tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post7715029784649639331..comments2023-05-13T07:41:26.217-05:00Comments on SOH-Dan: Pragmatically Moe-diated Semantic RelationsDaniel Lindquisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-51358086593785563822007-12-21T08:51:00.000-06:002007-12-21T08:51:00.000-06:00Thanks!Thanks!Daniel Lindquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-33454628769995518472007-12-21T08:47:00.000-06:002007-12-21T08:47:00.000-06:00I recently posted a new and complete recording of ...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/joyrexushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861802432880925028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-71935777902183367952007-12-21T08:45:00.000-06:002007-12-21T08:45:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.joyrexushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861802432880925028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-19434486524177186052007-12-21T08:43:00.000-06:002007-12-21T08:43:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.joyrexushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861802432880925028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-13337347029903178092007-11-19T10:34:00.000-06:002007-11-19T10:34:00.000-06:00The characters in this post are all pubescent, inc...<I>The characters in this post are all pubescent, incidentally.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>C'est magnifique! How Xtian of you, S-dan. Does your Preacher approve of S-Dan.com, grasshoppah? <BR/><BR/><I>"Moe"</I><BR/><BR/>As in 3 stooges? <BR/><BR/>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."Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-87428732434349385782007-11-18T21:59:00.000-06:002007-11-18T21:59:00.000-06:00Before this post, I've only used the pics for jump...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.)<BR/><BR/><A HREF="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10" REL="nofollow">Adblock</A> is available if you really find the pics that distracting. It's a good extension anyway.<BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_%28slang%29" REL="nofollow">moe</A>, which is an otaku-type term. No deep meaning to it.Daniel Lindquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-89082863846767679912007-11-18T16:03:00.000-06:002007-11-18T16:03:00.000-06:00daniel,you might consider leaving out the anime ch...daniel,<BR/>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?Dr. James M. Dowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07133003297736787329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-73012287204438095842007-11-12T09:41:00.000-06:002007-11-12T09:41:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-46124906690836549822007-11-12T09:05:00.000-06:002007-11-12T09:05:00.000-06:00one could argue like this (not that I agree, neces...one could argue like this (not that I agree, necessarily):<BR/><BR/>--The law of contradiction is either a priori or it is not. <BR/><BR/>if a priori, necessary.<BR/><BR/>if not a priori, a posteriori and contingent (or constructive, perhaps).<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>So the "law of contradiction" is itself a posteriori, and fallible.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-35665272265358989612007-11-11T21:29:00.000-06:002007-11-11T21:29:00.000-06:00The first hit is a Youtube video about Lindsey Loh...The first hit is a Youtube video about Lindsey Lohan & Paris Hilton. It involves the phrase "fire crotch", but neither Brandom nor lasers.<BR/><BR/>The fourth hit is a review of "Baby Geniuses 2: Superbabies".<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Holy crap. I'm not. Descriptions from some porn sites I'm not going to click on:<BR/>"... gangsta shit jose# fresh indian pussy innabah meaning of erotic in the philosophies of hegel or brandom ebony lesbians pussy free lesbians licking each ..."<BR/>"... 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" ..."<BR/><BR/>I am in awe.<BR/><BR/>Also, good to hear I may not be entirely confused in re: Brandom.Daniel Lindquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-52292613717852091792007-11-11T21:16:00.000-06:002007-11-11T21:16:00.000-06:00That would make things a bit clearer. I'm not sure...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Shawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15244930958211791213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-91382895142873152892007-11-11T19:29:00.000-06:002007-11-11T19:29:00.000-06:00Duck has read the post correctly. And holds the co...Duck has read the post correctly. And holds the correct opinion in re: spectacles.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Then there were rival forums, where people who found balloon-<I>popping</I> erotic congregated. They also had pay-sites, fanfiction, etc.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, most of the forumites were American.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>ex falso quodlibet</I> 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 <I>ex falso quodlibet</I> 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.)Daniel Lindquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-57961857364944819082007-11-11T18:17:00.000-06:002007-11-11T18:17:00.000-06:00So here's your post in a nutshell: "Here's what I ...So here's your post in a nutshell: <BR/><BR/>"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!<BR/><BR/>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.Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-2359037240143425372007-11-11T13:28:00.000-06:002007-11-11T13:28:00.000-06:00Thanks, I didn't think to check the lecture text; ...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.<BR/><BR/>That sort of text does not actually strike me as that odd, considering the likely provenance of this sort of image.Daniel Lindquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05443116324301716578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8042142443470259188.post-66460695939329051852007-11-11T13:22:00.000-06:002007-11-11T13:22:00.000-06:00That is unfortunate that the audio is messed up. W...That is unfortunate that the audio is messed up. Wonder if Brandom has a working copy somewhere... Anyway, the appendix is available <A HREF="http://www.pitt.edu/~brandom/locke/locke-w5.html" REL="nofollow">on Brandom's website at the end of the lecture text</A>. 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. <BR/><BR/>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....Shawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15244930958211791213noreply@blogger.com