Ignorant Wisdom: The Heart of Agnosticism

[wuliheron]

So it seems you are implying that a creator god might have created an inherently meaningless universe, upon which we later impart our ideas of meaning. If so, that would be a rather weird creator, but maybe meaning isn't part of his game after all as you seem to suggest.

BTW, i am most definitely not an atheist. It's just that i don't find the line of your reasoning convincing.

No, I'm saying the demonstrable evidence is we give things meaning whether the universe actually has any inherent meaning or not. Science doesn't demonstrably give things meaning anymore than my screwdriver assigns meaning to anything and, by definition, whether the universe has any inherent meaning is a metaphysical issue which cannot be proved.

 

[lavinia]

The word agnostic originated with someone who believed it impossible to know whether God exists. Why bother creating or using a new term if all it means is "undecided" or "don't know"? This is exactly the kind of political doublespeak militant atheists have promoted since the origin of the communist party in the Soviet Union. Richard Dawkins, an evangelical militant atheist, insists that he is technically an agnostic for having .00001% of doubt. This is the height of absurdity and not in any way, shape, or form a reasonable argument. It is nothing more than equivocation and blatant prejudice as your first statement so clearly demonstrated.

I read one book by Richard Dawkins and it seems that he is merely stating that the existence of a God has no scientific basis, that there is no empirical evidence of a supreme being and no scientific theory requires one as a hypothesis. Personally, I know of no scientist that uses the hypothesis of a diety to frame experiments or to formulate scientific theories.

Having grown up in a Marxist home, I would say that Communists, much like Richard Dawkins, also believe that there is no scientific basis for belief in a deity. Perhaps they differ from Dawkins in that Dawkins may believe that the tendency to religious belief was selected for in biological Evolution while Marxists believe that it is somehow a product of social evolution. The genus, maybe not the species, of thinking seems the same though.

I think that when Dawkins says that he has a tiny bit of doubt, he is merely making a scientific statement that some evidence for a deity could possibly be found someday but in light of the enormous body of evidence so far accumulated, he doesn't give it a high probability.

I do not think that scientists believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. If empirical certainty were found, they would admit it. For instance,if verifiable and repeatable observations of events similar to those described in the Bible were found, they would gladly admit it.

The strange thing is that this doesn't seem to happen and even more strange it seems that patterns in Nature can not only be described consistently without need for the idea of a Deity but models can be found that actually predict the results of new experiments. To me this is the great mystery.

If one replaces the idea of a Divine being with an idea of a grand unity to Nature, then my small experience talking with scientists is that they believe that this unity exists and might even be discoverable. I do not recall if Richard Dawkins discusses this, but my Marxists aquaintances certainly believe this and I have often kidded them that they really are theists.

In science, there are many questions that can not be answered, but many of them still have scientific meaning because it is at least conceivable that an experiment could be devised to answer them. On the other hand, there are questions which are untestable and therefore have no scientific content. I do not think Dawkins is talking about these questions. I think he means notions of a deity that could be tested for with an experiment - but correct me if I am wrong on this.

 

[uneasyrider]

Agnostic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Either you have no opinion on the issue or you believe there is no God. Likewise calling someone "unprejudiced" for believing everything that exists appears cold and pointless is a contradiction.

An Agnostic atheist is someone who says you can't prove there is a God and I think, or even believe, there is no God but I can't prove it. I don't think it's really a contradiction to say you don't believe but you can't prove it. It's an acknowledgment that you could be wrong and neither side can prove they are right.

A true contradiction would be someone saying that they believe in God but the other hand don't believe and they are positive of both statements. That might also be considered a nut case.

 

[uneasyrider]

...I think he means notions of a deity that could be tested for with an experiment - but correct me if I am wrong on this.

I think you are correct. The term was originally put into context as a "lab experiment", i.e. prove it in the lab where both sides can recreate it. It goes back to the first wave of "modern" scientists running around digging up stuff trying to prove the existence of God. Newton, Einstein and others tried to prove it on paper.

 

[harrylin]

I couldn't care less about your personal philosophical beliefs. If you choose to use anything other than a standard definition of a word you must explain yourself at the very least. [..]

How about someone who thinks it's somewhat more likely that the world, whatever it is, was a happenstance, but isn't ready to make definitive statements? Is he/she an atheist?
The world isn't black and white, there are people that do not fit in just 3 categories.[..]

An atheist. They might define themselves as a "weak" atheist suggesting they don't have a really strong disbelief, but they're still an atheist.[..]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t :
Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

=> It appears that standard dictionaries disagree with you. Not every opinion can be put inside a standard box.

 

[lavinia]

It ... insists ... that you need both emotions and intellect to "know" something as more than mere data or information.

Out of pure curiosity could you explain this more?

In mathematics, I have found that knowledge is neither emotional or mere data but rather insight that permits one to see relationships among and properties of mathematical structures.

 

[wuliheron]

Out of pure curiosity could you explain this more?

In mathematics, I have found that knowledge is neither emotional or mere data but rather insight that permits one to see relationships among and properties of mathematical structures.

A simplified explanation is that emotions provide context, while the intellect provides content and insights occur when the two are compared. For example, the conscious mind uses fewer neurons than the unconscious, but they both use the same exact neurons. Thus the conscious mind actually requires fewer brains and less energy than the unconscious and even suppresses activity in the surrounding neurons. It is a focusing mechanism that cuts through all the chatter, but still allows that background chatter to continue at a subdued level. Insights occur when there is crosstalk between the two under the right conditions.

Ignorance provides the ultimate intellectual context, while emotions provide meaning and motivational context. By focusing on specific content within these contexts and comparing them with the larger contexts we gain insights in the form of knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Gnosticism concerns one's position on whether or not evidence for/against a deity exists. Theism concernsone's position on whether or not a deity exists. They are not on the same spectrum but perpendicular axes.

This diagram from a former discussion on this is the best way of illustrating it.

 

[wuliheron]

Gnosticism concerns one's position on whether or not evidence for/against a deity exists. Theism concernsone's position on whether or not a deity exists. They are not on the same spectrum but perpendicular axes.

This diagram from a former discussion on this is the best way of illustrating it.

Yeah, yeah, and I can show you plenty of similar diagrams from born again Christians. All the hand waving, blue smoke, and mirrors in the world cannot hide our ignorance. At best it can disguise it enough to satisfy people who want quick easy answers to life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah, yeah, and I can show you plenty of similar diagrams from born again Christians. All the hand waving, blue smoke, and mirrors in the world cannot hide our ignorance. At best it can disguise it enough to satisfy people who want quick easy answers to life, the universe, and everything.

Whether or not you can show me different definitions is largely irrelevant given the most widely understood and useful definitions are those posted above.

As for the rest of your statement regarding ignorance, handwaving and mirrors: you're not making any sense.

 

[wuliheron]

Whether or not you can show me different definitions is largely irrelevant given the most widely understood and useful definitions are those posted above.

As for the rest of your statement regarding ignorance, handwaving and mirrors: you're not making any sense.

LOL, the "most widely understood" is known as the fallacy of the appeal to authority. At one time most people believed the Earth was flat and to this day in the US more people believe the devil walks the Earth than believe in evolution. Again, try looking at some similar diagrams and claims from born again Christians if you are impressed by such things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

LOL, the "most widely understood" is known as the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Nice try but no. Langauge works in the basis of shared understanding. If the most widely understood definition of duck is a water loving bird with webbed feet that goes quack then using it to mean a legged wooden board that you eat your dinner off of really isn't going to be useful. If everyone starts understanding it as that then fine, that's how languages evolve.

But regardless of the definitions of the word we can look at what they are trying to say. On the one hand we have believe in the existence of a deity, belief is a binary state. You can either believe something or not. Some people argue that not knowing is different but if we look at that carefully we can see that not knowing if something is true is irrelevant to belief. Not knowing is a reason for not believing, not a state of believing itself.

So when it comes to existence of a deity you can either believe or not, we can call that theist and atheist. Like I said above gnosticism refers to knowledge and whether or not we can know about a deity. In the same way people can either believe that or not. It matters what words you use because of the understanding that people already have about those words but looking at the definitions given it's pretty clear why the chart posted above is both useful and correct.

 

[wuliheron]

Nice try but no. Langauge works in the basis of shared understanding. If the most widely understood definition of duck is a water loving bird with webbed feet that goes quack then using it to mean a legged wooden board that you eat your dinner off of really isn't going to be useful. If everyone starts understanding it as that then fine, that's how languages evolve.

But regardless of the definitions of the word we can look at what they are trying to say. On the one hand we have believe in the existence of a deity, belief is a binary state. You can either believe something or not. Some people argue that not knowing is different but if we look at that carefully we can see that not knowing if something is true is irrelevant to belief. Not knowing is a reason for not believing, not a state of believing itself.

So when it comes to existence of a deity you can either believe or not, we can call that theist and atheist. Like I said above gnosticism refers to knowledge and whether or not we can know about a deity. In the same way people can either believe that or not. It matters what words you use because of the understanding that people already have about those words but looking at the definitions given it's pretty clear why the chart posted above is both useful and correct.

Langauge works for whatever reason because what works, works. All the theories and models in world cannot replace the simple fact that what works, works. The question is not what people agree upon, but what works and if you can't provide any demonstrable evidence why something works than at least have the grace to admit that on a scientific website.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Langauge works for whatever reason because what works, works. All the theories and models in world cannot replace the simple fact that what works, works. The question is not what people agree upon, but what works and if you can't provide any demonstrable evidence why something works than at least have the grace to admit that on a scientific website.

You're not making any sense again. Do you really disagree that language is based on a shared understanding of definitions? And that the theist/atheist gnostic/agnostic chart above is a good way of illustrating the overlap between to separate but related beliefs?

 

[lavinia]

A simplified explanation is that emotions provide context, while the intellect provides content and insights occur when the two are compared.

I am not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

Ignorance provides the ultimate intellectual context, while emotions provide meaning and motivational context.

I thought the intellect provides content not context. What is intellectual context? Can you give a reference?

 

[wuliheron]

You're not making any sense again. Do you really disagree that language is based on a shared understanding of definitions? And that the theist/atheist gnostic/agnostic chart above is a good way of illustrating the overlap between to separate but related beliefs?

I take the functionalist view that words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. I've already explained this and all these people insisting on playing endless with word games and claiming high holy authority on subject have yet to provide a single demonstrable example. If that is difficult to understand then I suggest the problem is within you rather than what I am writting. Linguistics is an emerging science believe it or not and no longer merely the province of rank amatuers.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Honestly, I don't see the point in continuing this if you can't be clear and concise. What do you mean by "Demonstrable meaning"? How is meaning demonstrable unless you mean by referring to consensus understanding? Regardless you've avoiding the point about whether or not you agree that words function via agreed upon definitions and the the graph above is useful in illustrating how holding two separate beliefs can be classified?

 

[wuliheron]

Honestly, I don't see the point in continuing this if you can't be clear and concise. What do you mean by "Demonstrable meaning"? How is meaning demonstrable unless you mean by referring to consensus understanding? Regardless you've avoiding the point about whether or not you agree that words function via agreed upon definitions and the the graph above is useful in illustrating how holding two separate beliefs can be classified?

Like I said, I've already been over this. For example if I say, "She's cool" it could mean she is physically cold, unemotional, exciting, all three, or something else entirely. The more you know about the context in which the statement is made the clearer it's meaning becomes. The less you know, the more possibility of being completely wrong until the context becomes so vague any guess is as good as the next. What is demonstrable is the context within which the statement is made.

Any decent dictionary will include specific examples of how words are used in different context for this very reason. If you don't understand even the basics of how a dictionary works and how words can be demonstrated using simple gestures or whatever it's no surprise you can't follow what I'm saying.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

See that was nice and clear and seemingly unrelated to anything you've said before. Yes of course definitions are contextual, but the definitions and the context in which those definitions apply are decided by consensus. This is why overtime we have to update our dictionaries.

Getting back to my original point, if the terms atheist/theist agnostic/gnostic are understood to mean what the graph illustrated then why argue that they don't? Also even if people don't agree with those definitions leave it aside for the moment and just address the definitions that we're currently using them for. I.e belief in the existence of X being a binary attribute and belief in knowledge being the same (and how the two relate and can be described on the basis of which combination one believes).

 

[wuliheron]

See that was nice and clear and seemingly unrelated to anything you've said before. Yes of course definitions are contextual, but the definitions and the context in which those definitions apply are decided by consensus. This is why overtime we have to update our dictionaries.

Getting back to my original point, if the terms atheist/theist agnostic/gnostic are understood to mean what the graph illustrated then why argue that they don't? Also even if people don't agree with those definitions leave it aside for the moment and just address the definitions that we're currently using them for. I.e belief in the existence of X being a binary attribute and belief in knowledge being the same (and how the two relate and can be described on the basis of which combination one believes).

The "definitions" of words are not decided by consensus and the majority does not force it's definitions on everyone. Dictionaries merely contain the most popular definitions of terms usually in order of their popularity. People are free to make up whatever definitions they want on the spot and frequently do so.

Again, the function of the word is what matters. If I say "ugabugabuga" and you take that to mean, "I want a beer" and bring me one that is all that matters. It has served a function whether that was my intention to begin with or not.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The "definitions" of words are not decided by consensus and the majority does not force it's definitions on everyone. Dictionaries merely contain the most popular definitions of terms usually in order of their popularity. People are free to make up whatever definitions they want on the spot and frequently do so.

Again, the function of the word is what matters. If I say "ugabugabuga" and you take that to mean, "I want a beer" and bring me one that is all that matters. It has served a function whether that was my intention to begin with or not.

Popularity is consensus, people use words inappropriately either by accident or to explore new meanings and if others judge it to be useful they repeat it.

Getting back to my point again, belief is binary; you either believe something or you don't. Not knowing if something is true or having a strong or weak belief is neither here nor there with regards to whether or not you have a belief. Atheism/theism characterises whether or not someone has a belief in a deity. Gnosticism/agnosticism characterises whether or not someone has a belief that evidence for a deity exists. They are separate and useful for categorising people. This is useful because religious belief is clearly a big force in society and by defining where we stand on issues we can begin the process of discussing them as need be.

 

[apeiron]

Any decent dictionary will include specific examples of how words are used in different context for this very reason. If you don't understand even the basics of how a dictionary works and how words can be demonstrated using simple gestures or whatever it's no surprise you can't follow what I'm saying.

Words are themselves constraints on our ideas, and so supply "context". That is how they function.

So I could say I'm cool about the idea of god. But cool has playful meaning in modern use so that could be taken to indicate both that I'm cold on the idea, or that I'm comfortable with the idea.

The vagueness of such a statement is why we invent more technical terms like atheism or agnosticism to pin down sharper meaning. The words supply much more definite constraints on the possible interpretation.

Sure, our current general circumstances also act as a constraint on our state of mind. But language as a tool carries context. That is why it is of any use. As you point out, uggabuga could mean anything and so cannot function as an actual word (in linguistic jargon, it might be indexical but it ain't symbolic). And so that is why we become concerned with the precision of a technical vocabulary in particular. Good terminology has the property of being crisply dichotomous. It attempts to enforce the law of the excluded middle and other basics of logic.

 

[wuliheron]

I am not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

I thought the intellect provides content not context. What is intellectual context? Can you give a reference?

Examples of emotional context include the basic fight-or-flight response. Our bodies respond in specific ways to prepare us to deal with possible dangers and provide the context within which we interpret content such as someone running towards us.

As I said, it is a simplified explanation to view emotions as contextual and intellect as content. Intellectual context refers to something intellectual that provides meaning. That can be, for example, the words preceeding or following something in a sentence. "Bread" can refer to money or food depending on the context or words that preceed or follow it in a sentence. Bread is the content, and the rest of a sentence can provide the context that gives the word meaning.

 

[wuliheron]

Popularity is consensus, people use words inappropriately either by accident or to explore new meanings and if others judge it to be useful they repeat it.

Slavery was popular at one time, but that didn't make the practice appropriate. What is and isn't appropriate isn't the issue here anyway and appeals to authority are not a rational argument.

Getting back to my point again, belief is binary; you either believe something or you don't. Not knowing if something is true or having a strong or weak belief is neither here nor there with regards to whether or not you have a belief. Atheism/theism characterises whether or not someone has a belief in a deity. Gnosticism/agnosticism characterises whether or not someone has a belief that evidence for a deity exists. They are separate and useful for categorising people. This is useful because religious belief is clearly a big force in society and by defining where we stand on issues we can begin the process of discussing them as need be.

Whether agnostic atheist or whatever conveys something is not the issue. The issue is whether it is doublespeak. Calling bombing a tin shack in the third world "servicing the target" conveys information, but it is also doublespeak. Calling a military action a "peace action" conveys information, but it is doublespeak.

 

[wuliheron]

Words are themselves constraints on our ideas, and so supply "context". That is how they function.

So I could say I'm cool about the idea of god. But cool has playful meaning in modern use so that could be taken to indicate both that I'm cold on the idea, or that I'm comfortable with the idea.

The vagueness of such a statement is why we invent more technical terms like atheism or agnosticism to pin down sharper meaning. The words supply much more definite constraints on the possible interpretation.

Sure, our current general circumstances also act as a constraint on our state of mind. But language as a tool carries context. That is why it is of any use. As you point out, uggabuga could mean anything and so cannot function as an actual word (in linguistic jargon, it might be indexical but it ain't symbolic). And so that is why we become concerned with the precision of a technical vocabulary in particular. Good terminology has the property of being crisply dichotomous. It attempts to enforce the law of the excluded middle and other basics of logic.

Good terminology does both as needed because what works, works. If I find saying ugabugabuga gets the job done that is all that matters and there can be no arguing it is not good terminology. It is the function it serves that, demonstrably, determines how we define it as good or bad in the first place.

 

[lavinia]

Examples of emotional context include the basic fight-or-flight response. Our bodies respond in specific ways to prepare us to deal with possible dangers and provide the context within which we interpret content such as someone running towards us.

.

This does not seem to be emotional but autonomic.

To think that the flight response has anything to do with insight into mathematical truth would take some pretty strong explanation for me to buy it.

 

[apeiron]

Good terminology does both as needed because what works, works. If I find saying ugabugabuga gets the job done that is all that matters and there can be no arguing it is not good terminology. It is the function it serves that, demonstrably, determines how we define it as good or bad in the first place.

But you said...

If I say "ugabugabuga" and you take that to mean, "I want a beer" and bring me one that is all that matters. It has served a function whether that was my intention to begin with or not.

How does a word "serve a function" if it is just a noise with no accepted interpretation, and as a result there is no connection between your intention in making the noise and the fact there is some random(?), misinterpreted(?), response?

Nothing here is making any sense. All through this thread you have at times seem to be insisting that people stick to ordinary dictionary definitions (no more precise jargon allowed) and at other times objecting to the very use of such definitions. Every post seems to adopt some new contradictory position.

Whether agnostic atheist or whatever conveys something is not the issue. The issue is whether it is doublespeak.

How is it doublespeak when it is in fact a more precise definition of a position? All it actually is is doubly constrained. It takes a position on two separate questions - can we ultimately know anything, and do we have a particular belief in a deity?

Doublespeak would be something more like trying to pass off ignorance as wisdom. Ignorance, in usual parlance, is a general term for the unknown. But the kind of ignorance that the Socrates quote was highlighting was a far more constrained sort - the known unknown.

To deliberately play on an ambiguity - confusing the references to unknown unknowns with known unknowns - is more like a case of doublespeak. And the right step in any philosophical discussion would be to define your terms in a way that constrains this ambiguity. In your own thinking as much as anyone else that you might want to communicate with.

 

[wuliheron]

This does not seem to be emotional but autonomic.

To think that the flight response has anything to do with insight into mathematical truth would take some pretty strong explanation for me to buy it.

This thread isn't about "mathematical truth", whatever that means, so it's irrelevant.

 

[wuliheron]

But you said...

How does a word "serve a function" if it is just a noise with no accepted interpretation, and as a result there is no connection between your intention in making the noise and the fact there is some random(?), misinterpreted(?), response?

Whether you say something serves a function isn't the issue which is does it demonstrably serve a function. I say ugabugabuga and you get me a beer. I say it again and you get me another one. As far as you are concerned ugabugabuga serves the function of telling you I want another beer and it doesn't matter what I think. Perhaps English isn't even your native language and you think ugabugabuga is an English word. Whatever, it demonstrably serves a function.

Nothing here is making any sense. All through this thread you have at times seem to be insisting that people stick to ordinary dictionary definitions (no more precise jargon allowed) and at other times objecting to the very use of such definitions. Every post seems to adopt some new contradictory position.

How is it doublespeak when it is in fact a more precise definition of a position? All it actually is is doubly constrained. It takes a position on two separate questions - can we ultimately know anything, and do we have a particular belief in a deity?

Doublespeak would be something more like trying to pass off ignorance as wisdom. Ignorance, in usual parlance, is a general term for the unknown. But the kind of ignorance that the Socrates quote was highlighting was a far more constrained sort - the known unknown.

To deliberately play on an ambiguity - confusing the references to unknown unknowns with known unknowns - is more like a case of doublespeak. And the right step in any philosophical discussion would be to define your terms in a way that constrains this ambiguity. In your own thinking as much as anyone else that you might want to communicate with.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Wikipedia

Whether doublespeak is more "discriptive" is not the issue. I've already been over all this and if you can't keep up please quote some of my previous answers and tell me exactly what you don't understand. Otherwise I will be forced to just keep cutting and pasting my responses.

 

[apeiron]

This does not seem to be emotional but autonomic.

To think that the flight response has anything to do with insight into mathematical truth would take some pretty strong explanation for me to buy it.

To be fair, emotion is not a terribly useful technical term. It does stem from an attempt to frame a crisp dichotomy (between the rational and irrational, between reason/intellect and instinct/passion, etc) but it ends up a false dichotomy because instinctive responses usually are reasonable and rational when considered within an evolutionary context.

And what Damasio and others argue (Damasio being a populariser rather than an originator) is that even our "dry intellect" is highly reliant on instinctive orienting responses, of which the fight/flight response is one of the key ones.

You can see this in the "aha" reaction we have to any sudden significant insight - mathematical or otherwise. This is just what it feels like when we have an abrupt readjustment in our autonomic state. We get a jolt of adrenaline, our pulse quickens, our pupils dilate. Our attention gets fixed in a direction, our body aroused in anticipation of action.

Stick electrodes on your scalp and you can record a P300 EEG wave (positive-going trend at 300 milliseconds post stimulus) that correlates with the autonomic machinery kicking in.

The nervous system is itself built on bivalent logic. You have a sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system - a broadly excitatory network vs a matching inhibitory one - so as to fine-tune the state of the mind/body during any particular moment.

Fight or flight responses are thus an even higher level of autonomic bistability founded on top of this bistable machinery. So at a lower level there is the simpler choice whether to freeze or act. Then at the higher level, action becomes a choice between fighting and fleeing.

 

[apeiron]

Whether you say something serves a function isn't the issue which is does it demonstrably serve a function. I say ugabugabuga and you get me a beer. I say it again and you get me another one. As far as you are concerned ugabugabuga serves the function of telling you I want another beer and it doesn't matter what I think.

This seems a very non-standard view of a functional approach to language. Perhaps you can provide a source that shows it is not?

Functional theories stress the use of language as a tool. So what the tool-user intends is of course of fundamental importance here. The agent is in a purposeful relationship with the recipient - or there is no proper sense in which the speech is "functional".

Of course it in fact matters to you what response you get from uttering "ugabugabuga". If the hearer came and smacked you in the face every time you said it, what would you do?

Even if you "knew" it really means, or you intended it to mean, "don't smack me in the face", you would probably alter your speech so as to achieve the actual hoped-for functional relationship between an utterance and its consequence.

 

[wuliheron]

This seems a very non-standard view of a functional approach to language. Perhaps you can provide a source that shows it is not?

Functional theories stress the use of language as a tool. So what the tool-user intends is of course of fundamental importance here. The agent is in a purposeful relationship with the recipient - or there is no proper sense in which the speech is "functional".

Of course it in fact matters to you what response you get from uttering "ugabugabuga". If the hearer came and smacked you in the face every time you said it, what would you do?

Even if you "knew" it really means, or you intended it to mean, "don't smack me in the face", you would probably alter your speech so as to achieve the actual hoped-for functional relationship between an utterance and its consequence.

I refer you to the http://contextualpsychology.org/ website. A classic functionalist argument is that a martian might see the color red as blue, but never know humans don't see the same color. As long as the word "red" serves a practical function it doesn't matter what either of them think. It works, they keep using it, and the objective meaning of the word can be determined by observing the functions it serves.

 

[apeiron]

I refer you to the http://contextualpsychology.org/ website. A classic functionalist argument is that a martian might see the color red as blue, but never know humans don't see the same color. As long as the word "red" serves a practical function it doesn't matter what either of them think. It works, they keep using it, and the objective meaning of the word can be determined by observing the functions it serves.

Relational Frame Theory is still about an agent's communicative intent even if it highlights the work that recipients are also willing to do to extract that intent.

You appear to be taking the extreme position that if: "As far as you are concerned ugabugabuga serves the function of telling you I want another beer and it doesn't matter what I think."

But where does RFT state that what "you think" is in fact not part of the communicative relationship? If language is a tool, there is by definition a user of the tool. And one with active purpose.

As for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and its use of RFT, again it is obvious that ACT relies on the fact that there is an agent attempting to use a tool. What "you think" is central. And in noticing the language you are using to control yourself (the words that constrain your thoughts), you can step back to see this relationship in fact exists.

So nowhere am I finding support for what you seem to be saying (though pinning down what you are saying also does not seem possible).

 

[wuliheron]

Relational Frame Theory is still about an agent's communicative intent even if it highlights the work that recipients are also willing to do to extract that intent.

You appear to be taking the extreme position that if: "As far as you are concerned ugabugabuga serves the function of telling you I want another beer and it doesn't matter what I think."

But where does RFT state that what "you think" is in fact not part of the communicative relationship? If language is a tool, there is by definition a user of the tool. And one with active purpose.

As for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and its use of RFT, again it is obvious that ACT relies on the fact that there is an agent attempting to use a tool. What "you think" is central. And in noticing the language you are using to control yourself (the words that constrain your thoughts), you can step back to see this relationship in fact exists.

So nowhere am I finding support for what you seem to be saying (though pinning down what you are saying also does not seem possible).

ACT and Relational Frame theory are not the issue, the issue is functionalism which is the underlying philosophy. If you don't understand the distinction between psychology and philosophy I suggest reading up on the subject.

 

[apeiron]

ACT and Relational Frame theory are not the issue, the issue is functionalism which is the underlying philosophy. If you don't understand the distinction between psychology and philosophy I suggest reading up on the subject.

Well maybe you will supply references that are about the specific points you hope to communicate then. At the moment, you just keep shifting the focus on what it is you seem to be claiming.

Give us some support for your interpretation of functionalism as not in fact being about a purposeful relationship between a doer and a done-to. You can't just invent some definition by which functionalism talks about only one half of a functional relationship.

 

[wuliheron]

Well maybe you will supply references that are about the specific points you hope to communicate then. At the moment, you just keep shifting the focus on what it is you seem to be claiming.

Give us some support for your interpretation of functionalism as not in fact being about a purposeful relationship between a doer and a done-to. You can't just invent some definition by which functionalism talks about only one half of a functional relationship.

http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/modOverview.php?modGUI=44

That's the best website I could find in a pinch that puts the topic in small words anyone can understand. Functionalism, Relational Frame Theory, and Contextualism in general all emphasise studying the context as the way to determine the objective meaning of anything. Thus contextual psychology has become the first to span the behavioral and cognitive sciences in a self-consistent and nontrivial manner which is why I posted their website.

Ask a classical behavorist about what they think someone means by ugabugabuga and they'll tell you it isn't part of their job. They study the behavior and not what goes on in your head. Functionalists do not concern themselves with just what goes on in your mind, but the behavior it results in and whether it agrees with whatever goes on in your head is irrelavent to studying it's function. It is a theory of the mind that is founded on the physical world.

 

[apeiron]

http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/modOverview.php?modGUI=44

That's the best website I could find in a pinch that puts the topic in small words anyone can understand.

Now I know you are just being sarcastic. Or then again, maybe you do not appreciate the way you have just jumped from theories of language back to theories of mind again.

Please supply a reference that relates to a functionalist theory of speech that resembles in any way the case you have been making. Even if it uses big words.

 

[wuliheron]

Functional theories of grammar are those approaches to the study of language, that see the functions of language and its elements to be the key to understanding linguistic processes and structures. Functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they carry out. Functional theories of grammar differ from formal theories of grammar, in that the latter seeks to define the different elements of language and describe the way they relate to each other as systems of formal rules or operations, whereas the former defines the functions performed by language and then relates these functions to the linguistic elements that carry them out. This means that functional theories of grammar tend to pay attention to the way language is actually used in communicative context, and not just to the formal relations between linguistic elements. Wikipedia

Need smaller words?

 

[harrylin]

[..] Please supply a reference that relates to a functionalist theory of speech that resembles in any way the case you have been making. Even if it uses big words.

[..] Wikipedia

Need smaller words?

Probably need more serious reference as basis for discussion:

"There are three options for starting a thread:
1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. [..]
OR
2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?" [..]
OR
3) Requests for help with standard definitions and terminology are perfectly acceptable."
- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

 

[Evo]

Probably need more serious reference as basis for discussion:

"There are three options for starting a thread:
1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. [..]
OR
2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?" [..]
OR
3) Requests for help with standard definitions and terminology are perfectly acceptable."
- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

With this, the thread is closed.