Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!warwick!sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!pcx_10.aston.ac.uk!user
From: P.Coxhead@aston.ac.uk (Peter Coxhead)
Subject: Re: Reductionist Materialism (was Re: I lie therefore I am?)
Message-ID: <P.Coxhead-1511941109180001@pcx_10.aston.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@aston.ac.uk
Organization: CSAM, Aston University
References: <36e5oe$6nc@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> <39p329$kno@crl2.crl.com> <1994Nov11.210534.24348@seas.smu.edu> <fred.hegge.110.1BEA33F4@paltech.com> <1994Nov14.203936.12341@seas.smu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 11:07:13 GMT
Lines: 41

In article <1994Nov14.203936.12341@seas.smu.edu>, kjh@seas.smu.edu
(Kenneth J. Hendrickson) wrote (inter alia):

>  1) Ideas have ABOUTness.
>  2) It is not possible for any arrangement of chemicals or electrical impulses
>     to have ABOUTness.
>  3) Therefore, ideas are not stored in the physical brain.

Are these statements about words or about real issues? Suppose I treat
them as statements about words. Then:
(1) says that it is intrinsic to the language games we play with "ideas"
that they have "aboutness".  I guess we all agree.
(2) is also a statement about the use of words; it is 'wrong' to use
"aboutness" of "arrangements of chemicals" or "electrical impulses". 
Suppose for the moment I agree.
In this case all that follows is that it is 'wrong' (i.e. not within the
rules of our language game) to says that ideas are stored in the physical
brain.  I tend to agree with this in that, linguistically speaking, "idea"
is a different category from "brain" so (3) is misleading.

However, the whole argument, as I have re-constructed it, has no real
consequences.

The interesting question is different.  Consider the following:

1) Ideas have aboutness (i.e. belong to a category of which aboutness can
sensibly be asserted).
2) Iods have physical existence (i.e. belong to a category of which
statements such as "Iods are stored in the physical brain" can be
asserted).
3) Iods cause Ideas.
4) Hence the causes of ideas are stored in the physical brain.

This argument may or may not be true: I think it is.  However, I deny that
it is linguistically malformed.  Modern science is full of examples where
statements of the form of (3) are needed i.e. events in one category cause
events in another (tho' we have to be careful about "cause" and this may
not be the best word...)

-- 
Peter Coxhead  --  p.coxhead@aston.ac.uk
