Thanks for the comment. Honestly it took me a while to disambiguate (i.e. translate to myself what you’re getting at). So I take it as an interesting example of the point I was actually trying to make to Mitchell Porter previously. Namely, that our semantic models of normally unproblematic words can diverge quite a bit. E.g., my model for “truth” is not “a relationship between a living organism and a world beyond it”. Rather in my model, “the world beyond” is ultimately also part of our internal modeling. That’s because the very fact that we humans imagine and form narratives around “the world beyond” makes it per se a product of our internal models. Only magical thinking can escape this conclusion, but then we jettison the whole project of rationalism and science, imv.
BTW I do totally get how uncomfortable, frustrating and head-spinning this view is. But it wouldn’t be the first frustrating, head-spinning thing we’ve had to face about ourselves and “the world beyond”. Gödel’s Theorem, quantum mechanics and general relativity are all about head-spinning epistemic limitations. (That’s NOT to claim my little argument is on par with these illustrious examples!). But once we get used to them, they’re also a rich source of new scientific insights. In particular, I believe the view I argue for has quite serviceable benefits in that regard—at least it has for me. But I need to lay that out in another essay.
Rather in my model, “the world beyond” is ultimately also part of our internal modeling.
The word “beyond” *means” “not in our heads”. You’re just not respecting that.
That’s because the very fact that we humans imagine and form narratives around “the world beyond” makes it per se a product of our internal models.
It’s possible to put that in a non head spinning way: the world is the world and not in our heads; our thoughts about the world are in our heads.
It’s also possible to put it in a non head spinning way.
Many words can be used in an “in the head”/”on the map” way, and also in a “in the world”/”in the territory” way...and it’s also possible to disambiguate by using special phrases like “per se” and “as such” ..or “for me” and “in my view”. That way finger/moon confusions are avoided.
BTW I do totally get how uncomfortable, frustrating and head-spinning this view
It’s unnecessarily uncomfortable, etc. If you simply keep track of whether you are using a word to a territory feature , or a map feature, the confusion vanishes.
Only magical thinking can escape this conclusion,
Believing that you thought the world per se into existence is magical thinking!
but then we jettison the whole project of rationalism and science, imv.
Correct use of.language can remove conclusion.
The “world per se” should refer to the territory , not our models of it.
The phrase “per se” *means” “not in our heads”. You’re just not respecting that.
Thanks for the comment. Honestly it took me a while to disambiguate (i.e. translate to myself what you’re getting at). So I take it as an interesting example of the point I was actually trying to make to Mitchell Porter previously. Namely, that our semantic models of normally unproblematic words can diverge quite a bit. E.g., my model for “truth” is not “a relationship between a living organism and a world beyond it”. Rather in my model, “the world beyond” is ultimately also part of our internal modeling. That’s because the very fact that we humans imagine and form narratives around “the world beyond” makes it per se a product of our internal models. Only magical thinking can escape this conclusion, but then we jettison the whole project of rationalism and science, imv.
BTW I do totally get how uncomfortable, frustrating and head-spinning this view is. But it wouldn’t be the first frustrating, head-spinning thing we’ve had to face about ourselves and “the world beyond”. Gödel’s Theorem, quantum mechanics and general relativity are all about head-spinning epistemic limitations. (That’s NOT to claim my little argument is on par with these illustrious examples!). But once we get used to them, they’re also a rich source of new scientific insights. In particular, I believe the view I argue for has quite serviceable benefits in that regard—at least it has for me. But I need to lay that out in another essay.
The word “beyond” *means” “not in our heads”. You’re just not respecting that.
It’s possible to put that in a non head spinning way: the world is the world and not in our heads; our thoughts about the world are in our heads.
It’s also possible to put it in a non head spinning way.
Many words can be used in an “in the head”/”on the map” way, and also in a “in the world”/”in the territory” way...and it’s also possible to disambiguate by using special phrases like “per se” and “as such” ..or “for me” and “in my view”. That way finger/moon confusions are avoided.
It’s unnecessarily uncomfortable, etc. If you simply keep track of whether you are using a word to a territory feature , or a map feature, the confusion vanishes.
Believing that you thought the world per se into existence is magical thinking!
Correct use of.language can remove conclusion. The “world per se” should refer to the territory , not our models of it. The phrase “per se” *means” “not in our heads”. You’re just not respecting that.