I had never read that one before. Maybe it makes more sense in the context of the full sequence?
It seemed like Eliezer was writing about content of the sort found in Naming And Necessity from the perspective of Loeb’s Theorem, except this hypothesis isn’t strong, because it implies that Eliezer would have been tilting at a straw man version of modern attempts by academic philosophers to figure out how reference works in natural language. I presume he was critiquing something or someone that was contextually salient, like someone being “wrong on the internet” at the time, but is not obvious right now to me who that might have been. The thing is, morning/evening star distinctions are a staple of the thought experiments in that area of philosophy, and I’m not aware of anyone else who uses that distinction, so I’m at a loss.
For what its worth, the people studying philosophy of language seem to me to understand the importance of keeping your language and meta-languages separate, and don’t just use quoting, but novel forms of quoting so they can distinguish between different theories about how to use language and thought to model language and thought, with things sort of similar to this:
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
Except, of course, XML hadn’t been invented when they started their work and a lot of their typographic conventions tend to involve weird bracket-y-looking quotes, subscripts, and prose that can be sort of hard to parse, and there are apparently legitimate arguments about how this stuff should work (which I don’t understand very well, this not being an area of personal expertise).
Finally caught up to this point in the re-posting of the sequences …
The thing is, morning/evening star distinctions are a staple of the thought experiments in that area of philosophy, and I’m not aware of anyone else who uses that distinction, so I’m at a loss.
I think that Eliezer’s just pointing out the need for some kind of quoting machinery. I don’t think that he’s claiming that this would be news to philosophers of language. He just wants readers who might not be philosophers of language to recognize the need for quoting and to notice some features of how it works.
In part, he’s probably trying to instill a certain logical sophistication in his audience so that they can follow things like Löb’s theorem.
I had never read that one before. Maybe it makes more sense in the context of the full sequence?
It seemed like Eliezer was writing about content of the sort found in Naming And Necessity from the perspective of Loeb’s Theorem, except this hypothesis isn’t strong, because it implies that Eliezer would have been tilting at a straw man version of modern attempts by academic philosophers to figure out how reference works in natural language. I presume he was critiquing something or someone that was contextually salient, like someone being “wrong on the internet” at the time, but is not obvious right now to me who that might have been. The thing is, morning/evening star distinctions are a staple of the thought experiments in that area of philosophy, and I’m not aware of anyone else who uses that distinction, so I’m at a loss.
For what its worth, the people studying philosophy of language seem to me to understand the importance of keeping your language and meta-languages separate, and don’t just use quoting, but novel forms of quoting so they can distinguish between different theories about how to use language and thought to model language and thought, with things sort of similar to this:
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
morning star
Except, of course, XML hadn’t been invented when they started their work and a lot of their typographic conventions tend to involve weird bracket-y-looking quotes, subscripts, and prose that can be sort of hard to parse, and there are apparently legitimate arguments about how this stuff should work (which I don’t understand very well, this not being an area of personal expertise).
Finally caught up to this point in the re-posting of the sequences …
I think that Eliezer’s just pointing out the need for some kind of quoting machinery. I don’t think that he’s claiming that this would be news to philosophers of language. He just wants readers who might not be philosophers of language to recognize the need for quoting and to notice some features of how it works.
In part, he’s probably trying to instill a certain logical sophistication in his audience so that they can follow things like Löb’s theorem.