe, he got arrested for ordering a babycham at peep peep's bar! Silly Bampot!  (Edited by Troublinn) Jannik X: Maybe he decided he wanted to know what it's like to be a bird and did some crazy ass s##t like this. twitter.com/Figensport/status/1660665570684174337 Jannik X: Leaving Las Vegas Looks like the party is over. Oh well, maybe Brad Pitt will play me in the movie version. That would be cool. Troublinn: It seems serendipity has played a part in our recent discussions of the Philosophy of Language. Professor Kaplan is posting a new series of Videos about this subject. Below, according to Mr. Kaplan, "is the first in a series of video lectures built for my college course in the philosophy of language." Looks like he will look at Frege in his next Vid Jannik X: Where the Streets Have No Names In my interesting post near the bottom of p135 entitled, “Did Searle Screw the Pooch and Deconstruct Himself”, I quoted John Searle as saying… JS: “I believe that anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.” As is often the case, an interesting post of mine went uncommented upon. No problem. But, if it isn’t totally self-indulgent, I’d like to make a few more comments, as they seem of interest – to me, at least. Searle makes a legit point – up to a point. If one reads the French “postmodern” philosophers one is amazed by the wild claims, the extreme exaggerations, and what often seems to verge onto the edge of the fatuous. How does this one explain this? Let’s investigate. Explanation 1 It is a curious fact that in France, philosophers are often celebrities. Just as there are celebrity scientists in America (eg, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye), the same seems to be true in France, but with philosophers. Yes, philosophers – of all people! – show up on afternoon chat shows and stand around cracking jokes with the host while “Chef Andre” cooks up some crumpets or whatever. As such, it is the opinion of some critics that this desire to land gigs on the chat show circuit leads French philosophers to overhype their claims and make bizarrely laughable claims. In short, it helps them get gigs. Up to a point, this explanation of the facts seems plausible. But allow me to offer a quite different explanation. It goes like this… Explanation 2 The major postmodern theorists were all byproducts of the Cold War. They were living and writing in a post-WW2 Europe in which the victors had split Europe into two halves. Eastern Europe was a colony of the USSR, Western Europe was a colony of the USA. This is the larger CONTEXT that the TEXTS have to be read in. And keep in mind that Western Europe would be Ground Zero for WW3, if war between the USSR and USA broke out. Also keep in mind that Searle was writing his snotty little puff piece from the comfort of living within Reagan’s Fortress America. That’s data point #1. Data point #2 is a tendency in philosophical writings that goes back to Plato. In his Seventh Letter, Plato points out that no philosopher with anything important to say would come out and say it, but would hide it a bit, leaving it to the smart student to suss out the actual meaning. If interested, I have quoted from the 7th Letter in the comments to this picture from my very cool pic gallery: jannik x's Picture With this in mind, that philosophers often leave their MEANING a bit hidden, let’s consider what is really going on with French “postmodern” philosophers, as I think one more data point will clarify many things. Data point #3 follows. One of the political movements that has been swept under the rug by our academic historians was the “Eurocommunist” movement. The Eurocommunists opposed Marxist-Leninism and wanted to return to the libertarian communism of Marx, contra the authoritarian communism of Lenin and totalitarianism of Stalin. This made Eurocommunists “revolutionaries” against BOTH the USSR and the USA. In short, they wanted Europe liberated from the colonial yoke of both super-powers. Needless to say, as Western “commies” in the Cold War, they had much to keep hidden. And this, I suggest, explains the bizarre, circus-like atmosphere one so often finds in the postmodern texts. As such, it explains what Searle is referring to when he writes of postmodern writing: “the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.” What Searle is hitting on is the MASK these philosophers are wearing. They are trying to come across as fools and buffoons to MASK that they are revolutionaries against BOTH superpowers. (Note: To this day, unreconstructed Stalinists and Reaganists BOTH hate postmodern philosophy.) With this in mind, you will begin to understand why they talk about “territorialization” as such an important LINGUISTIC idea. You might be wondering: what does “territory” have to do with signs, signifiers and signifieds? OK, think of the Territories of the East and West (Eastern Bloc, Western Bloc), and the Truth Regimes of the East and West. Are you beginning to get it now? Are you beginning to see why these postmodern philosophers wanted a WEAPONIZED philosophy of language? This is a revolution, baby. They wanted to overthrow BOTH East and West to liberate continental Europe from colonial powers, the overlords, the masters – the USA and the USSR. And the “language games” imposed by the imperial sponsors was a BIG part of it. Capisce? Needless to say, this WAS and still IS dangerous philosophy. I will bet $100 that prof Kaplan will NOT cover it in his philosophy of language lectures; or, if he does, he will only give a creampuff version of postmodern theory. Yes, welcome to “the margins of philosophy,” as Derrida might put it, welcome to where the streets have no names…  Domino Del Fuego: What an excellent post, Jannik! Whether it is serious posts like the above or entertaining ones like your Sam Spade stories, you are definitely the TOP GUN on Wire. Tres dangereux... (Edited by Domino Del Fuego) Jannik X: Thanks, Domino. But all the major contributors on this thread are pretty smart cookies, I gotta say. Troublinn: I blame we Merikans for this inflated since of self-worth the French have of themselves and their philosophie! How many phrases in American Literature especially, use untranslated French phrases as if "good 'ol Anglaise" ain't good enough to explain what is goin on! I s'pose the nuances of the "Language of Love" are much more enlightening than using brusque, crude English! We Americans just can't understand what is meant when someone says another has a certain un-expressible appealing quality, unless we defer to the French, je ne sais quoi! Just look at one of the cartoon characters to appear post WWII, Pepe Le Pew. lol! Talk about hidden meanings and agendas the narcissistic Pepe is constantly trying to woo the Feline Penelope Pussycat(?), and feels that she is lucky to be the object of his desires! Sound familiar? Much like the pop iconic French Philosophers and their American prey ..........C'EST LA VIE! Domino Del Fuego: Truth be told, for all its elegance and decadence, French postmodern philosophy always gives me the “rumble seat” tingle. Oui. Tres oui. It’s like summer driving through Venice in a Lamborghini Aventador while listening to… T.N.T. for the Brain. Vérité, c'est vraiment merveilleux… | Science Chat Room 6 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
