Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 8 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Performance Cognitive Psychology Corr I 403
Performance/Cognitive Psychology/Matthews: Cognitive psychology (…) offers a number of levels at which performance data may be understood. Most broadly, it divides mental functioning into a number of broad areas such as attention, memory, language and so forth. Each may be sub-divided and sub-divided again until we have identified basic component processes. >Attention, >Memory.
Attention: For example, attention is conventionally divided into several aspects or branches (Matthews, Davies, Westerman and Stammers 2000)(1).
Selective attention refers to focusing on a source of stimuli (while ignoring distractors), divided attention to processing multiple input channels, and sustained attention to maintaining an attentional focus over extended time periods. Each one of these broad attentional functions appears to be supported by a number of separate processing components and brain systems.
>Selective attention.

1. Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., Westerman, S. J. and Stammers, R. B. 2000. Human performance: cognition, stress and individual differences. London: Psychology Press

Gerald Matthews, „ Personality and performance: cognitive processes and models“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Performance Eysenck Corr I 400
Performance/Eysenck/Matthews: Early experimental studies (e.g., Eysenck 1957(1), 1967(2)) showed that basic traits such as >Extraversion (E) and >Neuroticism (N) relate to performance on a variety of standard laboratory tasks requiring cognitive functions such as perception, attention, memory and speeded response. Eysenck (1967)(2) attempted to explain these findings in terms of traditional arousal theory. MatthewsVsEysenck: However, failings of arousal theory (Matthews and Gilliland 1999)(3) imply that we must look more closely at the different information-processing components that may be sensitive to personality. See >Performance/Cognitive Psychology.
Eysenck: (Eysenck 1957(1), 1967(2)) hypothesized that variations in basic attributes of the brain such as inhibition and arousal should influence performance of simple tasks such as choice reaction time and paired-associate learning. The E and N traits predicted performance on tasks requiring attention, memory and rapid execution of motor response. In effect, performance measures functioned as another psychophysiological index akin to EEG or EDA.


1. Eysenck, H. J. 1957. The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 2. Eysenck, H. J. 1967. The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas
3. Matthews, G. and Gilliland, K. 1999. The personality theories of  H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: a comparative review, Personality and Individual Differences 26: 583–626


Gerald Matthews, „ Personality and performance: cognitive processes and models“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Performance Neuroscience Corr I 407
Performance/neuroscience/Matthews: A study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) confirmed that, during task performance, Extraversion correlates with activity in brain areas believed to be implicated in working memory and executive control (Gray, Burgess, Schaefer et al. 2005)(1). Humphreys and Revelle (1984)(2) also derived the traditional inverted-U function linking arousal to performance as a special case applying to complex tasks such as intelligence tests only. >Intelligence, >Intelligence tests, >Extraversion, >Arousal.

1. Gray, J. R., Burgess, G. C., Schaefer, A., Yarkoni, T., Larsen, R. J. and Braver, T. S. 2005. Affective personality differences in neural processing efficiency confirmed using fMRI, Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience 5: 182–90
2. Humphreys, M. S. and Revelle, W. 1984. Personality, motivation and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing, Psychological Review 91: 153–84

Gerald Matthews, „ Personality and performance: cognitive processes and models“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Performance Revelle Corr I 406
Performance/Revelle/Resource theory/cognitive psychology/Matthews: Humphreys-Revelle Theory: Humphreys and Revelle (1984)(1) described separate resource pools for sustained information transfer (SIT; similar to attention) and for short-term memory (STM). Arousal, in their model, leads to increased availability of SIT resources, but loss of STM resources. Directing effort to the task is distinct from arousal, and influences SIT resources only. Traits that influence arousal and effort will then have differing effects on qualitatively different tasks, overcoming a major weakness of traditional arousal theory. Causal chain:

personality traits - (arousal or effort) - resource availability > performance

Corr I 407/408
VsRevelle/VsHumphreys: for a criticism of this theory see >VsResource Theory.
Further problems:
1) The Humphreys and Revelle (1984)(1) theory attributes Extraversion x arousal interactions to variations in resource availability. Hence, these interactive effects should be found primarily with those more demanding tasks that are highly resource-limited, rather than simple tasks requiring little attentional capacity. A review of the evidence (Matthews 1997)(2) failed to confirm this prediction. In fact, interactive effects of Extraversion and arousal on performance were most reliable with rather simple, routine encoding tasks, as opposed to demanding, resource-limited tasks (Matthews 1997(2); Matthews and Harley 1993(3)). Alternative mechanisms such as automatic activation processes may provide a better explanation, as explored in a study that modelled the effect using neural nets (Matthews and Harley 1993)(3). >VsResource Theory.


1. Humphreys, M. S. and Revelle, W. 1984. Personality, motivation and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing, Psychological Review 91: 153–84
2. Matthews, G. 1997. Extraversion, emotion and performance: a cognitive-adaptive model, in G. Matthews (ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion, pp. 339–442. Amsterdam: Elsevier
3. Matthews, G. and Harley, T. A. 1993. Effects of Extraversion and self-report arousal on semantic priming: a connectionist approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 735–56


Gerald Matthews, „ Personality and performance: cognitive processes and models“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Performance Aronson Haslam I 246
Experiment/stereotypes/Aronson, Joshua/Steele: A.
In a first study (Steele and Aronson, 1995(1)) 117 Black and White university students (both male and female) had to complete a verbal test along with three anagram problems.
Before they performed this test, participants were randomly assigned to hear one of three frames for the task.
>Stereotype threat/Aronson/Steele.
1) In the “diagnostic test” (DT) condition, participants learned that the study concerned ‘various personal factors involved in performance on problems requiring reading and verbal reasoning abilities’ (p. 799). Feedback would be provided that ‘may be helpful to you by familiarizing you with some of your strengths and weaknesses’ (1995, p. 799) in verbal problem solving. Test difficulty was justified as a means of providing ‘a genuine test of your verbal abilities and limitations so that we might better understand the factors involved in both’ (p. 799). The assumption underpinning this condition is that any reminder of intellectual testing would trigger reminders of the racial stereotypes about intellectual ability among Black participants that would undermine their performance.
2) Two “Non-diagnostic tests” (ND) were designed to neutralize these processes by
Haslam I 247
framing the purpose of the study as a way to better understand the ‘psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems’ (p. 799). a) Feedback would be provided to familiarize participants ‘with the kinds of problems that appear on tests [they] may encounter in the future’ (p. 799).
b) The challenging nature of the problems was justified in terms of a research focus on difficult verbal problems in the non-diagnostic only condition and on giving ‘highly verbal people ... a mental challenge’ (p. 799) in the non-diagnostic challenge (NDC) condition.
Results: Analyses of the performance revealed only preliminary evidence in support of the theory. Focused analyses just of Black participants’ performance suggested that after controlling for SAT scores, Black students performed significantly worse on the test in the diagnostic condition than in either of the two non-diagnostic conditions. In comparison, performance for White students was relatively unaffected by the way the task was described. However, the critical statistical test of the race by test description interaction was not significant, p < .19.
B.
A second study sought to replicate the effect and examine the role of anxiety in explaining these performance impairments. Twenty Black and 20 White female participants were assigned to the same non-diagnostic and diagnostic test frame conditions used in Study i and spent 25 minutes solving the same 30-item GRE test used in the prior study. Participants also self-reported their anxiety levels. In this study, the predicted interaction was significant: controlling for verbal SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) scores, Black participants in the diagnostic test frame condition solved fewer items correctly, were less accurate on the questions they completed, completed fewer problems, and tended to be slower than participants in all other conditions. There were no differences between conditions in anxiety, however.
C.
Study 3 was designed to test three implications of the theory: that Black students taking a diagnostic (vs. non-diagnostic) test would
(a) show increased activation of negative racial stereotypes and self-doubt,
(b) distance themselves from Black stereotypes, and
(c) show a tendency to self-handicap by making pre-emptive excuses for poor performance.
35 Black and 33 White students were randomly assigned to a diagnostic test frame, a non-diagnostic test frame or a control condition where participants completed he critical dependent measure without expecting to take a test of any sort. Test performance was not assessed.
Stereotype avoidances was assessed by having participants rate a series of activities and personality traits, some of which were related to Black stereotypes.
Haslam I 248
Results: Results from this study provided evidence that anticipating performance on a diagnostic test had a host of psychological implications for Black but not for White students. Controlling for verbal SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) scores, Black participants anticipating a diagnostic test were more likely than Blacks in the other conditions (and more likely than Whites in the diagnostic condition) to complete word fragments with race-related (…) and self-doubt-related (…) words. They were also significantly more likely to avoid endorsing stereotypic activities and traits. D.
In a fourth study half of the participants were required to indicate their race while the other half were not.
Result: Black participants in the race prime condition answered significantly fewer items correctly than those in all other conditions (again controlling for prior SAT score). They also seemed to approach the questions more methodically in the race prime condition — completing fewer items, avoiding guesses, but still performing somewhat less accurately. There were no differences found for reported effort and performance estimates, but a follow-up study reported in the discussion section suggested that priming race might have elevated anxiety for Black compared with White participants.
Interpretation/Steele/Aronson: having their abilities tested reminds Black students of negative racial stereotypes and motivates them to distance themselves from them. They might be plagued by greater feelings of self-doubt (and perhaps anxiety) and seek to self-handicap for potentially poor performance.

1. Steele, C.M. and Aronson, J. (1995) ‘Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 797—811.


Toni Schmader and Chad Forbes, “Stereotypes and Performance. Revisiting Steele and Aronson’s stereotypes threat experiments”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017
Performance Steele Haslam I 246
Experiment/stereotypes/Aronson, Joshua/Steele: A.
In a first study (Steele and Aronson, 1995(1)) 117 Black and White university students (both male and female) had to complete a verbal test along with three anagram problems.
Before they performed this test, participants were randomly assigned to hear one of three frames for the task. >Stereotype threat/Aronson/Steele.
1) In the “diagnostic test” (DT) condition, participants learned that the study concerned ‘various personal factors involved in performance on problems requiring reading and verbal reasoning abilities’ (p. 799). Feedback would be provided that ‘may be helpful to you by familiarizing you with some of your strengths and weaknesses’ (1995, p. 799) in verbal problem solving. Test difficulty was justified as a means of providing ‘a genuine test of your verbal abilities and limitations so that we might better understand the factors involved in both’ (p. 799). The assumption underpinning this condition is that any reminder of intellectual testing would trigger reminders of the racial stereotypes about intellectual ability among Black participants that would undermine their performance.
2) Two “Non-diagnostic tests” (ND) were designed to neutralize these processes by
Haslam I 247
framing the purpose of the study as a way to better understand the ‘psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems’ (p. 799). a) Feedback would be provided to familiarize participants ‘with the kinds of problems that appear on tests [they] may encounter in the future’ (p. 799).
b) The challenging nature of the problems was justified in terms of a research focus on difficult verbal problems in the non-diagnostic only condition and on giving ‘highly verbal people ... a mental challenge’ (p. 799) in the non-diagnostic challenge (NDC) condition.
Results: Analyses of the performance revealed only preliminary evidence in support of the theory. Focused analyses just of Black participants’ performance suggested that after controlling for SAT scores, Black students performed significantly worse on the test in the diagnostic condition than in either of the two non-diagnostic conditions. In comparison, performance for White students was relatively unaffected by the way the task was described. However, the critical statistical test of the race by test description interaction was not significant, p < .19.
B.
A second study sought to replicate the effect and examine the role of anxiety in explaining these performance impairments. Twenty Black and 20 White female participants were assigned to the same non-diagnostic and diagnostic test frame conditions used in Study i and spent 25 minutes solving the same 30-item GRE test used in the prior study. Participants also self-reported their anxiety levels. In this study, the predicted interaction was significant: controlling for verbal SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) scores, Black participants in the diagnostic test frame condition solved fewer items correctly, were less accurate on the questions they completed, completed fewer problems, and tended to be slower than participants in all other conditions. There were no differences between conditions in anxiety, however.
C.
Study 3 was designed to test three implications of the theory: that Black students taking a diagnostic (vs. non-diagnostic) test would
(a) show increased activation of negative racial stereotypes and self-doubt,
(b) distance themselves from Black stereotypes, and
(c) show a tendency to self-handicap by making pre-emptive excuses for poor performance.
35 Black and 33 White students were randomly assigned to a diagnostic test frame, a non-diagnostic test frame or a control condition where participants completed he critical dependent measure without expecting to take a test of any sort. Test performance was not assessed.
Stereotype avoidances was assessed by having participants rate a series of activities and personality traits, some of which were related to Black stereotypes.
Haslam I 248
Results: Results from this study provided evidence that anticipating performance on a diagnostic test had a host of psychological implications for Black but not for White students. Controlling for verbal SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) scores, Black participants anticipating a diagnostic test were more likely than Blacks in the other conditions (and more likely than Whites in the diagnostic condition) to complete word fragments with race-related (…) and self-doubt-related (…) words. They were also significantly more likely to avoid endorsing stereotypic activities and traits. D.
In a fourth study half of the participants were required to indicate their race while the other half were not.
Result: Black participants in the race prime condition answered significantly fewer items correctly than those in all other conditions (again controlling for prior SAT score). They also seemed to approach the questions more methodically in the race prime condition — completing fewer items, avoiding guesses, but still performing somewhat less accurately. There were no differences found for reported effort and performance estimates, but a follow-up study reported in the discussion section suggested that priming race might have elevated anxiety for Black compared with White participants.
Interpretation/Steele/Aronson: having their abilities tested reminds Black students of negative racial stereotypes and motivates them to distance themselves from them. They might be plagued by greater feelings of self-doubt (and perhaps anxiety) and seek to self-handicap for potentially poor performance.


1. Steele, C.M. and Aronson, J. (1995) ‘Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 797—811.


Toni Schmader and Chad Forbes, “Stereotypes and Performance. Revisiting Steele and Aronson’s stereotypes threat experiments”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017
Performance Schmader Haslam I 252
Performance/stereotype threat/Forbes/Schmader: Although (…) negative thoughts and worries might directly mediate the performance-decrements observed (Cadinu et al., 2005(1); Keller and Dauenheimer, 2003(2)), another possibility is that individuals’ increased vigilance to threatening cues and active attempts to suppress negative thoughts and feelings hijack the working-memory resources needed for optimal performance. >Stereotype threat/Forbes/Schmader, >Stereotype threat/Psychological theories.
For example, evidence of enhanced vigilance under stereotype threat can be found in neurological indices of error detection (Forbes et al., 2008)(3) and increased attention to even subliminally presented threat-related cues (Kaiser et al., 2006)(4). This vigilance also translates into enhanced memory encoding of negative feedback and other cues to threat that can undermine one’s identification with the domain (Forbes et al., 2015(5); Forbes et al., 2016(6); Murphy et al., 2007(7)). Conscious attention to performance cued by stereotype threat can be especially debilitating for tasks that are better performed through well-practised automated processes, such as putting for expert golfers (Beilock et al., 2006(8)).
Cf. >Emotion/Forbes/Schmader, >Method/Forbes/Schmader.

1. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A. and Kiesner,J. (2005) Why do women underperform under stereotype threat?’, Psychological Science, 16: 5 72—8.
2. Keller, J. and Dauenheimer, D. (2003) 1Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting threat effect on womens math performance’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 371—81.
3. Forbes, C.E., Schmader, T. and Allen, J.J.B. (2008) The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under threat’, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3:253—61.
4. Kaiser, C.R., Vick, S.B. and Major, B. (2006) ‘Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity’, Psychological Science, 17: 332— 38.
5. Forbes, C.E., Duran, K.A., Leitner, J.B. and Magerman, A. (2015) Stereotype-threatening contexts enhance encoding of negative feedback to engender underperformance and anxiety’, Social Cognition, 33: 605.-25.
6. Forbes, C.E., Amey, R., Magerman, A.B., Duran, K. and Liu, M. (2016) ‘Stereotype-based stressors facilitate emotional memory neural network connectivity and encoding of negative information to degrade math self-perceptions among women’, unpublished manuscript.
7. Murphy, M.C., Steele, C.M. and Gross, J.J. (2007) ‘Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings’, Psychological Science, 18: 879—85.
8. Beilock, S.L., Rydell, R.J. and McConnell, A.R. (2007) ‘Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2): 256-76


Toni Schmader and Chad Forbes, “Stereotypes and Performance. Revisiting Steele and Aronson’s stereotypes threat experiments”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017
Performance Forbes Haslam I 252
Performance/stereotype threat/Forbes/Schmader: Although (…) negative thoughts and worries might directly mediate the performance-decrements observed (Cadinu et al., 2005(1); Keller and Dauenheimer, 2003(2)), another possibility is that individuals’ increased vigilance to threatening cues and active attempts to suppress negative thoughts and feelings hijack the working-memory resources needed for optimal performance. >Stereotype threat/Forbes/Schmader, >Stereotype threat/Psychological theories. For example, evidence of enhanced vigilance under stereotype threat can be found in neurological indices of error detection (Forbes et al., 2008)(3) and increased attention to even subliminally presented threat-related cues (Kaiser et al., 2006)(4). This vigilance also translates into enhanced memory encoding of negative feedback and other cues to threat that can undermine one’s identification with the domain (Forbes et al., 2015(5); Forbes et al., 2016(6); Murphy et al., 2007(7)). Conscious attention to performance cued by stereotype threat can be especially debilitating for tasks that are better performed through well-practised automated processes, such as putting for expert golfers (Beilock et al., 2006(8)). Cf. >Emotion/Forbes/Schmader, >Method/Forbes/Schmader.


1. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A. and Kiesner,J. (2005) Why do women underperform under stereotype threat?’, Psychological Science, 16: 5 72—8.
2. Keller, J. and Dauenheimer, D. (2003) 1Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting threat effect on womens math performance’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 371—81.
3. Forbes, C.E., Schmader, T. and Allen, J.J.B. (2008) The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under threat’, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3:253—61.
4. Kaiser, C.R., Vick, S.B. and Major, B. (2006) ‘Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity’, Psychological Science, 17: 332— 38.
5. Forbes, C.E., Duran, K.A., Leitner, J.B. and Magerman, A. (2015) Stereotype-threatening contexts enhance encoding of negative feedback to engender underperformance and anxiety’, Social Cognition, 33: 605.-25.
6. Forbes, C.E., Amey, R., Magerman, A.B., Duran, K. and Liu, M. (2016) ‘Stereotype-based stressors facilitate emotional memory neural network connectivity and encoding of negative information to degrade math self-perceptions among women’, unpublished manuscript.
7. Murphy, M.C., Steele, C.M. and Gross, J.J. (2007) ‘Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings’, Psychological Science, 18: 879—85.
8. Beilock, S.L., Rydell, R.J. and McConnell, A.R. (2007) ‘Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2): 256-76


Toni Schmader and Chad Forbes, “Stereotypes and Performance. Revisiting Steele and Aronson’s stereotypes threat experiments”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017

The author or concept searched is found in the following 31 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Artificial Intelligence Penrose Vs Artificial Intelligence Dennett I 617
PenroseVsAI/PenroseVsArtificial Intelligence: x can perfectly achieve a checkmate There is no algorithm for chess.
  Therefore, the good performance of x can not be explained by the fact that x can run an algorithm.
Dennett I 619
Penrose: if you take any single algorithm, it can not be the method by which human mathematicians insure mathematical truths. Therefore they use no algorithms at all.
I 621
DennettVsPenrose: thus is not shown that the human brain does not operate algorithmically. On the contrary, it makes clear how the cranes of culture, the community of mathematicians can exploit without recognizable boundaries in distributed algorithmic processes.

Penr I
R. Penrose
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe 2005

Dennett I
D. Dennett
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995
German Edition:
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Dennett II
D. Dennett
Kinds of Minds, New York 1996
German Edition:
Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999

Dennett III
Daniel Dennett
"COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots"
In
Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996

Dennett IV
Daniel Dennett
"Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Austin, John L. Lewis Vs Austin, John L. IV 222
Performative/Performatives/Lewis: It is not clear whether we should construe them as declarative sentences (declaratives)! If not, we can split sentence meanings in claiming and non-claiming (sentence meanings) with the latter being represented by commands and questions.
LewisVsAustin: but I would prefer to classify performative sentences as declarative sentences, and then this distinction is purely syntactic, concerning the surface structure.
 IV 224
Performative/Austin: Have no truth value. Neither true nor false, because statements are like bets in normal circumstances. Performative/LewisVsAustin: they can still have it. E.g. "I bet sixpence that it will rain tomorrow": is true on this occasion, because he betted.
Performatives/Austin: No truth value. They are neither true nor false, because statements are like bets in normal circumstances.
Lewis: granted, but why should the statement not be true then?
per Austin: could it be said that performative statements can just hardly do anything else, but be true! E.g. "I claim": it is then simply true that I claim something.
E.g. "I speak" is always true when I speak!
And yet, it is possible!
It is no wonder that the truth values are obscured by assertion performances:
E.g. "I claim that the earth is flat", here, of course, someone has claimed something, so the ((s) overall sentence) is true.
But you might be tempted to say that he said something wrong, because the embedded sentence is wrong.
LewisVsRoss: therefore, I do not propose to conceive normal assertions as paraphrased performative sentences like Ross. That would make the truth conditions wrong.
If there are syntactic reasons for Ross' proposal, I would semantically view it as one version of the method of sentence radicals.
IV 225
Truth Value: I propose a single truth value for sentences like e.g. "I order you to be late". Vs: you could say that this allows an ambiguity, because the sentence can be used in two ways:
a) paraphrase of "be late!" this is true, simply because it was said
b) as description of my own actions, then no paraphrased imperative, because it is hard to give a command awhile saying what I'm doing!
But it does not follow that there are two meanings here!
E.g. I am talking in trochaic hexameter
In hexameter trochaic am I talking
Only the latter can be used to speak in trochaic hexameters and is true at every opportunity.
The former is wrong on the occasion when it is emphasized correctly.
Nevertheless, both are obvious paraphrases.
Whether a sentence can be used to speak in hexameters is not a matter of its meaning. The distinction between hexameter use and not using hexameter is one thing.
Another thing is the distinction between performative and self-descriptive use. But the parallel is interesting:
A differentiation of use does not need to lead to a distinction of meaning. (>Use theory).

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (a)
David K. Lewis
An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991
Austin, John L. Searle Vs Austin, John L. SearleVs Traditional Speech act analysis. (SearleVsAustin,SearleVsHare) Thesis: "Good", "true" mean the same in different acts. Ignored by the traditional speech act theory)
good/true/speech act theory/tradition: Hare: E.g. "Good" is used to recommend something.
Strawson: "True" is used to confirm or acknowledge statements.
Austin: "Knowledge" is used to provide guarantees. (SearleVs).
In principle: "the word W is used to perform the speech act A". >Speech act theory.

IV 17
illocutionary act/Austin: five categories: verdictive, expositive, exercitive, conductive, commissive) speech acts/SearleVsAustin: Distinction between illocutionary role and expression with propositional content:
R(p).
The various acts performed in different continua! There are at least 12 important dimensions.
IV 18
1. Differences in joke (purpose) of the act. (However, not to every act a purpose has to belong).
IV 19
The illocutionary joke is part of the role, but both are not the same. E.g. a request may have the same joke as a command. 2. Differences in orientation (word to the world or vice versa).
Either, the world needs to match the words, or vice versa.
IV 20
Example by Elizabeth Anscombe: Shopping list with goods, the same list is created by the store detective.
IV 21
3. Differences in the expressed psychological states E.g. to hint, to regret, to swear, to threaten. (Even if the acts are insincere).
Def sincerity condition/Searle: You cannot say, "I realize that p but I do not believe that p." "I promise that p but I do not intend that p"
The mental state is the sincerity condition of the act.
IV 22
These three dimensions: joke, orientation, sincerity condition are the most important. 4. Differences in the strength with which the illocutionary joke is raised.
E.g. "I suggest", "I swear"
5. Differences in the position of speaker and listener
E.g. the soldier will make not aware the general of the messy room.
IV 23
6. Differences of in which the utterance relates to what is in the interest of speaker and listener. E.g. whining, congratulating
7. Difference in relation to the rest of the discourse
E.g. to contradict, to reply, to conclude.
8. Differences in propositional content, resulting from the indicators of the illocutionary role
E.g. report or forecasts
IV 24
9. Differences between those acts that must always be speech acts, and those that can be carried out differently. E.g. you need not to say anything to classify something, or to diagnose
10. Differences between those acts, for which the extra-linguistic institutions are needed, and those for which they are not necessary
E.g. wedding, blessing, excommunication
IV 25
11. Differences between acts where the illocutionary verb has a performative use and those where this is not the case E.g. performative use: to state, to promise, to command no performative: "I hereby boast", "hereby I threaten".
12. differences in style
E.g. announcing, entrustment.
IV 27
SearleVsAustin: the list does not refer to acts but to verbs. One must distinguish between verb and act!
E.g. one can proclaim commands, promises, reports but that is something else, as to command, to announce or to report.
A proclamation is never merely a proclamation, it also needs to be a determination, a command or the like.
IV 30
Searle: E.g.iIf I make you chairman, I do not advocate that you chairman
IV 36
Def Declaration/Searle: the successful performance guarantees that the propositional content of the world corresponds. (Later terminology: "institutional facts) Orientation: by the success of the declaration word and world match to each other () No sincerity. Overlapping with assertive:... The referee's decisions. SearleVsAustin: Vs Distinction constative/performative.

VII 86
Cavell: "Must we mean what we say?" defends Austin and adds: The deviation can be "really or allegedly" present.
Austin: it is neither true nor false that I write this article voluntarily, because if there is no deviation, the concept of free will is not applicable.
SearleVsAustin: that's amazing.
VII 88
SearleVsAustin: Five theses to see Austin in a different light: 1. Austin exemplifies an analysis pattern that is common today as it is also used at Ryles' analysis of "voluntarily".
Ryle thesis of "voluntary" and "involuntary" can be applied only to acts, "you should not have done." Again, it is absurd to use it in an ordinary use.
VII 89
Neither true nor false: Wittgenstein: e.g. that I "know that I am in pain" E.g. that Moore knows he has two hands. etc. (> certainty).
Austin: E.g. it is neither true nor false, that I went out of free will to the session.
VII 90
The use of "voluntary" required certain conditions are not met here. Words in which they are not met, we can call "A-words", the conditions
"A-Conditions". We can create a list.
2. the conditions that are exemplified by the slogan "No modification without deviation", penetrate the whole language and are not limited to certain words.
E.g. The President is sober today.
Hans breathes. etc.
VII 91
3. Negation/Searle: the negation of an A-word is not in turn an A-word! E.g. I bought my car not voluntarily, I was forced to.
I did not volunteer, I was dragged here.
He does not know whether the object in front of him is a tree.
Considerable asymmetry between A-words and their opposite or negation.
VII 92
SearleVsAustin: according to him, in both cases a deviation is required. 4. A deviation is generally a reason to believe that the claim that is made by the statement to the contrary is true, or could have been, or at least could have been held by someone as true.
An A-condition is simply a reason to believe that the remark could have been false.
SearleVsAustin: his presentation is misleading because it suggests that any deviation justifies a modification.
E.g. if I buy a car while strumming with bare toes on a guitar, which is indeed a different way to buy a car, but it does not justify the remark "He bought his car voluntarily."
VII 93
SearleVsAustin: we can come to any list of A-words, because if word requires a deviation, will depend on the rest of the sentence and on the context. Then Austin's thesis is not about words but about propositions.
VII 94
Standard situation/circumstances/SearleVsAustin: notice that there is a standard situation, is to suggest that this fact is remarkable and that there is reason to believe that it could also be a non-standard situation.
VII 95
SearleVsAustin: his thesis even is not on propositions: to make an assertion means to specify that something is the case. If the possibility that the situation does not exist, is excluded, it is meaningless. Austin's slogan should be formulated to:
"No comment, which is not remarkable" or
"No assertion that is not worth to be claimed".
VII 96
SearleVsAustin: this one has seen it wrong. This is connected with the concept of intention: Intention/Searle: Thesis: the oddity or deviation which is a condition for the utterance
"X was deliberately done" represents, at the same time provides a reason for the truth of the statement by
"X was not done intentionally".
assertion condition/utterance condition: it is the utterance condition of an assertion precisely because it is one reason for the truth of the other.
SearleVsAustin: the data must be explained in terms of the applicability of certain terms. So my view is simple and plausible.
(VII 98): In Austin's slogan "No modification without deviation" it is not about the applicability of these terms, but rather about conditions for putting up claims generally.
Negation/SearleVsAustin: then the negations of the above, are not neither true nor false, but simply false!
E.g. I did not go voluntarily to the meeting (I was dragged). etc.
VII 98
Example The ability to remember ones name is one of the basic conditions ...

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle II
John R. Searle
Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983
German Edition:
Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991

Searle III
John R. Searle
The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995
German Edition:
Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997

Searle IV
John R. Searle
Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979
German Edition:
Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982

Searle V
John R. Searle
Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983

Searle VII
John R. Searle
Behauptungen und Abweichungen
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Searle VIII
John R. Searle
Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Chisholm, R.M. Nominalism Vs Chisholm, R.M. Frank I 260
Universals/VsChisholm/Heckmann: he represents an extreme Platonic universals realism. Thus he brings himself into a contradiction to both the moderate Aristotelian universals and to the ontological nominalism.
I 261
Concepts/Nominalism/Chisholm/Heckmann: Chisholm is not only in contradiction to the ontological, but also to the conceptual nominalism: whatever does it mean "to have concepts"? Certainly knowing the importance of predicates. NominalismVsChisholm: but that's no approach to universalism of any kind, you are not acquainted with a universal that you think first and then express with a predicate.
Rather, those who know the meaning of the predicate can use it in compliance with the rules.
I 262
Nominalism/Utility Theory/VsChisholm: the meaning of predicates and sentences cannot be explicated mentalistically (by resorting to intentional performance) >(Humpty Dumpty Theory). MentalismVsNominalism/Chisholm: everything semantic has its origin in the mind.
Direct Attribution/Attribution Theory/VsChisholm: E.g. an infant recognizes his mother, but not by first judging that it recognizes the mother and then attributing this state to himself. (Chisholm: must actually assume that the mother is only an indirect object of attribution).
I 263
Consciousness/Chisholm: emerges from an act of direct consideration of a self-presenting property. VsChisholm: this ignores a fundamental trait of any type of consciousness or fails to make it understood: the self-disclosure of the self-translucency of consciousness. Consciousness should be acquainted and familiar with itself whenever it occurs, and that in a pre-reflective and irreflexive way. (Frank, >Sartre).
E.g. I have direct knowledge of my pain, not only by reflection and subsequent direct attribution. (That would be of a higher level).
Consciousness/HeckmannVsChisholm: there is a third between the self-presenting and self-presented: the self present: the which has always been disclosed, known and familiar by pre-attributive knowledge. (>Background).


Roderick M. Chisholm (1981): The First Person. An Essay on Reference
and Intentionality, Brighton 1981

Fra I
M. Frank (Hrsg.)
Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994
Chomsky, N. Harman Vs Chomsky, N. I 306
Competence/Performance/ChomskyVsHarman: competence as "knowledge that language is described by the rules of grammar". And that "grammar specifies this competence". ChomskyVsHarman: I have not only never asserted this, but also repeatedly rejected it publicly. It would be absurd if the speaker had to know the rules explicitly.
Knowledge/Language/Harman: a) knowing that b) knowing how. Since language is obviously not "knowing that", it must be "knowing how". The speaker knows "how he has to understand other speakers." Analogous to the ability of the cyclist.
I 307
ChomskyVsHarman: he uses "competence" very different than me. I see no relation to the "ability of the cyclist", not a "set of habits," or something like that.
I 308
HarmanVsChomsky: the internalized system (that limits the choice of grammars) must be represented in a more fundamental language, and the child must have understood the latter already, before it can apply this schematism a) this leads to a circle: If you said that the child mastered the "more fundamental language" "directly", without having learned it, then why do you not also say that it mastered the actual language "directly" without learning it. Or: b) Regress: If, however, you said that it has to learn the more fundamental language first, then the question is how this fundamental language is learned itself. ChomskyVsHarman: even if you assume that the schematism must be represented at an "innate language", it does not follow what Harman sees: the child may need to master the "more fundamental language", but it does not have to "speak and understand" it. We just have to assume that it can make use of it. ad a): the assumption that the child masters its native language without learning it is wrong. It is not born with perfect knowledge of German. On the other hand, nothing speaks against the assumption that it is born with perfect knowledge of a universal grammar.
HarmanVsChomsky: in a model, conclusions from the given data on a grammar can only be made, if detailed information on a theory of performance is included in the model. Chomsky: interesting, but not necessary.
I 310
Empiricism/Theory/HarmanVsChomsky: calls Chomsky’s strategy "inventive empiricism", a doctrine that uses "induction principles". Such "inventive empiricism" is certainly not to be refuted, "no matter how the linguistic data look". ChomskyVsHarman: empiricism is not so important. I’m interested in the question of whether there are "ideas and principles of various kinds" which "determine the form of the knowledge acquired in a largely defined and highly organized manner" (rationalist variant) or whether on the other hand "the structure of the appropriation mechanism is limited to simple and peripheral processing mechanisms..." (empiricist variant). It is historically justified and makes heuristic sense to distinguish that.

Harman I
G. Harman
Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity 1995

Harman II
Gilbert Harman
"Metaphysical Realism and Moral Relativism: Reflections on Hilary Putnam’s Reason, Truth and History" The Journal of Philosophy, 79 (1982) pp. 568-75
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994
Chomsky, N. Putnam Vs Chomsky, N. Chomsky I 293
PutnamVsChomsky: Putnam assumes for phonetics in the universal grammar, that it only has a single list of sounds. This did not require a sophisticated explanatory hypothesis. Only "memory span and powers of recollection". "No upright behaviorist would deny that these are innate properties." ChomskyVsPutnam: but there have been set up very strong empirical hypotheses about the selection of the universal distinctive features, none of which seems to be explained on the basis of restrictions of memory.
Chomsky I 298
PutnamVsChomsky: Thesis: instead of an innate schematism, "general multipurpose strategies" could be assumed. This innate base would have to be the same for the acquisition of any knowledge, so that there is nothing special about language acquisition.
Chomsky I 299
ChomskyVsPutnam: with that he is no longer entitled to assume something is innate. Furthermore, it only shifts the problem. PutnamVsChomsky: the evaluation functions proposed in the universal grammar "the kind of facts is constituted which tries to explain the theory of learning, but not the required explanation itself".
ChomskyVsPutnam: E.g. no one would say that the genetic basis for the development of arms instead of wings was "the kind of fact that attempts to explain the theory of learning". Rather, they are the basis for an explanation of other facts of human behavior.
Whether the evaluation function is learned or is the basis of learning, is an empirical question.
PutnamVsChomsky: certain ambiguities can only be discovered by routine, therefore their postulated explanation by Chomsky's grammar is not very impressive.
ChomskyVsPutnam: he misunderstands it, in fact that refers to competence and not to performance (actual practice).
What the grammar explains is why e.g. in "criticism of students" "student" can be understood as subject or object, whereas e.g. "grain" in "the growing of the grain" can only be subject.
The question of routine does not matter here.
Chomsky I 300
Innate Ideas/ChomskyVsPutnam: the innate representation of universal grammar indeed solves the problem of learning (at least partly) if it is really true that this is the basis for language acquisition, which may very well be the case!
Putnam III 87
Putnam/Chomsky: Putnam proposes: correctness in linguistics is what the currently available data best explain about the behavior of the speaker under a current interest. What is true today, will be false tomorrow. PutnamVsChomsky: I never said that what is right today, will be wrong tomorrow.
Putnam: Chomsky's hidden main theses:
1) the we are free to choose our interests at will,
2) that interests themselves are not subject to normative criticism.
E.g. Hans' heart attack lies in the defiance of medical recommendations. Other explanation: high blood pressure. It may be, in fact, that on one day one fact is more in the interests of the speaker, and the next day another one.
III 88
PutnamVsChomsky: 1) we cannot just pick and choose our interests. 2) It sometimes happens that the relevance of a particular interest is disputed. How can it be, however, that some interests are more reasonable than others? Reasonableness is supposed to depend on different conditions in different contexts. There is no general answer.
III 88/89
The assertion that a concept is interest relative does not come out at the same as the thesis, all interests are equally reasonable.

Putnam I
Hilary Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993

Putnam I (a)
Hilary Putnam
Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (b)
Hilary Putnam
Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (c)
Hilary Putnam
What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (d)
Hilary Putnam
Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (e)
Hilary Putnam
Reference and Truth
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (f)
Hilary Putnam
How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (g)
Hilary Putnam
Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (h)
Hilary Putnam
Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (i)
Hilary Putnam
Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (k)
Hilary Putnam
"Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam II
Hilary Putnam
Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988
German Edition:
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Putnam III
Hilary Putnam
Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992
German Edition:
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Putnam IV
Hilary Putnam
"Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164
In
Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994

Putnam V
Hilary Putnam
Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981
German Edition:
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Putnam VI
Hilary Putnam
"Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98
In
Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

Putnam VII
Hilary Putnam
"A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

SocPut I
Robert D. Putnam
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000

Chomsky I
Noam Chomsky
"Linguistics and Philosophy", in: Language and Philosophy, (Ed) Sidney Hook New York 1969 pp. 51-94
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Chomsky II
Noam Chomsky
"Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language" in: Philosophy, Science, and Method, Essays in Honor of E. Nagel (Eds. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes and M- White) New York 1969, pp. 260-285
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Chomsky IV
N. Chomsky
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge/MA 1965
German Edition:
Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978

Chomsky V
N. Chomsky
Language and Mind Cambridge 2006
Chomsky, N. Searle Vs Chomsky, N. SearleVsChomsky: he went a step too far: he should deny that the speech organ has any structure that can be described as an automaton. So he became a victim of the analytical technique.
Dennett I 555
Language/SearleVsChomsky: One can explain language acquisition this way: there is actually an innate language acquisition device. Bat that will ad nothing to the hardware explanation assuming deep unconscious universal grammatical rules. This does not increase the predictive value.   There are naked, blind neurophysiological processes and there is consciousness. There is nothing else. ((s) otherwise regress through intermediaries).

Searle I 273
SearleVsChomsky: for universal grammar there is a much simpler hypothesis: there is indeed a language acquisition device. Brings limitations, what types of languages can be learned by human being. And there is a functional level of explanation which language types a toddler can learn when applying this mechanism.
By unconscious rules the explanatory value is not increased.

IV 9
SearleVsChomsky/SearleVsRyle: there are neither alternative deep structures nor does is require specific conversations potulate.
IV 204
Speech act theory/SearleVsChomsky: it is often said folllowing Chomsky, the language must finally obey many rules (for an infinite number of forms).
IV 205
This is misleading, and was detrimental to the research. Better is this: the purpose of language is communication. Their unit is the illocutionary speech. It's about how we go from sounds to files.

VIII 411
Grammar/language/Chomsky/Searle: Chomsky's students (by Searle called "Young Turks") pursue Chomsky's approach more radically than Chomsky. (see below). Aspects of the theory of syntax/Chomsky: (mature work, 1965(1)) more ambitious targets than previously: Statement of all linguistic relations between the sound system and the system of meaning.
VIII 412
For this, the grammar must consist of three parts: 1. syntactic component that describes the internal structure of the infinite number of propositions (the heart of the grammar)
2. phonological component: sound structure. (Purely interpretative)
3. semantic component. (Purely interpretive),.
Also structuralism has phrase structure rules.
VIII 414
It is not suggested that a speaker actually passes consciously or unconsciously for such a process of application of rules (for example, "Replace x by y"). This would be assumed a mix of competence and performance. SearleVsChomsky: main problem: it is not yet clear how the theory of construction of propositions supplied by grammarians accurately represents the ability of the speaker and in exactly what sense of "know" the speaker should know the rules.
VIII 420
Language/Chomsky/Searle: Chomsky's conception of language is eccentric! Contrary to common sense believes it will not serve to communicate! Instead, only a general function to express the thoughts of man.
VIII 421
If language does have a function, there is still no significant correlation with its structure! Thesis: the syntactic structures are innate and have no significant relationship with communication, even though they are of course used for communication.
The essence of language is its structure.
E.g. the "language of the bees" is no language, because it does not have the correct structure.
Point: if one day man would result in a communication with all other syntactic forms, he possessed no language but anything else!
Generative semantics/Young TurksVsChomsky: one of the decisive factors in the formation of syntactic structures is the semantics. Even terms such as "grammatically correct" or "well-formed sentence" require the introduction of semantic terms! E.g. "He called him a Republican and insulted him".
ChomskyVsYoung Turks: Mock dispute, the critics have theorized only reformulated in a new terminology.
VIII 422
Young Turks: Ross, Postal, Lakoff, McCawley, Fillmore. Thesis: grammar begins with a description of the meaning of a proposition.
Searle: when the generative semantics is right and there is no syntactic deep structures, linguistics becomes all the more interesting, we then can systematically investigate how form and function are connected. (Chomsky: there is no connection!).
VIII 426
Innate ideas/Descartes/SearleVsChomsky: Descartes has indeed considered the idea of a triangle or of perfection as innate, but of syntax of natural language he claimed nothing. He seems to have taken quite the contrary, that language is arbitrary: he assumed that we arbitrarily ascribe our ideas words!
Concepts are innate for Descartes, language is not.
Unconscious: is not allowed with Descartes!
VIII 429
Meaning theory/m.th./SearleVsChomsky/SearleVsQuine: most meaning theories make the same fallacy: Dilemma:
a) either the analysis of the meaning itself contains some key elements of the analyzed term, circular. ((s) > McDowell/PeacockeVs: Confusion >mention/>use).
b) the analysis leads the subject back to smaller items, that do not have key features, then it is useless because it is inadequate!
SearleVsChomsky: Chomsky's generative grammar commits the same fallacy: as one would expect from the syntactic component of the grammar that describes the syntactic competence of the speaker.
The semantic component consists of a set of rules that determine the meanings of propositions, and certainly assumes that the meaning of a propositions depends on the meaning of its elements as well as on their syntactic combination.
VIII 432
The same dilemma: a) In the various interpretations of ambiguous sentences it is merely paraphrases, then the analysis is circular.
E.g. A theory that seeks to explain the competence, must not mention two paraphrases of "I went to the bank" because the ability to understand the paraphrases, just requires the expertise that will explain it! I cannot explain the general competence to speak German by translating a German proposition into another German proposition!
b) The readings consist only of lists of items, then the analysis is inadequate: they cannot declare that the proposition expresses an assertion.
VIII 433
ad a) VsVs: It is alleged that the paraphrases only have an illustrative purpose and are not really readings. SearleVs: but what may be the real readings?
Example Suppose we could interpret the readings as heap of stones: none for a nonsense phrase, for an analytic proposition the arrangement of the predicate heap will be included in the subject heap, etc.
Nothing in the formal properties of the semantic component could stop us, but rather a statement of the relationship between sound and meaning theory delivered an unexplained relationship between sounds and stones.
VsVs: we could find the real readings expressed in a future universal semantic alphabet. The elements then stand for units of meaning in all languages.
SearleVs: the same dilemma:
a) Either the alphabet is a new kind of artificial language and the readings in turn paraphrases, only this time in Esperanto or
b) The readings in the semantic alphabet are merely a list of characteristics of the language. The analysis is inadequate, because it replaces a speech through a list of elements.
VIII 434
SearleVsChomsky: the semantic part of its grammar cannot explain, what the speaker actually recognizes when it detects one of the semantic properties. Dilemma: either sterile formalism or uninterpreted list.
Speech act theory/SearleVsChomsky: Solution: Speech acts have two properties whose combination we dismiss out of the dilemma: they are regularly fed and intentional.
Anyone who means a proposition literally, expresses it in accordance with certain semantic rules and with the intention of utterance are just to make it through the appeal to these rules for the execution of a particular speech act.
VIII 436
Meaning/language/SearleVsChomsky: there is no way to explain the meaning of a proposition without considering its communicative role.
VIII 437
Competence/performance/SearleVsChomsky: his distinction is missed: he apparently assumes that a theory of speech acts must be more a theory of performance than one of competence. He does not see that competence is ultimately performance skills. ChomskyVsSpeech act theory: Chomsky seems to suspect behaviorism behind the speech act.


1. Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge 1965

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005

Dennett I
D. Dennett
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995
German Edition:
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Dennett IV
Daniel Dennett
"Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Davidson, D. Wittgenstein Vs Davidson, D. Davidson/Aristotle: practical syllogism causes are reasons - WittgensteinVs: Causes not empirical but recognizable through language skills.
---
Davidson II 84
All such arguments assume that between reason and act exists such a tight logical-conceptual relation that reasons and actions cannot be understood as two distinct events. Only as numerically different, they could stand in a cause-effect relationship. This would, however, be prevented by the deductive relation. ---
II 85
DavidsonVsWittgenstein ("Actions, Reason and Causes") This is false solution: Essential for the relationship is that the agent performs the action because he had reasons. One can also have a reason and not act according to that reason. What interests us is the reason for which the agent did x, not any arbitrary reason. As long as this "because" is not explained, the actual explanation performance of explanations of reasons is not exhausted. This deficit is only avoidable if we assume that "rationalization is a species of causal explanation".
---
Dummett I 111
Turning to the language: Wittgenstein's Tractatus principle of analytic philosophy: the only way to the analysis of thought leads via the analysis of language. Davidson always presupposes a theory of meaning,
WittgensteinVsDavidson: avoids in his later writings, the formation of a general theory of meaning, because he thinks that any attempt at a systematic explanation of language cannot help but to squeeze various phenomena in a single form of description: distortion.
But also Wittgenstein believes that the goal of philosophy is to get us in a working order by overview of the functioning of language and thus on the structure of our thoughts to correctly recognize the world.

W II
L. Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980
German Edition:
Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989

W III
L. Wittgenstein
The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958
German Edition:
Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984

W IV
L. Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921.
German Edition:
Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960

Davidson I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

Davidson I (a)
Donald Davidson
"Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171
In
Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993

Davidson I (b)
Donald Davidson
"What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18
In
Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993

Davidson I (c)
Donald Davidson
"Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79
In
Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993

Davidson I (d)
Donald Davidson
"Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989
In
Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993

Davidson I (e)
Donald Davidson
"The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54
In
Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993

Davidson II
Donald Davidson
"Reply to Foster"
In
Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976

Davidson III
D. Davidson
Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980
German Edition:
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

Davidson IV
D. Davidson
Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984
German Edition:
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Davidson V
Donald Davidson
"Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005

Dummett I
M. Dummett
The Origins of the Analytical Philosophy, London 1988
German Edition:
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Dummett II
Michael Dummett
"What ist a Theory of Meaning?" (ii)
In
Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976

Dummett III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Dummett III (a)
Michael Dummett
"Truth" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59 (1959) pp.141-162
In
Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982

Dummett III (b)
Michael Dummett
"Frege’s Distiction between Sense and Reference", in: M. Dummett, Truth and Other Enigmas, London 1978, pp. 116-144
In
Wahrheit, Stuttgart 1982

Dummett III (c)
Michael Dummett
"What is a Theory of Meaning?" in: S. Guttenplan (ed.) Mind and Language, Oxford 1975, pp. 97-138
In
Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982

Dummett III (d)
Michael Dummett
"Bringing About the Past" in: Philosophical Review 73 (1964) pp.338-359
In
Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982

Dummett III (e)
Michael Dummett
"Can Analytical Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it to be?" in: Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 17 (1977) S. 305-326
In
Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982
Epistemology McGinn Vs Epistemology I 184
Epistemology/knowledge/Nagel: The idea of ​​a complete view of reality, which simultaneously explains our ability to this view, is just a dream. such a theory would have two components.
a) a theory of the objects of knowledge
b) a theory of the cognitive faculties.
But
c) then a connection must still be declared between two.
I 185
Knowledge/McGinn: there is no a priori reason to believe that the performance of our first-stage knowledge systems can be mimicked at the level of metatheory.

McGinn I
Colin McGinn
Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993
German Edition:
Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996

McGinn II
C. McGinn
The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999
German Edition:
Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001
Fodor, J. Schiffer Vs Fodor, J. I 80
SchifferVsFodor: his theory implies that everyone is omniscient and infallible under optimal conditions. omniscient: because if any situation exists (and yourself are working perfectly) you believe it and probably know it.
infallible: because under ideal conditions nobody believes anything wrong.
Optimality condition/Optimum/Schiffer: whatever Fodor's optimality condition is, it is clear
1. that they will never be fulfilled
2. that we have no idea what they should be
3. if they are to serve the strong thesis of the language of thought, it must be shown without reference to semantic or intentional vocabulary
4. it is compliable, even though it will never be fulfilled. Otherwise (a) would incoherent. (…+…)
I 81
SchifferVsFodor: 1. his performance is not the best solution for finding naturalistic truth conditions for Mentalese. 2. Problem: reliability theory: each reliability theory for mental content must take into account that we ourselves are only reliable indicators in terms of some of our beliefs. E.g. Ralph sees a dog: Then the chances are good that he believes it is a dog. But: E.g. when Ralph Jesus sees how high are the chances that he thinks he's divine! E.g. I have exactly 11 dollars in my pocket: what are the chances that Ralph believes that?.
Truth conditions/Mentalese/SchifferVsFodor: So we must not individually proceed belief for belief!.
I 82
Reliability/truth conditions/Mentalese/SchifferVsFodor: the reliability considerations extend transversely through the systematic links that exist between the expressions in Mentalese. And again we should better look from the standpoint of thought language as a whole and not, as Fodor, for each mental representation individually.

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987
Frege, G. Searle Vs Frege, G. II 285
Index words/I/SearleVsFrege: what little Frege says about indexicality is wrong and incompatible with his theory. About "I", he says, this calls for a public and a private sense. "Yesterday" and "Today": if we want to express the same proposition today, we must use the word "yesterday". So he accepted apparently an de re theory of indexical propositions.
II 286
Frege does not notice the self-reference of these expressions. (Unlike morning star/evening star). The idea that expressions have a meaning that cannot be notified, is profoundly anti Frege!
Sense is open to the public. That is what the concept was introduced for.

II 301
The descriptive theory was directed against the three traditional views: VsMill, VsFrege, Vstraditionel Logic. 1. Mill: Names no connotation, but only denotation.
2. Frege: meaning of a name is recognized by individual with it associated identification.
3. logic textbooks: the meaning of the name "N" is simply "called N". (Regress).
Searle: No. 1 refuses to answer, No. 3 brings infinite regress..
II 303
Names/Frege/Searle: his theory is the most promising, I developed it further. There always must exist an intentional content in proper names. SearleVsFrege: Weak point: the semantic content must always be put into words.

II 228
Identity/fact/statement/Searle: the identity of the fact depends on the specific properties of the fact being the same as those that are called by the corresponding statement.
III 229
Facts/Searle: are not the same as true statements. (SearleVsFrege). 1. Facts have a causal function, true statements do not.
2. The relation of a fact to the statement is ambiguous, the same fact can be formulated by different statements.
Disquotation/Searle: the analysis of a fact as that e.g. this object is red, requires more than disquotation.

V 116
SearleVsFrege: wrong: that the word "that" initiates something that has to be considered as "Name of a proposition" (virtually all subordinate clauses). (SearleVsTarski too).
V 117
Regress/quotation marks/Searle: if "Socrates" is the name of Socrates, then I can only talk about it, that means the above-mentioned, when I put it again in quotation marks..: „“Socrates““. Then again I could only speak about this in quotation marks: "" "Socrates" "". - "Xxx" is not the name of a word! It is not a reference! The word refers to neither anything nor to itself.
E.g. an ornithologist, "the sound, the Californian jays produces is ....". What completed the sentence, would be a sound, not the proper name of the sound!

V 144
SearleVsFrege: failed to distinguish between the meaning of an indicative expression and the by it's statement transmitted proposition!
V 152
Predicate/SearleVsFrege: he tried to unite two philosophical positions that are fundamentally incompatible. He wants a) to extend the distinction between meaning and significance to predicates (predicates that have a meaning, an object) and simultaneously
b) explain the functional difference between pointing and predicative expressions.
Why does Frege represent position a). - That means why does he say, predicates have a meaning? Reason: his theory of arithmetic: the need for quantification of properties. (> Second order logic).

V 155
Concept/Frege: ascribe a property via the use of a grammatical predicate. SearleVsFrege: contradiction: once term = property (a) once feature of the attribution of a property (b).
Properties/SearleVsFrege: properties are not essential predication: you might as well point to them through singular nominal terms.
V 156
Solution/Searle: if you no longer insist that predicate expressions would have to be indicative, everything dissolves. Predicate expressions do not mean properties! They ascribe to a property!
V 172
Summary: 1. Frege: is right: there is a significant difference between the function of an indicative expression and a predicate expression.
V 173
2. VsFrege: his performance is inconsistent when he tries to show that a predicate expression is also indicative. 3. By letting go of this assertion Frege's representation of arithmetic (here he needs quantification of properties) is not questioned. The letting go of the claim is not a denial of universals.
4. There is at least an interpretation which exist according to universals.
5. There is no class of irreducible existence conditions.

V 256
Names/Descriptive support/Searle: E.g. Everest = Tschomolungma: the descriptive support of both names refers to the same object. Names/SearleVsFrege: mistake: that proper names are just as strong and clear as certain descriptions.
To be blamed is his famous example morning star/evening star.
They are not paradigms for proper names, they lie rather on the boundary between certain descriptions and names.

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Functionalism Dennett Vs Functionalism II 87
Functionalism/Dennett: widely spread in everyday life. Basic idea: E.g. "noble is who does nobly", "Not what it is made of makes a mind (or a belief, a pain, a fear), but what it can do."  In common linguistic use of functionalism, such entities defined by their function allow multiple realizations. Why can an artificial mind not be made like an artificial heart with almost any material?
II 88
DennettVsFunctionalism: he deliberately abstracts from the inscrutable details of performance and focuses on the work that is actually done. But he simplifies too much.
II 95
Information Processing/DennettVsFunctionalism: one thing was always clear: as soon as there are transducers and effectors in an information system, its "media neutrality" or multiple realization disappears. (VsPutnam, VsTuring). E.g. To receive light something light-sensitive is needed. E.g. Controls for ships or factories are media-neutral, as long as they fulfill their task in the time available.
But to the nervous system applies that much less time is available. The realization of the nervous system is not a media-neutral.
And that is not because it would need to have a certain aura of a particular material or of living being, but because it originated in evolution as the central control system of living beings who’ve been abundantly equipped with very decentralized control systems.
The new systems had to be set up above them, but in very close collaboration with them. There was an astronomical number of conversion points.

Dennett I
D. Dennett
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995
German Edition:
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Dennett IV
Daniel Dennett
"Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Goodman, N. Simons Vs Goodman, N. I 108
Sum/extensional mereology/CEM/Simons: CEM, or extensional mereology, is based on a general existence of sums. This has found the most critics, including Rescher and Chisholm. ChisholmVsSum: it seems that it does not belong to the concept of part intrinsically or analytically, that there must be a sum that should otherwise contain all of these individuals and nothing else.
I 109
Part: but somebody who refuses the sum-axioms does not refuse Lesniewski’s and Goodmans’ and others concept of "part". Individual: instead of it there is disagreement about the concept "individual".
Individual/Goodman: an individual has a very technical sense for him: they must not be connected or causally connected as everyday things. They do not have to be "medium size dry". Any accumulation of individuals may be (subject to paradoxes) combined into an abstract quantity.
Individual/Goodman: an individual is analogous to such abstract quantities and each cluster (collection) of individuals can be grouped to a sum-individual (here, however, without the threat of paradoxes!). The resulting thing does not have to be anything that can be found in the everyday world.
SimonsVsGoodman: but that is only so far a good analogy as the existence of any desired composition is acceptable. We must distinguish:
a) the existence of specific (not abstract) pluralities can be claimed, but not:
b) the one of abstract pluralities which is just a mere reflection of the existence of a plural term, therefore merely a facon de parler. Goodman's sum-individuals seem merely correspond to the need for a reference for some arbitrary expressions.
I 110
Sum/Goodman/Simons: Goodman could indicate that arbitrary sum individuals obey the extensional theory. They exist in which the identity in the equality of parts exists. Identity/SimonsVsGoodman: this general condition of the equality of all parts is itself questionable (see below).
Sum/mereology/Simons: so far no one has been able to show that the acceptance of sums leads to contradictions (as Russell has shown it for certain sets).
((s) stronger/weaker/(s): stronger theories tend to lead to contradictions.)
Simons: but even the strongest extensional mereology does not lead to contradictions.
Theory/solution/Simons: not the theory is suspicious but its non-critical application to the world.
Part relation/Simons: part relations may be different in different areas (for example, mathematics). One must not force them to a common denominator.
Sum/Simons: what damage should they cause that does not already exist in the ontological assumption of corresponding "pluralisms"?
I 111
Sum/mereology/Simons: suppose we looked at any portions of space-time as evidenced by any sums. Then it comes to the question whether the relevant predicates are cumulative.
I 284
"Normal part"/mereology/Simons: philosophers often forget that there is a middle way between a simple part and an essential part: that something is a "normal part of a normal kind". There is no formal theory of "normal mereology". Here are some informal remarks:
Normality/Simons: one could start from the idea of a well-shaped thing of a kind.
Normality/Aristotle: Aristotle called an object mutilated when it is connected but a prominent part is missing.
Shapeliness/music/Nicholas WolterstorffVsGoodman/Simons: (Wolterstorff 1980, 56): he applied the idea of a normal or shapely thing of a kind to music pieces: it is non-well-formed if one or more of the normal parts are missing or are in the wrong place.
Thus, the term is a little wider than Aristotle defined it. It allows us to say that a performance with an incorrect note is still a performance of the same piece.
GoodmanVsWolterstorff: (Goodman 1969, 186f): we must not allow this because of the transitivity of identity: if a performance with a wrong note is identical, then at the end all pieces identical.
I 285
Metaphysics/Goodman/Simons: metaphysics represents here a hard metaphysical line and adheres to bivalence and strict identity conditions. SimonsVsGoodman: the price for it is a distance from the everyday language.
Solution/Simons: musical performance has no strict identity conditions.

Simons I
P. Simons
Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987
Harman, G. Putnam Vs Harman, G. Harman II 421
Truth/HarmanVsPutnam: it is not merely idealized rational acceptability. It involves a relationship between a remark or a thought and the way how things are in the world.
Putnam/Harman: is right when he equates the decisive point with a determination to the localization of all the facts in a world.
Harman: when I suppose, thesis, there is one clear causal physical order, I ask myself the following questions: "What is the place of the mind in the physical world?", "What is the place of values in the world of facts?" I believe that it is a serious philosophical error, if we believe we can avoid these issues.
PutnamVsHarman: a position as Harman's leads to two implausible conclusions:
1. Identity thesis of body and mind. (HarmanVs! I do not think that it follows from the assumption of a single causal order, rather to functionalism, that Putnam himself represented)
2. moral relativism. (Harman pro! There is nothing problematic).
Harmans II 428
Truth/HarmanVsPutnam: I do not think that he would consider it as a good argument for the conclusion that truth is the same as >consistency: Problem: but then his argument does not show that truth is an idealization of rational acceptability.
Harman II 434
Competence/Chomsky/Putnam: (Chomsky Syntactic Structures) promised us that there would be a normal form for grammars and a mathematical simplicity function that would explain everything precisely. Here you would have to look at various descriptions of the speaker's competence, which are given in the normal form, and measure the simplicity of every description, (with the mathematical function) in order to find the easiest. This would be "the" description of the speaker's competence. Putnam: actually Chomsky owes us also a mathematical function with which one measures the "goodness", with which the competence description fits with the actual performance.
Chomsky/Putnam: the idea of ​​mathematization has since been abandoned. The idea currently rests that the speaker's competence could be given by an idealization of the actual speaker's behavior, on an intuitive notion of a "best idealization" or "best explanation".
Justification/PutnamVsChomskyPutnamVsHarman: to assume that the concept of justification could be made physicalistically through identification with what people should say in accordance with the description of their competence, is absurd.
Harman II 435
Harman/Putnam: but would say that there is a difference whether one asks if the earth might have emerged only a few thousand years ago,
Harman II 436
or whether one asks something moral, because there are no physical facts, which decide about it. PutnamVsHarman: if the metaphysical realism with Harman (and with Mackie) has to break, then the whole justification of the distinction facts/values is damaged.
Interpretation/explanation/Putnam: our ideas of interpretation, explanation, etc. come from human needs as deep as ethical values.
Putnam: then a critic might say of me, (even if he remains metaphysical realism): "All right, then explanation, interpretation and ethics are in the same boat" ("Companions in Guilt" argument).
Putnam: and this is where I wanted it to be. That was my main concern in "truth, reason and history." (Putnam thesis explanation, interpretation and ethics are not in the same boat" ("companions in guilt" argument: in case of partial relativism the total relativism is near. PutnamVsHarman).
Relativism/Putnam: There is no rational reason to support ethical relativism, but not at the same total relativism.
Reference/Harman/Putnam: Harman's answer is that the world has a unique causal order.
Harman II 437
PutnamVsHarman: but that does not help: if my linguistic competence is caused by E1, E2 ... , then it's true that it was caused* by E*1, E*2 ... whereby* the corresponding entity designates in a non-standard model. ((s)>Löwenheim) Problem: why is reference then determined by cause and not by cause*?
Reference/Physicalism/Putnam: the only answer he could give, would be: "because it is the nature of reference". This would mean that nature itself picks out objects and places them in correspondence to our words.
David Lewis/Putnam: has suggested something similar: ... + ...

Putnam I
Hilary Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993

SocPut I
Robert D. Putnam
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000

Harman I
G. Harman
Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity 1995

Harman II
Gilbert Harman
"Metaphysical Realism and Moral Relativism: Reflections on Hilary Putnam’s Reason, Truth and History" The Journal of Philosophy, 79 (1982) pp. 568-75
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994
Hume, D. Husserl Vs Hume, D. I 55
HusserlVsHume: the indubitable rest is the subjective performance of consciousness.
I 115
HusserlVsHume: there is no emotional ethics.
E. Husserl
I Peter Prechtl, Husserl zur Einführung, Hamburg 1991
II "Husserl" in: Eva Picardi et al., Interpretationen - Hauptwerke der Philosophie: 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1992
Intersubjectivity Brandom Vs Intersubjectivity I 823
Vs I-we conceptions of social practices: they do not meet the adequacy condition. They found a distinction between what individuals consider as proper use and what is right on the comparison of the views of the individual and society. (VsInter-subjectivity) I 824 This is the usual way to treat objectivity as inter-subjectivity. The excessively high price is the loss of the ability of giving a sense to the distinction on the part of the entire community. This conception unduly assimilates the language communities to the individuals involved in it. It treats the community as something that brings forth and assesses performances. ((s) I.e. as a subject that it is not. Brandom: It is not the community that agrees on definitions, but individuals.)
Objectivity: the fact that our concepts are about an objective world, is partially due to the fact that there is an objective sense of rightness to which their application is subjected.
I 825 A propositional or other content can only be specified from one point of view, and that is subjective, not in a Cartesian sense, but in a very practical sense. (score-keeping subject).
I 832
VsInter-subjectivity (I-We style) it is flawed, since it cannot give room to the possibility of error on the part of the privileged perspective! LL. The community (as composed of individuals) thus has a privileged perspective. In the face of it, one cannot take a third-person point of view as an individual and therefore one cannot judge from the outside, what is actually true. This leads to a full frame. (BrandomVs). I-you conception of inter-subjectivity: no perspective is privileged. Perspective form instead of cross-perspective content.
The common aspect of all perspectives is that there is a difference.

Bra I
R. Brandom
Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994
German Edition:
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001
German Edition:
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001
Kant Foucault Vs Kant Habermas I 300
FoucaultVsKant: no longer synthetic performance of a subject, but pure structuralist activity. (Structuralism, in Foucault: "pure, decentered, rule-guided activity with elements of a transsubjective system).

Foucault I
M. Foucault
Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines , Paris 1966 - The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, New York 1970
German Edition:
Die Ordnung der Dinge. Eine Archäologie der Humanwissenschaften Frankfurt/M. 1994

Foucault II
Michel Foucault
l’Archéologie du savoir, Paris 1969
German Edition:
Archäologie des Wissens Frankfurt/M. 1981

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988

Ha III
Jürgen Habermas
Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981

Ha IV
Jürgen Habermas
Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981
Lakatos, I. Hacking Vs Lakatos, I. I 191
LakatosVsKuhn: "mob psychology". Vs reduction of the history of science to sociology. That leaves no room left for the sacrosanct values ​​truth, objectivity, rationality and reason. HackingVsLakatos: contributes nothing to what you should reasonably believe. Is exclusively turned backwards.
I 202
Degenerative/Lakatos: poor research programs: E.g. Instead of malnutrition a viral disease of the population was erroneously assumed. Instead of beriberi epidemic. Malnutrition through new methods of steam peeling of rice. Degenerative/Lakatos: any modification of the theory has not been made before but only after observations (!)!. HackingVsLakatos: does not help to choose new programs without proof of previous performance. E.g. Is the attempt to identify cancer viruses progressive or degenerative? We will know that later.
I 205
Objectivity/Knowledge/Lakatos: only with hindsight! The only fixed point is that knowledge increases. His philosophy ignores the representation problem. Lakatos Thesis: regardless of our views on the truth and "reality" we can simply see to it that knowledge grows. HackingVsLakatos: there is nothing that has increased more steadily and strongly over the centuries than the comments on the Talmud. These comments are the most thoroughly thought through texts that we know! They are far better thought out than almost all the texts of the scientific literature. Is that a rational activity by Lakatos?.
I 206
Instead of increasing the knowledge he should say: increasing the number of theories!.
I 207
External History/Lakatos: marginal conditions of research. Internal History/Lakatos: what people have believed, is inconsequential, story of anonymous and autonomous research programs. (HackingVs).
I 286
Observation/LakatosVsPopper: falsificationism cannot be right, because it presupposes the distinction between theory and observation. HackingVsLakatos: These assumptions have now been ridiculed for 15 years, but Lakatos’ reasoning is superficial. He only has one E.g.: Galilei’s observation of sunspots through a telescope: Seeing/Lakatos. this could not have been merely seeing.
Experiment/Proof/Lakatos: no factual statement can ever be proved by an experiment. Assertions cannot be proved on the basis of experience. That is a logical principle. HackingVsLakatos: that is shadow-boxing with the word "prove".

Hacking I
I. Hacking
Representing and Intervening. Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge/New York/Oakleigh 1983
German Edition:
Einführung in die Philosophie der Naturwissenschaften Stuttgart 1996
Lewis, D. Cresswell Vs Lewis, D. I 23
Performance/Competence/Semantic/Cresswell: what relationships are there between the two of them? Lewis: Convention of truthfulness and trust: in L: thesis: most language use is based on it.
---
I 24
We assume that the speakers are trying to express true sentences and we expect the same from others. Important argument/CresswellVsLewis: this may be the case, but to me it seems to be more a matter of empirical investigation than a definition that it should be so. And therefore:
---
I 33
Language/Bigelow/Cresswell: John Bigelow tells me, thesis: that one of the earliest functions of language was storytelling. Then it is more about imagination than everyday communication! ((s)VsCresswell: 1) How does Bigelow know that? 2) Why should one draw such far-reaching conclusions from that). CresswellVsLewis: even if it should turn out that there was a logical link between the convention and the use of language, it seems better to me not to include this in a theory of semantics from the start. Anyway, we do not need a connection of competence and performance.
---
II 142
Fiction/Belief de re/Lewis/Cresswell: (Lewis 1981, 288): E.g. In France, children believe that Papa Noel brings gifts to all children; in England, Father Christmas only brings them to the good children (and these get twice as many gifts, as Pierre calculates). De re/Fiction/Lewis: this cannot be an attitude de re, because there is no such res in both cases.
Fiction/CresswellVsLewis: here you can also have a reference de re, even if the causal connection is not direct.
Solution/Devitt: storytelling.

Cr I
M. J. Cresswell
Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988

Cr II
M. J. Cresswell
Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984
Nagel, Th. Dennett Vs Nagel, Th. II 191
Bat / DennettVsNagel: The title alone directs us on the wrong track: it causes us to overlook all the other ways in which bats (and other animals) can accomplish their amazing performance without it "feeling" somehow for them. We ourselves create a supposedly impenetrable mystery.
How does it feel for a bird on to build a nest ?, Well, how does it feel for us to tie our shoes?

Dennett I
D. Dennett
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995
German Edition:
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Dennett IV
Daniel Dennett
"Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Neo-Kantianism Heidegger Vs Neo-Kantianism Habermas I 172
Heidegger / Kant: Critique of Pure Reason is not primarily epistemology but "apriorische Sachlogik des Seinsgebiet Natur«. Kantianism: Sciences go back to floating cognitive performance.
HeideggerVsNeukantianism: "Studies are ways of being of existence." (»Wissenschaften sind Seinsweisen des Daseins«.)

Hei III
Martin Heidegger
Sein und Zeit Tübingen 1993

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988

Ha IV
Jürgen Habermas
Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981
Nozick, R. Verschiedene Vs Nozick, R. I 378
Minimal State/Nozick: Rights/Nozick: the human has the right to self-destruction. Other people are untouchable.
Taxes/Nozick: there is no abstract total social benefit. Therefore, millionaires should not be taxed.
I 379
Utilitarianism/Nozick/Rawls: both reject all utilitarian considerations and calculations! Life: only a creature with the ability to plan its own life can have a meaningful life.
Property: the individual is its own property and not that of another. Otherwise one could, for example, remove its kidneys on demand. Reason: the individual would not have worked them out itself.
The free market with private property rights will ensure the effective use of scarce resources and encourage inventiveness and new thinking.
This is the reason why those who have fewer resources available because they have already used others are not really worse off.
I 381
For example, suppose one person's life could only be saved by violating another person's property right, for example over a certain medicine. Nozick: in certain extreme cases, his principle that the property of others is absolutely inviolable can be relaxed.
VsNozick: unfortunately, deals nowhere with how the moral status of these rights is founded. Question: if the right to property has the same moral value as the right to self-determination, the plausibility of the starting position is endangered. If the second has priority over the first, the argumentation is inconclusive, because the inviolability of property is a necessary precondition for the rejection of any form of state.
I 383
Distribution/Nozick: there is no allocation or distribution of goods just as there is no allocation of spouses in a society. The just distribution therefore depends on the way in which the property came into the hands of the owner, that is, on its prehistory.
(Most other theories about distributive justice deal only with the result of distribution or the key: e.g. Rawls' principle of difference).
Justice: a) original acquisition: appropriation of "masterless" goods.
b) transfer of possessions.
I 384
1. Anyone who acquires a property in accordance with the principle of just appropriation shall be entitled to that property. 2. Anyone who acquires a property in accordance with the principle of equitable transfer from someone who is entitled to the property shall be entitled to the property.
3. Claims to possessions arise only through (repeated) application of rules (1) and (2).
c) Correction of injustices. Dealing with thieves, fraudsters and perpetrators of violence.
Question: how can the sins of the past be corrected again? VsNozick: he deals with this complicated problem on less than one and a half pages. He only says that this is an important and complicated problem.
Distributive justice/Nozick: Difference: structured (historical) principles/non-structured (non-historical) principles.
I 384/385
"Natural Dimension": distribution according to performance (historical). Historical: according to intelligence or race. E.g. Basketball fans pay completely overpriced prices to see their star. Nozick: this must be seen as completely fair, since it happens voluntarily.
The appearance of injustice arises only if, on the one hand, individuals are granted a free right of disposal over their goods and, on the other hand, it is demanded that the distribution resulting from the exercise of this right should have taken place in accordance with the original structured and result-oriented distribution principle.
Nozick: there can be no enforcement of result-oriented principles or structural distribution without permanent interference in people's lives! In order to maintain a certain structure, the state would have to intervene again and again.
I 386
VsNozick: Question: why does he assume that people in the state of the original distributive justice V1 have absolute freedom to deal with their possessions at their own discretion (to buy overpriced baseball tickets)? A right which, according to the structural theories, they supposedly have based on their assumptions V1, yes, a right they do not even possess! Contradiction. The question is more complicated than it seems:
Goods/Nozick: are seen by Nozick as a kind of mass entry to the common catering of all.
VsNozick: this systematically ignores the demands of the workers from their own production. Nozick unfortunately gives himself a systematic discussion of this problem of competing demands.




Penrose, R. Dennett Vs Penrose, R. I 614
Gödel/Toshiba Library/Dennett: "there is no single algorithm that can prove all truths of arithmetics." Dennett: But Gödel says nothing about all the other algorithms in the library!
I 617/618
In particular, he says nothing about whether or not there are algorithms in the library for very the impressive performance "to call sentences true"! "Mathematical intuition", risky, heuristic algorithms, etc. DennettVsPenrose: he makes the very mistake of ignoring this group of possible algorithms and of focusing solely on those whose impossibility Gödel had demonstrated. Or about which Gödel says anything at all.
Dennett: an algorithm can bring forth "mathematical insight", although it was not an "algorithm for mathematical insight"!
I 615
PenroseVsArtificial Intelligence: x can perfectly achieve a checkmate - there is no algorithm for chess. Therefore, the good performance of x cannot be explained with the fact that x can run an algorithm.
I 617
DennettVsPenrose: that’s wrong. The level of the algorithm is obviously the correct explanation level. X wins, because he has the better algorithm!
I 619
Fallacy: If the mind is an algorithm, then it certainly cannot be seen or accessed by those whose mind it generates. E.g. There is no specific algorithm for distinguishing italics from bold print, but that does not mean that it cannot be distinguished. E.g. Suppose in the Library of Babel there is a single book which contains the alphabetic order of all New Yorker participants whose net worth is over $ 1 million. ("Megaphone Book"). Now we can prove multiple statements about this book: 1) The first letter on the first page is an A. 2) The first letter on the last page is not A. E.g. The fact that we cannot find any remains of the "mitochondrial Eve" does not mean that we cannot derive any statements about it.
I 619
Penrose: if you take any single algorithm, it cannot be the method by which human mathematicians ensure mathematical truths. Accordingly, they do not use an algorithm at all.
I 621
DennettVsPenrose: this does not show that a human brain does not operate algorithmically. On the contrary, it makes clear how the cranes of culture can exploit the community of mathematicians with no apparent limits in decentralized algorithmic processes.
I 623
DennettVsPenrose: he says that the brain is not a Turing machine, but he does not say that the brain is not well represented by a Turing machine.
I 625/626
Penrose: even a quantum computer would be a Turing machine which can only calculate functions that are proven to be computable. But Penrose also wishes to advance further than that: with "quantum gravity".
I 628
DennettVsPenrose: why he thinks such a theory should not be computable? Because otherwise AI ​​would be possible! That’s all. (Fallacy). DennettVsPenrose: The idea with microtubules is unconvincing: Suppose he was right, then even cockroaches would have a wayward spirit. Because they have microtubules like us.

Dennett I
D. Dennett
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995
German Edition:
Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997

Dennett IV
Daniel Dennett
"Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Piaget, J. Pinker Vs Piaget, J. I 375
Piaget: compared children with young scientists - Pinker pro: we all think scientifically from childhood on - but for primitive humans it was more difficult to survive than for the people of today
I 391
PinkerVsPiaget: considering knowledge strategies as innate is something else than presuming science
I 392
Piaget: children are sensorimotoric beings and unaware that objects are related and persist, and that the world obeys external laws and not the actions of a child.
I 414
Logic/Human/Child/Development/Evolution/Pinker: children use "and", "or", "if" properly before they turn three. I 418 Maths/Child: three-week-old babies notice when they first see a scene with three and then one with two objects, and vice versa. Ten months: they remember how many (up to four objects) are presented to them, and it does not matter whether the objects are homogeneous, grouped or spread, also sounds. Arithmetic: Five months: surprised when suddenly on object is missing. I 419 18 months: Babies know that there are different numbers and that they belong in a particular order. Question: can these children and animals count without having words? Pinker: counting does not depend on language. Adults: use several representations for quantities. Preschoolers: even before they fully see through counting and measuring, they understand a lot of the logic and try to split a sausage fairly by cutting it. I 421 E.g. even a blind toddler knows that the straight line from A to B is the shortest and a turn to C is longer. I 422 School/TIMMSS: American students' performance is extremely poor. PinkerVsPiaget: mathematical education follows constructivism: a mixture of constructing while the social institutions are at odds about these concepts. "Holistic" method.

Pi I
St. Pinker
How the Mind Works, New York 1997
German Edition:
Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998
Poincaré, H. Verschiedene Vs Poincaré, H. Waismann II 70
If it is said that the proof is valid for all numbers, one must be clear about the fact that one determines the meaning of the word "all" only by the proof. And this meaning is different from the example "All chairs in this room are made of wood". Because if I deny the last statement it means that there is at least one that is not made of wood.
But if I negate "A applies to all natural numbers", it means only: one of the equations in the proof of A is wrong, but not, there is a number to which A does not apply!
The general formula in mathematics and the existential statement do not belong to the same logical system. (Brouwer: the incorrectness of a statement does not mean the existence of a counterexample).
Now the performance of induction becomes clear: it is not a conclusion that carries to infinity. The proposition a+b = b+a is not an abbreviation for infinitely many individual equations, as little as 0.333... is an abbreviation and the inductive proof is not the abbreviation for infinitely many syllogisms (VsPoincaré).
In fact, we begin by listing the following formulas
a+b = b+a
a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c
a completely new calculation, which cannot be derived in any way from the calculations of arithmetic.
That is the right thing to say about Poincaré's assertion that the principle of induction cannot be proved logically. VsPoincaré: But he does not, as he said, represent a synthetic judgement a priori, it is not at all a truth, but a determination: If the formula f(x) applies to x=1 and f(c+1) follows from f(c), we say it is "the formula f(x) proved for all natural numbers".





Waismann I
F. Waismann
Einführung in das mathematische Denken Darmstadt 1996

Waismann II
F. Waismann
Logik, Sprache, Philosophie Stuttgart 1976
Possible Worlds Stalnaker Vs Possible Worlds I 49
Possible world/poss.w./knowledge/mathematics/StalnakerVsLewis/Stalnaker: I am inclined to say that the poss.w.-theory makes assumptions about the nature of their properties that are - unlike the corresponding assumptions of mathematical platonism - incompatible with the representation of the connection between the knowledge subjects and their objects in the case of poss.w.. poss.w./MR/VsModal realism/knowledge/verificationism/StalnakerVsLewis: the modal realist cannot cite any verificationist principles for what he calls his knowledge.
Conclusion: problem: the MR cannot on the one hand say that poss.w. things are of the same kind as the actual world (contingent physical objects) and say on the other hand that poss.w. are things of which we know by the same kind like of numbers, sets, functions. ((s) Namely no real existing things.).
I 53
StalnakerVsLewis: he contradicts himself because his other thesis about poss.w. about which we can have substantial beliefs contradicts his definition of content (see above).
I 58
Contradiction/Lewis: there is no object howsoever fantastic about which one could tell the truth by contradicting oneself. Footnote:
Takashi YagisawaVsLewis: why not? What should you expect otherwise? Impossible things are impossible.

II 20
Belief ascription/solution/Stalnaker: I always wonder how the poss.w. would be according to what the believer believes. E.g. Pierre: for him there are two cities (Londres and London)
E.g. Lingens in the library: for him there are two men, one named "Lingens" about which the other reads something.
Relations theory/RelTh/Stalnaker: this can reconcile with the assumption that propositions are the belief objects. (Team: Stalnaker pro Relations theory? (1999))
Index/belief/Stalnaker: nevertheless I believe that convictions have an irreducible indexical element.
Solution/Lewis: sets of centered poss.w. as belief objects.
StalnakerVsLewis: although I have accepted that such poss.w. then include a representation of the mental state of the believer.
But that is not what it is about! It is not sufficient that poss.w. that are compatible with one's convictions then include a person who has these convictions (> e.g. Lingens), the believer must identify himself with the person who has this thought!
Proposition/identification/self-identification/Stalnaker: I am not suggesting that this identification is fulfilled by the belief in a proposition.
I now think that this is not at all about some kind of cognitive performance.
Indexical conviction/Stalnaker: (E.g. Perry: memory loss, library, e.g. Lewis: 2 gods (2 omniscient gods, e.g. Castaneda: memory loss): indexical unknowing.
Stalnaker: thesis: people do not differ in what they believe.
II 21
E.g. O'Leary knows that he is in the basement and that Daniels is in the kitchen. And Daniels knows the same thing: that he is in the kitchen and O'Leary in the basement. Everyone knows who and where he is and who and where the other is. The poss.w. that are compatible with the convictions of the two are the same. They argue about nothing.
Yet there is an obvious difference in their doxastic situation: O'Leary identifies himself with the one in the basement and Daniels identifies himself as one who is in the kitchen.
poss.w. semantics/StalnakerVsPossible worlds semantics/Stalnaker: this difference in the belief states of the two is not reflected by a set of poss.w. as belief state.
Solution/Lewis: self-ascription of properties, or - equivalently - sets of centered poss.w..
StalnakerVsLewis: I do not want that.
StalnakerVsLewis: problem: it is wrong to treat the difference in perspective as a dispute (disagreement). The two argue about nothing.
Problem: it is not sure if one can express their agreement with the fact that the set of their uncentered poss.w. is the same. Because
E.g. Heimson/Perry/Stalnaker: (Heimson believes "I am David Hume") all his impersonal beliefs about Hume are correct. Suppose they are the same convictions as the convictions of Hume about Hume.
Stalnaker: nevertheless it would be wrong to say that they argue about nothing. ((s) unlike O'Leary and Daniels).

II 134
Localization/space/time/self-localization/logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: set of poss.w. from which one selects one.
Self-localization/physical: in space and time. We usually know where we are. ((s) but we never know all poss.w. in which we could be localized, we cannot distinguish all poss.w. because we do not know everything).
Gods example/Stalnaker: the two know exactly where they are in the logical space.
II 135
But they do not know where within this poss.w. they are. LewisVsTradition: the doctrine of the proposition is focused only on one of the two types of localized belief.
Generalization: is what we need and for that the transition from propositions to properties (as belief objects) serves.

II 144
Gods example/Stalnaker: this is also a case of unknowing, which of two indistinguishable poss.w. is actual. One is actually the actual world while the other exactly the sam, with the exception that the god who sits in the actual world on the highest mountain is this time sitting on the coldest mountain and in fact with all the properties that the god on the highest mountain actually has.
((s) two individuals change places but keep all the properties. This is only possible if localization is not a property)
Omniscience/Stalnaker: then you have to say, the two gods are not really omniscient regarding propositions, but rather omniscient in relation to purely qualitative criteria.
LewisVsStalnaker: Lewis rejects this explanation for two reasons:
1. because he represents the counterpart theory (c.th.) that makes the cross world identity superfluous or meaningless.
2. even without counterpart it would not work because
Assuming that the two gods of world W have traded places in world V assuming the god on the highest knows that his world is W, not V. Assuming he is omniscient with respect to all propositions not only the qualitative propositions.
II 145
V: the world V cannot be relevant because he knows that he does not live there. Problem: there are still two mountains in a poss.w. W where he after all what he knows can live.
StalnakerVsLewis: that does not answer the question: you cannot simply stipulate that the God in W knows something and not V. Because after the explanation we proposed that leads to the fact that he knows on which mountain he lives.
Lewis/Stalnaker: his explanation is plausible if one conceives it as a metaphor for a location in the logical space:
logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: assume that a map of the logical space divided into large regions match the poss.w. and in smaller subdivisions represent the locations within poss.w..
Important argument: then we can tell someone in which large region he is without telling him exactly where he is located in it.
Modal Realism/MR/logical space/Stalnaker: for him this image might be appropriate.
Actualism/logical space/localization/Stalnaker: for the actualism this image is misleading: to know in which country you are is different to know where in the country you are but it is not so clear that there is a difference between the fact that one knows anything about in which poss.w. one is and knowing which poss.w. is the actual.
Lewis also admits this.
Stalnaker: my approach seems to be really close to the one of Lewis, but no.
Centered poss.w.: one should perhaps instead of indistinguishable poss.w. speak of centered worlds (after Quine). These are then distinguishable.
Indistinguishability/poss.w./Stalnaker: distinct but indistinguishable poss.w. would then be the same worlds but with different centers.
Attitude/properties/propositions/centered world/Lewis: to treat objects of attitudes as sets of centered poss.w. makes them to properties instead of propositions.
Centered poss.w./Stalnaker: I agree that possible situations normally, perhaps even essential, are centered in the sense of a representation of a particular mental state.
II 146
StalnakerVsLewis: but this makes the approach (gods example) more complicated when it comes to the relations between different mental states. E.g. to compare past with current states is then more difficult, or relations between the convictions of different people.
Information/communication/Stalnaker: we need then additional explanation about how information is exchanged. Two examples:
E.g. O'Leary is freed from his trunk and wonders at around nine:
a) "What time was it when I wondered what time it was?"
Stalnaker: that is the same question like the one he asked then.
When he learns that it was three o'clock, his doubt has been eliminated.
Solution: the doubt is eliminated since all possible situations (poss.w.) in which a thought occurs at two different times are involved. The centers of these situations have moved in the sense that it is now nine o'clock and O'Leary no longer in the trunk but it may be that the first occurrence of the then thought is what O'Leary is now thinking about.
Important argument: this moving of the center does not require that the poss.w. that the propositions characterize are changed.
b) "What time was it when I wondered if it was three or four?". (If he wondered twice)
Indistinguishability: even if the two incidents were indistinguishable for O'Leary, it may still be that it was the first time which O'Leary remembers at around nine o'clock.
StalnakerVsLewis: his approach is more complicated. According to his approach we have to say at three o'clock, O'Leary wonders about his current temporal localization in the actual world (act.wrld.) instead of wondering in what poss.w. he is.
Versus: at nine, things are quite different: now he wonders if he lives in a poss.w. in which a particular thought occurred at three or four. This is unnecessarily complicated.
E.g. Lingens, still in the library, meets Ortcutt and asks him "Do you know who I am?" – "You are my cousin, Rudolf Lingens!".
Stalnaker: that seems to be a simple and successful communication. Information was requested and given. The question was answered.
II 147
Proposition/Stalnaker: (Propositions as belief objects) Ortcutt's answer expresses a proposition that distinguishes between possible situations and eliminates Lingen's doubt. StalnakerVsLewis: according to his approach (self-ascription of properties), it is again more complicated:
Lingens: asks if he correctly ascribes himself a certain set of properties i.
Ortcutt: answers by ascribing himself a completely different set of properties.
Lingens: has to conclude then subsequently himself the answer. So all the answers are always indirect in communication. ((s) also StalnakerVsChisholm, implicit).
Communication/Lewis/Chisholm/StalnakerVsLewis/StalnakerVsChsholm: everyone then always speaks only about himself.
Solution/Stalnaker: Lewis would otherwise have to distinguish between attitudes and speech acts and say that speech acts have propositions as object and attitudes properties as an object.
Problem/StalnakerVsLewis: Lewis cannot say by intuition that the content of Ortcutt's answer is the information that eliminates Lingen's doubt.
That is also a problem for Perry's approach. (> StalnakerVsPerry)

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Privileged Access Ryle Vs Privileged Access I 65
Privileged Access/RyleVsPrivileged access/Ryle: it will be shown later that you do not judge your own performance in a different way than other people's. But if someone were to be enlightened about how to apply concepts of mental activity (which do not exist) to his own actions, he would be completely wrong in his supposed analogy with others. ---
I 218
It is no contradiction to say that one has misunderstood his emotional state (VsPrivileged access). One continually deceives one's own motivations, one is surprised that the clock has ceased to tick, without believing to have been aware of its ticking. ---
I 306
Outside world/perception/RyleVsPrivileged access: in fact, there are birds and games that we observe, and sensations we can never observe. There is no central and "one" problem of perception. ---
I 307
The question is not to be asked in the paramechanical form: "How do we see robins?" But in the form: "How do we use descriptions" like "he saw a robin"". E.g Someone has discovered a mosquito in the room, what do we say, except that he had a certain buzz in his ear?
He identified something. We are inclined to say in general terms that he subsumed something and drew a conclusion. We have a foot on the right track, but also one on the wrong!
There were no ghostly wheels turning when he heard the mosquito.
---
I 308
What we want to know is the logical behavior of "He discovered a mosquito" and how it differs from "he had a buzz in his ear". He might have mistaken something for a mosquito, or the wind whispering in the telephone wires.

Ryle I
G. Ryle
The Concept of Mind, Chicago 1949
German Edition:
Der Begriff des Geistes Stuttgart 1969
Putnam, H. Searle Vs Putnam, H. Searle passim
Core thesis: (VsPutnam): meanings are in the head! Because perception is self-respect and delivers the performance conditions itself.
Propositions, characters are also only objects in the world. But their power representation is not intrinsical! It is derived from the intentionality of the mind.
I 34
SearleVsFunctionalism/SearleVsPutnam: the actual mental phenomena, however, have nothing to do with attributes but are subjective first-person phenomena.
II 91
Twin Earth/Putnam: the world takes command.
II 92
SearleVsPutnam: that is not enough. Tradition: two mistakes:
1. assumption, any intentional content is an isolated unit.
2. assumption, causation is always a non-intentional relation.
Intentionality/causality/Searle: there is a relevance of causality.
1. Network and background affect fulfilling conditions.
2. intentional causation is always in an internal relation to the fulfilling conditions.
3. a person stands in indexical relation with their own intentional states, network, and background. (Each with its own background).
II 93
Causality: occurs as part of the intentional content. Previously Bill must have identified Sally as Sally, so it belongs to the fulfillment of conditions, it must be caused by Sally and not by Twin-Sally. His current experience has to make reference to this earlier identification. Indexicality: the experience is not merely an experience that someone has. It is the experience of someone with the specific network and the special background.
(...) Twin Earth (TE) Example's interchange of the two Sallys in childhood. How may it be that both express the same proposition and have identical qualitative experiences and yet mean something different?
II 97
TE/Searle: Experiences are in fact "qualitatively identical" but have different content and different fulfillment conditions. Recognition: one has the ability to recognize somebody here on earth but this ability itself does not need to include representation yet to exist in them!
The difference between the two twins is that their experiences refer to their own background skills. (Indexicality).

II 250
SearleVsPutnam: all the arguments have in common that according to them the inner intentional content of the speaker is not sufficient to determine what he refers to.
II 251
SearleVsPutnam : the thesis that the meaning determines the reference can hardly be falsified by the consideration of cases where speakers do not even know the meaning! Intension and extension are not defined relative to idiolects! To mean/tradition: Intension is an abstract entity, which can be more or less detected by individual speakers. But it is not enough to show that the speaker does not like or have recorded only incompletely the intension, because such a speaker also had no relevant extension!
SearleVsPutnam: this one would have to suggest that the totality of intentional states of speakers (including experts) does not determine the correct extension.
Searle: it is for the experts to decide.
Elms/beeches/Searle: I know that beeches are no elms. How do I know that? Because I know that there are different species of tree. I have thus formulated conceptual knowledge.
II 257
SearleVsPutnam: a murderer is not defined by the microstructure.
II 257/258
SearleVsPutnam: Another point: Putnam makes certain assumptions: never anyone came up with the idea to extend the traditional thesis that intension determines the extension to these indexical words. Example "I have a headache" (Twin Earth). But the extension of "I" is another. It has in two different idiolects two different extensions. Searle: But it does not follow that the concept, I have of myself, is in any way different from the concept that my doppelganger has of himself. SearleVsPutnam: Putnam assumes that the tradition cannot be applied to indexical expressions. 2. that fulfillment conditions must also be identical with the doppelganger. Searle: both is wrong.
Searle: if we understand intentional content under "intension" it just yet determines the extension. In addition, two persons may be in type identical mental states and yet their intentional contents may be different. They can have different truth conditions.
II 259
Searle: suppose Jones christens 1750 water indexically on Earth and Twin Jones on Twin Earth. Type identical intellectual content and visual experiences Putnam: because they now give the same definition, Putnam assumes that we cannot explain with drawing on their mental content that they are two different extensions.
Searle: simple answer: they do not have type identical intentional contents. Because these contents are self-referential. The fulfillment conditions are set. Different things are meant in both cases. (> to mean; >meaning/intending).

III 173
SearleVsPutnam: confuses two logically independent theses under his label "metaphysical realism": 1. reality exists independently of our representations.
2. there is exactly one correct conceptual schema for the description of reality (privileged scheme: PS).
Searle: Putnam sees quite truely that the external realism refutes the privileged scheme. The metaphysical realism is the conjunction of these two.
SearleVsPutnam: but you do not refute both by refuting one of the conjunction members. The falsity of the privileged scheme lets the external realism untouched.

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005
Quine, W.V.O. Chomsky Vs Quine, W.V.O. II 319
Language/Quine: interweaving of sentences. Theory/Language/ChomskyVsQuine: Quine himself must even presuppose that both are separated here: he certainly does not believe that two monolingual speakers of the same language can have no differences of opinion.
((s) If language and theory were identical, one could not argue, since even according to Quine the theories must have a certain unity.
Chomsky: otherwise, according to Quine, every dispute would be completely irrational, as between two speakers of different languages.
II 320
Definition Language/Quine: "Complex of present dispositions to verbal behavior, in which speakers of the same language have necessarily corresponded to one another." (W + O, 27) Language/ChomskyVsQuine: then our disposition would have to be explained to a certain verbal behavior by a certain system. This is certainly not the case.
II 321
Reinforcement/ChomskyVsQuine: his concept of "reinforcement" is almost empty. If reinforcement is needed to learn, this means that learning cannot go without data. This is even more emptier than with Skinner, who, unlike Quine, does not even require that intensifying stimuli influence. It is sufficient here that the reinforcement is merely imagined.
II 324
Language learning: behavioristic/Quine: conditioning, association ChomskyVsQuine: additional principles, only so endlessly many sentences explainable. Probability/Language/ChomskyVsQuine: the concept of the "probability of a sentence" is completely useless and empty:
II 325
Translation indeterminacy, indeterminacy: ChomskyVsQuine: disposition either with regard to stimulus, or with regard to the total body of the language: then all sentences are equally probable (reference classes).
II 326
Logical truth/Quine: is derived by him by conditioning mechanisms that associate certain sentence pairs with each other,
II 327
so that our knowledge of the logical relations can be represented as a finite system of linked propositions. ChomskyVsQuine: it remains unclear how we distinguish logical from causal relations.
Truth functions/Quine: allow a radical translation without "non verifiable analytical hypotheses", so they can be directly learned from the empirical data material (W + O § 13)
ChomskyVsQuine: his readiness to settle these things within the framework of the radical translation may show that he is ready to regard logic as an innate experience-independent basis for learning.
Then it is, however, arbitrary to accept this framework as innate, and not much else that can be described or imagined.
II 328
ChomskyVsQuine: his narrowly conceived Humean frame (Chomsky pro) with the language as a finite (!?) interweaving of sentences is incompatible with various triusms, which Quine certainly would accept.
II 329
Analytical hypothesis/stimulus meaning/Quine: stimulus meaning invloves, in contrast to the analytical hypothesis only "normal inductive uncertainty". Since the corresponding sentences can contain truth functions, they lead to "normal induction". This is not yet a "theory construction" as in the case of analytical hypotheses.
ChomskyVsQuine: the distinction is not clear because the normal induction also occurs within the radical translation.
II 330
ChomskyVsQuine: Vs "property space": not sure whether the terms of the language can be explained with physical dimensions. Aristotle: more connected with actions. VsQuine: not evident that similarities are localizable in space. Principles, not "learned sentences".
II 333
VsQuine: cannot depend on "disposition to reaction", otherwise moods, eye injuries, nutritional status, etc. would be too authoritive.
II 343
Language may not be taught at all.
II 335
Synonymy/ChomskyVsQuine: (he had suggested that synonymy "roughly speaking" exists in approximate equality of situations, and approximately equal effect). Chomsky: there is not even an approximate equality in the conditions that are likely to produce synonymous utterances.
ChomskyVsQuine: Synonymy can thus not be characterized by means of conditions of use (conditions of assertion) or effects on the listener. It is essential to distinguish between langue and parole, between competence and performance.
It is about meaningful idealization, Quine's idealization is meaningless.
II 337
Translation indeterminacy/ChomskyVsQuine: the reason for the thesis is, in a psychological context, an implausible and rather contentless empirical assertion, namely, which innate qualities the mind contributes to language acquisition. In an epistemic-theoretical context, Quine's thesis is merely a version of the well-known skeptical arguments, which can equally well be applied to physics or others.
II 337
Inconsistency/indeterminacy/theory/ChomskyVsQuine: any hypothesis goes beyond the data, otherwise it would be uninteresting. ---
Quine V 32
Definition Language/Quine: "Complex of dispositions to linguistic behavior". ((s) that could be called circular, because "linguistic" occurs. Vs: then it should be expressed by the fact that there is not yet a language besides the behavior.)
Disposition/ChomskyVsQuine: such a complex can presumably be presented as a set of probabilities to make an utterance under certain circumstances.
Vs: the concept of probability fails here: the probability with which I utter a certain English sentence cannot be distinguished from the probability with which I express a particular Japanese sentence.
QuineVsChomsky: one should not forget that dispositions have their conditions.
---
V 33
We find this through the procedure of question and consent. ---
Quine XI 115
Language/Theory/ChomskyVsQuine/Lauener: the language of a person and their theory are in any case different systems, even if one would agree with Quine otherwise. ---
XI 116
Quine: (dito). Indeterminacy of the translation: because of it one cannot speak of an invariant theory opposite translations.
Nor can we say that an absolute theory can be formulated in different languages, or vice versa, that different theories (even contradictory ones) can be expressed in one language.
((s)> Because of the ontological conclusion that I cannot argue about ontology, by telling the other that the things that exist with him are not there, because I then make the self-contradiction that there are things that do not exist).
Lauener: that would correspond to the error that the language contributes the syntax, the theory but the empirical content.
Language/Theory/Quine/Lauener: that does not mean that there is no contradiction between the two: insofar as two different theories are laid down in the same language, it means then that the expressions are not interchangeable in all expressions.
But there are also contexts where the distinction language/theory has no meaning. Therefore, the difference is gradual. The contexts where language/theory are interchangeable are those where Quine speaks of a network.

Chomsky I
Noam Chomsky
"Linguistics and Philosophy", in: Language and Philosophy, (Ed) Sidney Hook New York 1969 pp. 51-94
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Chomsky V
N. Chomsky
Language and Mind Cambridge 2006

Quine I
W.V.O. Quine
Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960
German Edition:
Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980

Quine II
W.V.O. Quine
Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986
German Edition:
Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985

Quine III
W.V.O. Quine
Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982
German Edition:
Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978

Quine V
W.V.O. Quine
The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974
German Edition:
Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989

Quine VI
W.V.O. Quine
Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992
German Edition:
Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995

Quine VII
W.V.O. Quine
From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953

Quine VII (a)
W. V. A. Quine
On what there is
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (b)
W. V. A. Quine
Two dogmas of empiricism
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (c)
W. V. A. Quine
The problem of meaning in linguistics
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (d)
W. V. A. Quine
Identity, ostension and hypostasis
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (e)
W. V. A. Quine
New foundations for mathematical logic
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (f)
W. V. A. Quine
Logic and the reification of universals
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (g)
W. V. A. Quine
Notes on the theory of reference
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (h)
W. V. A. Quine
Reference and modality
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VII (i)
W. V. A. Quine
Meaning and existential inference
In
From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953

Quine VIII
W.V.O. Quine
Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939)
German Edition:
Bezeichnung und Referenz
In
Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982

Quine IX
W.V.O. Quine
Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963
German Edition:
Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967

Quine X
W.V.O. Quine
The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986
German Edition:
Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005

Quine XII
W.V.O. Quine
Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969
German Edition:
Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003

Quine XIII
Willard Van Orman Quine
Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987
Tradition Ryle Vs Tradition Lanz I 275
Ryle: psychological statements are hypothetical statements. They are also verifiable from the perspective of the third person. It is not about causes, but about criteria and standards for skills and achievements.
I 276
They denote behavioral dispositions and non-internal events that would be the causes of behavior. Intelligence/Tradition: intelligent action: rule or method knowledge, so to know a set of positions. That is, intelligent action would be action with an intelligent cause. (RyleVs).
Intelligence/Ryle: there are many examples of intelligent action without consideration: E.g. quick-witted replies, spontaneously correct deciding (fast chess) practically clever behavior in games, in sports and others.
I 277
RyleVsTradition: Regress: if intelligent action was the application of intelligence, then this application would again be an action for which intelligence would be necessary, ad infinitum. Definition Intelligence/Ryle: action with a certain level, with a certain quality. The actor possesses corresponding ability and uses them.

Ryle I 373
Memory/Presentation/RyleVs trace theory: their followers should try to imagine the case in which someone has a melody stuck in his head. Is this a reactivated trace of auditory sensation, or a series of reactivated traces of a series of auditory sensations?
Ryle I 66
Mental state/mind/RyleVsTradition/Ryle: even if there were the mythical inner states and activities assumed by some, one could not draw any likelihoods of their occurrence among others. ---
I 84
VsVolition/VsActs of will/act of will/Ryle: both voluntary and involuntary acts of will are absurd. If my act of will is voluntary in the sense of theory, another act of will must have preceded it, ad infinitum (regress) It has been proposed for the avoidance that the act of will can be neither described as voluntary nor as involuntary. "Act of will" is a term that cannot accept predicates such as "virtuous", "vicious", "good" or "wicked," which may embarrass those moralists who use the acts of will as the emergency anchor of their systems.
I 85
In short: the theory of acts of will is a causal hypothesis, and the question of voluntariness is a question of the cause.
I 86
RyleVsTradition: some well-known and truly occurring events are often confused with acts of will: people are often in doubt what to do. The final choice is sometimes referred to as an act of will. But equality is untenable, for most voluntary actions do not come from a state of indifference! Weakness of will/akrasia/Ryle: it is also known that someone can decide, but the action is not carried out becacuse of weakness of will. Or he does not carry it out because of new circumstances.
RyleVsTradition: Problem: According to the theory of acts of will, it would be impossible for them to sometimes not lead to results. Otherwise all new executed operations would have to be postulated which explains that voluntary actions are sometimes actually carried out. If a choice was called voluntary, it must have been preceeded by another choice, ad infinitum.
Ryle I 87
If the action is not carried out, according to the theory (tradition) there is also no act of will.
Ryle I 182
Introspection/Attention/RyleVsTradition: In the case of an inspection, one would have to ask again whether it is attentive or inattentive. (Regress) Vs: That also pretends that there is a difference in having an irritation of the throat and the statement that one has it. Not only is attention far from being a kind of inspection or listening, but inspecting and listening are themselves specific ways of exercising attention.
Whether metaphorically or literally, a viewer can always be attentive or inattentive. To do something with attention is not to link an activity with a bit of theorizing, exploring, inspecting, or knowing. Otherwise, any action done with attention would involve an infinite number of activities.
VsIntellectualist tradition: as if the exercise of theory is the essential function of mind and contemplation the essence of this activity.
Ryle I 215
Consciousness/Tradition/Ryle: According to the traditional theory, soul processes are not aware in the sense that we can report about them later, but that the opening up of their own incident is a feature of these incidents and cannot come after them.
I 216
Tradition/Ryle: these alleged revelations would be expressed in the present and not in the past, if they were dressed in words at all. At the same time as I discover that my watch stands still, I also discover that I discover it. RyleVsTradition: this is a myth!
1. We usually know what we are doing. No "phosphorescence" theory is necessary.
2. That we know it does not imply that we are constantly thinking about it.
3. It does not imply that when we know something about ourselves, we encounter some ghostly phenomena.
RyleVsTradition: The basic objection against the traditional theory which claims that the mind must know what it does because mental events are consciously or metaphorically "self-luminous" is that there are no such events.
I 217
There are no events that take place in a world of any other kind. Consequently, there is also no need for such methods to make the acquaintance of inhabitants of such a world. RyleVsTradition/RyleVsTradition/Ryle: No one would ever want to say that he had gained some knowledge "out of his consciousness". It is a grammatical and logical abuse of the word "knowing" that the consciousness of my mental states is that I know them.
It is nonsense to say that someone knows this thunderstorm, this colored surface or this act of concluding. This is just the wrong accusative for the verb "to know". The metaphor of light does not help here.
Ryle I 388
Intellect/mind/use of symbols/Ryle: in practice, we do not regard every expression as an intellectual, but only the one understood as work. Border problems do not pose a problem for us. Some problem solving is intellectual, searching for the thimble is not, bridge is in the middle. Thinking/mind/intellect/RyleVsTradition/Ryle: for us, this is important: it means that both theories are wrong, the old with the special, occult organ, and the
newer ones, which speak of particular intellectual processes such as judgments, conceptual perception, assumption, thinking through, etc. They pretend to have identification signs for things they cannot always identify in reality.
Ryle I 391
Theory/Theories/Ryle: Nothing would be gained with the assertion that Einstein, Thucydides, Newton, and Columbus were concerned with the same activity. Sherlock Holmes's theories have not been constructed by the same means as those of Karl Marx. Both agreed, however, that they wrote theories in didactic prose. Theory/Tradition: To have a theory means to have learned one and not to forget it. To be at the place of destination. It does not mean doing something yourself.
Theory/RyleVsTradition: Having a pen is to be able to write with it. Having a theory or a plan means being ready to communicate or apply it when the opportunity arises.
Difference: the intelligent listener then acquires a theory, if he is wise, has understood it, he does not have to accept it at all. But we do not set up a theory primarily to be able to put it into words. Columbus did not go on journeys to increase the material for geographic studies.
Definition having a theory/Ryle: is the ability to solve additional tasks. To be a Newton follower would not only mean saying what Newton had said, but also to do the same and say what he had said.
---
Flor I 263
Can, to be able to/RyleVsTradition: "Legend": that an action can only be carried out intelligently if it is based on or accompanies a theoretical, intellectual performance. (Dualistic). Division in private, theoretical part of the activity and a practical, public. Can, to be able to: (know-how): cannot be determined by theoretical insight! (Knowing that this or that applies).
Theoretical insight is itself a form of practice and cannot itself be intelligent or not intelligent!
It is not plausible that any action, in which intelligence or its deficiency can be demonstrated, should include the consideration of theoretical statements, norms, or rules.
There are also many actions for which there are no formulated rules or criteria for intelligent executio
Flor I 264
Regress/Ryle: according to the dualistic notion, an intelligent action presupposes that there has been a theoretical consideration of statements, norms, or rules by which the activity is then carried out. This consideration, however, is itself an action that can be more or less intelligent. This leads to regress.

Ryle I
G. Ryle
The Concept of Mind, Chicago 1949
German Edition:
Der Begriff des Geistes Stuttgart 1969

Lanz I
Peter Lanz
Vom Begriff des Geistes zur Neurophilosophie
In
Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993

Flor I
Jan Riis Flor
"Gilbert Ryle: Bewusstseinsphilosophie"
In
Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993

Flor II
Jan Riis Flor
"Karl Raimund Popper: Kritischer Rationalismus"
In
Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A.Hügli/P.Lübcke Reinbek 1993

Flor III
J.R. Flor
"Bertrand Russell: Politisches Engagement und logische Analyse"
In
Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993

Flor IV
Jan Riis Flor
"Thomas S. Kuhn. Entwicklung durch Revolution"
In
Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993
Tradition Searle Vs Tradition II 28
Belief/conviction/SearleVsTradition: it is simply not a kind of image! It is simply a representation, that means it has a propositional content, which determines the fulfillment of conditions and a psychological mode, which defines the orientation.
II 49
SearleVsTradition: Convictions and desires are not the basic intentional states. One can also ashamed of his desire or his convictions.
II 160
Tradition: one never has a causation experience. SearleVsTradition: one not only often has causation experience, but every perception or action experience is indeed just such causation experience!
SearleVsHume: he looked at a wrong spot, he looked for strength.

II 190
Example skiing: traditional view: first: word on world causation direction. You follow the instruction to put the weight on the downhill ski.
II 191
This changes with increasing dexterity. The instructions appear unconscious, but still as a representation. To make conscious will become a hindrance in the future as with the centipede. SearleVsTradition: the rules are not internalized, but they are less important! They are not unconsciously "hardwired" but they become ingrained.
II 192
They might be realized as nerves and simply make the rules unnecessary. The rules can retreat into the background. The beginner is inflexible, the advanced flexible. This makes the causal role of representation superfluous! The advanced does not follow the rules better, he skis differently!
The body takes command and the driver's intentionality is concentrated on the winning of the race.
II 192/193
Background/Searle: is not on the periphery of intentionality, but pervades the whole network of intentional states.
II 228
Name/subject/direct speech/quote/tradition/Searle: E.g. the sheriff spoke the words "Mr. Howard is an honest man. "
II 231
According to the traditional view, the direct speech here includes no words! (But names.)
II 232
SearleVsTradition: Of course we can talk about words with words. Also here no new names are created, the syntactic position often allows not even the setting up of a name.
II 233
E.g. Gerald said he would Henry. (Ungrammatical).
II 246
de dicto/intensional/SearleVsTradition: E.g. "Reagan is such that Bush thinks he is the president." Searle: the mistake was to conclude from the intensionality of de dicto reports to the intensionality of the reported states themselves. But from the presence of two different types of reports simply does not follow that there are two different kinds of states.

III 165
Realism/tradition/Searle: the old dispute between realism and idealism was about the existence of matter or of objects in space and time. The traditional realism dealt with the question of how the world really is. Realism/SearleVsTradition: this is a profound misunderstanding! Realism is not a thesis about how the world actually is. We could be totally in error about how the world is in its details, and the realism could be still true!
Def realism/Searle: realism has the view that there is a way of being of things that is logically independent of all human representations. It does not say how things are, but only that there is a mode of being of things. (Things are here not only material objects).

V 176
Predicate/meaning/Searle: but is the meaning of the predicate expression a linguistic or non-linguistic entity? Searle: it is a linguistic entity in an ordinary sense. Can the existence of a non-linguistic entity follow from the existence of a linguistic entity?
Existence/language/universals/SearleVsTradition: but the claim that any non-linguistic entities exist, can never constitute a tautology.

IV 155
Background/Searle: what means "use" of background assumptions? The meaning concept shall perform certain tasks for us. Now the same object can at different times be understood relatively to various coordinate system of background assumptions without being ambiguous.
((s) It is unambiguous in the respective situation).
IV 156
SearleVsTradition: here it is also not about the distinction performance/competence.
IV 157
There is no sharp distinction between the competence of a speaker and his knowledge of the world.

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005

The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 theses of the more related field of specialization.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Competence Chomsky, N. Searle VIII 404
Competence / Performance / Chomsky: Thesis: performance is just the tip of the iceberg of competence.

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996
Platonism Field, Hartry I 44
To succeed in VsPlatonism, we must also show, thesis: that mathematics is dispensable in science and metalogic. Then we have reason not to literally have to believe in mathematics. (>Indispensability argument).
I 45
If that succeeds, we can get behind the agnosticism.
I 186
Def moderate platonism/mP/Field: the thesis that there are abstract objects like numbers. Then one probably also believes that there are relations of physical size between objects and numbers. (But only derived): Example "mass in kilogram" is then relation between a given physical object and the real number 15,2.
Example "distance in meters" is a relation between two objects ((s) on one side) and the real number 7,4.
The difference to high-performance platonism (HPP) lies in the attitude to these relations:
Moderate Platonism: Thesis: These are conventional relations derived from more fundamental relations existing between physical objects alone.
Def High Performance Platonism/Field: denies that and takes the relations between objects and numbers as a bare fact that cannot be explained in other terms.
Inflated one could explain this as "platonistic participation".
II 332
Standard Platonism: Thesis: Mathematical theories such as set theory or the theory of real numbers are about different mathematical domains, or at least about certain structures, because there is no need to assume that isomorphic domains (i.e. domains with the same structure) would be mathematically indistinguishable. Thus, "regions" should not be assumed as sets.
II 333
Def "Platonism of perfection": (plenitude): postulates a set of mathematical objects. Thesis: Whenever we have a consistent purely mathematical theory, there are mathematical objects that fulfill the theory under a standard-fulfillment relation. Platonism of perfection: but also suggests that we can consider all quantifiers about mathematical entities in this way,
I 334
that they are implicitly limited by a predicate to which all other predicates of mathematical entities are subordinated: The "overarching" predicate: is then different between the different mathematical theories. These theories then no longer conflict.
II 335
Universe/Standard Platonism/Field: (Thesis: "Only one universe exists"). Problem/PutnamVsPlatonism: how do we even manage to pick out the "full" (comprehensive) universe and confront it with a sub-universe, and accordingly the standard element relationship as opposed to a non-standard element relationship? (Putnam 1980). (Here placed from the perspective of "Universe").
Putnam: Thesis: We simply cannot do that.
T-Predikate Strawson, P.F. Grover II 150
W-Prädikat/wahr/Strawson: (1949, 1950a): These: "Das ist wahr" ist so ähnlich wie "dito". These ich wiederhole, was ein anderer Sprecher gesagt hat, d.h. ich mache keine Behauptung! Ich mache auch keine "Meta-Aussage". Es ist eher eine "linguistische Performance" ((s) Strawson vermeidet immer "speech act").
Grover: es ist unklar, ob Strawson glaubt, dass "das ist wahr" seinen Inhalt von einem Antezedens bezieht. Vielleicht brauchen wir eine feinere Unterscheidung.

Grover I
D. L. Grover
Joseph L. Camp
Nuel D. Belnap,
"A Prosentential Theory of Truth", Philosophical Studies, 27 (1975) pp. 73-125
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994