11 November 2007

Pragmatically Moe-diated Semantic Relations

I am only making this post because it seemed wrong to listen to a Locke Lecture and then not post on it. Philosophical content should be approaching absolute zero, here. But the series must be completed!!

There are some problems with the recording of Brandom's fifth Locke Lecture, "Incompatibility, Modal Semantics, and Intrinsic Logic": The recording of Brandom's lecture cuts out before the end, the appendix he keeps referencing is not included in the handouts online, whoever replied to Brandom was not recorded at all, and Bramdom's reply to them is almost entirely missing. And the Q&A seems to be largely building off of bits of the lecture that didn't get recorded. Less than ideal.

Here's what I was able to get from what was recorded: Brandom thinks that any language-game which allows assertions and denials (any autonomous discursive practice) stands in some special relation to S5 modal logic, and classical logic among non-modal logics. Whatever the details of this are supposed to be is, I take it, explained in the appendix I haven't found. Brandom has some way of going from relations of commitment and entitlement among assertions to relations of compatibility/incompatibility among assertions, and then to modal terms (via set theory?); the modal terms are then used to define negation, conjunction, and logical consequence. The upshot is that negation & pals are supposed to be shown to be treatable without an anterior notion of truth; truth, representation, intensional notions, and intentionality all look to be able to be handled down-stream of practices of "giving and asking for reasons" which don't presume them. I'm not sure what to make of all this, given the level at which Brandom's handling it in this lecture. I think it would help if half the lecture material hadn't disappeared. Or if I'd read "Making It Explicit" ever. I get a feeling that there's something sneaky going on in the way Brandom "validates classical propositional logic" and S5 by introducing logical operators by drawing attention to specific sorts of semantic relations, and this appears to have been brought up in the parts of the lecture I didn't hear, but I can't put my finger on what's bothering me about it.

Here's what I can gather of what went on that wasn't recorded: Bramdom has some idea for what to do with intuitionistic logic, but no idea what to do with relevance logics. Whatever was said in the reply to Brandom here, it caught him off-guard. Brandom thinks this is a problem, but he hadn't thought of it at all before the question & answer section of this lecture. I'm curious what all I missed, here. I suspect that it fell out that Brandom's general strategy for handling logical operators won't work for handling certain non-classical versions of the operators, which is a problem given what Brandom's said earlier about wanting to avoid asking "Which is the true logic?"; I rather liked the latter, so I'm curious about the details of the former. Still one lecture to go; maybe it'll come up again.

And now it's glasses-time.

At one point Haruhi.tv had a hidden page with Mikuru images. That's where this pic is from. When I looked through my image directories, I was surprised to find that it's the only pic I have that's just Mikuru wearing glasses.


Thankfully, there is no shortage of Nagato images where she still has her glasses. <3


No shortage at all.


Plenty of glasses pics to go around.


I decided not to post any NWS ones. It just makes sense. And then it occurred to me that I should really save Yuki pics for future use. Don't want to end up using lame pics just because I want to put up a Yuki one.


I've gotten tired of having to hunt for pics that are small enough for my current template; I've had several that end up getting cut off, anyway. 400 pixels just isn't very wide. So I've resized a lot of pics for this post. But not this one. It was always a little small.


Asakura is love. <3


Why did she have to be killed off? She just wants to murder people to see what happens when she kills them. IS THAT SO WRONG?


I have no idea what any of the text on any of these images says. I actually edited out the text on some of the images I put up in earlier posts, just to avoid accidentally throwing up embarrassing messages unintentionally. Now I am THROWING CAUTION TO THE WIND. For all I know, this image reads "I AM A PEDOPHILE; RON PAUL '08". Or more realistically, it might just say something like "Meganekko Rape Doujin Adult-only 18+". Which, ceteris parabus, is something I'd prefer not to have on my blog. But that is just one of the risks you run from trolling imageboards for pics.


This was one of the only images I had of Tsuruya with glasses. What the hell? Tsuruya and glasses is like peanut butter and celery. Man, I haven't had that in years. I need to eat more vegetables. And buy some peanut butter.


She was a background character in Haruhi. There is fan-art of her. I found at least three or four pieces while selecting pics for this update. Good job, Internet.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Sometimes the internet frightens and confuses me. Why does this exist? ;_;


Whenever I hear someone say "megane", what comes to mind is a scene from "Ultimate Girls":
Big Breasts (this is actually what they called her; I forget her actual name) was fighting a giant robot/alien mangaka. The mangaka throws a pair of glasses at her, and they land square on her face. Big Breasts is confused by this attack.

Big Breasts: Megane?
Mangaka-alien: Megane-KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

And then he fires a giant laser from his crotch.

Ultimate Girls is one of the worst shows I have ever watched (in full). In my defense, you could view it online for free (legally), and I couldn't get BitTorrent to work at the time. Still, it had things like a magical-girl transformation sequence involving robot ejaculate. That's a special kind of terrible you can really only get from anime.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
And now for some walls
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
to close out the post.

15 comments:

Shawn said...

That is unfortunate that the audio is messed up. Wonder if Brandom has a working copy somewhere... Anyway, the appendix is available on Brandom's website at the end of the lecture text. I haven't gone through it in as much detail as I'd like. It is a bit unclear what Brandom has to say about some of the logical connectives in the less standard logics, like linear logic. He seemed to struggle a bit with relevance logic when he mentioned it in class a few weeks ago. There are probably further technical difficulties.

From the pictures that I looked at, none of them say anything particularly bad. Although, they did talk about wearing glasses and how they weren't wearing glasses for anyone else. Odd....

Daniel said...

Thanks, I didn't think to check the lecture text; I only had the handouts and audio saved. I'd forgotten the lecture text itself was available. Whoopsie.

That sort of text does not actually strike me as that odd, considering the likely provenance of this sort of image.

Duck said...

So here's your post in a nutshell:

"Here's what I can gather of what went on that wasn't recorded: ... Whatever was said in the reply to Brandom here, it caught him off-guard. ... is confused by this attack ... then he fires a giant laser from his crotch." Sorry I missed it!

So I'm not the only one with a specs fetish. Of course, the whole point of these dodgy sites is so that no matter how odd one's fetish, one can be assured that there are many thriving subcultures in Japan that are far weirder and even disturbing.

Daniel said...

Duck has read the post correctly. And holds the correct opinion in re: spectacles.

The weirdest I've ever seen was a balloon-fetish forum. Just normal balloons, like from a carnival. There were threads where people went on for pages about how upset they were that their favorite balloon had popped. There appeared to also be ALF-style guerrilla terrorism conducted against weather balloon launches, since weather balloons just end up popping at some point. There appeared to also be pay-sites where there were pictures of women holding balloons. The free preview pics didn't even have nudity; it was just women in tanktops and jeans holding balloons, inflating balloons, tossing balloons around.

Then there were rival forums, where people who found balloon-popping erotic congregated. They also had pay-sites, fanfiction, etc.

Sadly, most of the forumites were American.

on the Brandom front: Looks like the lecture only cut out part of a sentence (which was being ad libbed; it's not in the text) and the "In my next lecture I'll discuss..." bit. That's good, at least.

The appendices do at least make it clearer what he was about to say about intuitionistic logic. I'm not sure if I understand his relationship to relevance logics, though; he seems to suggest it's a problem (in general, not just for Brandom) that there's no difference in inferential role between consistent and inconsistent sets of sentences in relevance logics. Maybe I've just been rendered logically unwell by reading too many Graham Priest articles recently, but it's not clear to me why this should be. Priest insists that the set of his beliefs is inconsistent (since it includes dialetheias, such as that the Liar sentence is both true and false), but that this doesn't make his thinking incoherent, since the dialetheias only show up in weird borderline cases. I am hoping I am just missing out on some awesome anti-Priest literature out there; I would prefer to not think of true contradictions as (maybe) OK. I liked my Aristotelian dogma the way it was.

But it does look like Brandom needs for there to be a difference in inferential role between consistent and inconsistent sets, or else he runs into technical problems; he said in the Q&A that he depends on ex falso quodlibet for picking out incoherent sets, and I think I at least understand that much of the strategy. I don't know why this shouldn't just lead to Brandom having a serious problem; if his expressivist program can only work if we allow EFQ, then it just looks like he's having to rule out a decent chunk of logics as "not actually logics" if he wants to be able to claim that his program can put some analytical muscle behind the claim that logical vocabulary just makes explicit the pre-existing inferential relations of a language. (This may get cleared up if I ever look through those 20 pages of proofs Brandom tacked into the appendix, or the thousands of pages of books Brandom's put out. Or maybe I'm just missing some obvious reason for thinking ex falso quodlibet has to be a good rule of inference/the law of non-contradiction has to hold in all cases, so that Brandom's reliance on it can't be a rough spot. Or maybe I am just totally off-base in this blog comment and will be ashamed of myself in the near future.)

Shawn said...

That would make things a bit clearer. I'm not sure why exactly it would be a problem if there were no difference (well, at least a small difference) in inferential role between consistent and inconsistent sets of beliefs. There shouldn't be a big difference in relevance logic, just the derivability of falsum. I'd think it'd be bad for Brandom to rule out logics as not being logics, unless he can show that the vocabulary involved in those logics isnt' expressive. I am doubtful he could do that. I've looked at some of Brandom's books and parts of that appendix. I'm not sure he clears up philosophically why he needs ex falso so much. It might have a technical explanation in the incompatibility semantics in the appendix. Ex falso doesn't really appear in MIE or AR. Alas, I need to go through the Locke Lecture material sometime soon... In any case, I don't think the post if off base.

On a different note, this post is the second hit for the search {Brandom crotch laser}. I'm kind of amazed it wasn't the first. The top hit didn't involve Brandom though. In fact, I don't think it involved lasers either, but my memory is fuzzy.

Daniel said...

The first hit is a Youtube video about Lindsey Lohan & Paris Hilton. It involves the phrase "fire crotch", but neither Brandom nor lasers.

The fourth hit is a review of "Baby Geniuses 2: Superbabies".

Google apparently treats "Brandom" as simultaneously being "brandon" for search-purposes. I'm the #1 hit for "Brandom crotch laser -brandon", out of 25 hits. Close enough for me. I seem to be the only hit for the relevant Brandom + crotch laser.

Holy crap. I'm not. Descriptions from some porn sites I'm not going to click on:
"... gangsta shit jose# fresh indian pussy innabah meaning of erotic in the philosophies of hegel or brandom ebony lesbians pussy free lesbians licking each ..."
"... pornstar vedio free laser removal of canine anal glands what to put up ass .... of erotic in the philosophies of hegel or brandom "lady vols basketball" ..."

I am in awe.

Also, good to hear I may not be entirely confused in re: Brandom.

J said...

one could argue like this (not that I agree, necessarily):

--The law of contradiction is either a priori or it is not.

if a priori, necessary.

if not a priori, a posteriori and contingent (or constructive, perhaps).

There do not appear to be any compelling arguments for "a priori-city" of axiomatic knowledge (except by stipulation or perhaps the trivial "biological innateness" of a Chomsky).

So the "law of contradiction" is itself a posteriori, and fallible.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
selbst said...

daniel,
you might consider leaving out the anime characters. are they necessary? it sometimes makes posts harder to read. it's really sort of distracting to have to look at cartoons of prepubescent girls. also, i wondered if your title heading relates to the overall content of your posts. if it does, could you explain it?

Daniel said...

Before this post, I've only used the pics for jumps. And this post was meant to be basically junk; a friend had been bugging me to do an image-dump post, and I obliged. I guess the Wildlife Sanctuary is a mess if you don't like the pics, but this is a price you are going to have to pay if you want to see a critical mass of Tossy posts in one place. (The characters in this post are all pubescent, incidentally.)

Adblock is available if you really find the pics that distracting. It's a good extension anyway.

The post title was the result of me staring at the screen and failing to come up with any better ideas for a title. It's just a mix between Brandom's "pragmatically mediated semantic relations" and moe, which is an otaku-type term. No deep meaning to it.

J said...

The characters in this post are all pubescent, incidentally.


C'est magnifique! How Xtian of you, S-dan. Does your Preacher approve of S-Dan.com, grasshoppah?

"Moe"

As in 3 stooges?

Seriously, maybe one of the real philosophasters on your site might answer: is the "Law" of Contradiction analytical a priori, or not? We say that the LOC cannot be proven to be analytical a priori, any more than numbers can be proven to be analytical a priori (thus it's a posteriori, and "synthetic" if you like that term). We might agree it's good and useful to view the LOC as analytical APr, but that's because philosophasters generally don't know squat about cognition, and APri. is merely a name for "cognitive processes that we don't know shit about."

joyrexus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
joyrexus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
joyrexus said...

I recently posted a new and complete recording of Lecture 5 as well as a recording of Jarda Peregrin's comments on the lecture and the complete Q & A session (in two parts). For the time being, you can find it all here: http://joyrex.spc.uchicago.edu/sandbox/Robert_Brandom/Locke_Lectures/

Daniel Lindquist said...

Thanks!