 Good morning, welcome back So I guess we had a week to look at the Frege on sense and reference So I'll take it that you've all got that and I'll We can just move on from that You I'm not denying that you might have done it, but you would be unusual These passages as I said are really what analytic philosophy today begins And they are some of the most discussed passages in the whole of analytic philosophy With thousands and thousands of pages devoted to them. So what I'm going to do today and on Friday Is just work through what Frege is doing in these first couple of pages of on sense and reference? Let me just pause a second So on Friday, we'll look at pages 59 to 61 plus the top two lines of page 62 You get the sense that you're expected to work through this quite slowly But really that's quite a lot I understand that at UCLA they have sometimes in the past spent the entire semester On these first few paragraphs of on sense and reference. So we are really going to be blasting through it Okay, last time so just to give a sense of why this is so key Although it does seem I grant you pretty technical and a little bit obscure what's going on here But last time I said the basic question about language is How does it come about? That there can be such a thing as a system of signs where there are standards of right or wrong Truth or falsity for those sentences How does it happen that there's such a thing as truth or falsity in the world at all? now that's a big question and when you're thinking about where to start with it a really Natural basic place to start is with the relation between a name and the thing that it names between a term like that chair and a particular chair and talking about a name like Bill Clinton and that particular man so If you could understand how it comes about The names refer to objects that you'd understand something about how it is that there are standards of rightness and wrongness Governing the use of statements involving names If you can understand how that connection between the simple sign that chair and a particular chair is set up Then you will have made the first step to understanding how it is that are remarked like that Chair is yellow or that chair is blue can be true or false The very first thing to do is to understand how the connection between a sign and a language and a bit of the world Get set up So we want to understand how it is that the elements of a sentence can refer to objects around us We use to say something about the world around us and The simplest part of the problem is how is it that one can refer to things? That's the basic problem Okay Not all right so far Plainer's Day so far Watch me very closely here Okay now Frege's First move is quite an unexpected one here He says there's a distinction we can make between informative and Uninformative identity statements So I want to spend a little while just talking about what that means what the distinction is between an informative and an uninformative identity statement identity statements of The form a is identical to a so you see what he means by an identity statement an identity statement is one where You got term referring to an object Then you got a sign of identity is identical to or an equal sign or something like that and then Another sign referring to an object. It was the same object. The thing is going to be true It is not the same object the thing is going to be false Watch me very closely here That's all right Okay So if you take a remark like that chair is that chair That's a priori Frege says and according to Kant to be labeled analytic While identity statements of the form a is identical to be Often contain very valuable extensions of our knowledge and cannot always be established a priori Was a priori a priori You can tell that the proposition is true just by thinking about it. You don't need to look So just by thinking about it. You can figure out that two plus two is four. I'm sorry. You must be chair the chair over here Just by thinking about it you can tell that two plus two is four just by thinking about it you can tell that the sum of the square of the sides of our right of the sum of the hypotenuse of the square of our Hippotenuse of a right-angle triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides I might need to think a bit more about that but Key is you do just by thinking about it and if you can do just by thinking about it You don't have to look you don't have to actually find such a triangle Then The thing is a priori and it's analytic if the proposition is true in virtue of meaning so analytic is something like Yellow is lighter than brown That is the meaning of the town means yellow is lighter than brown So Fred is saying if you got a statement like the morning star is the morning star. Okay class. Is that a priori? Yes, can you tell that's true just by thinking about it very good. Is it true in virtue of the meanings of the lobs? I'm good. Okay. And how about the evening star is the evening star That's a priori and analytic Yes, that's all right. Just pause me here if that's not completely straight forward. Okay But now consider the morning star is the evening star that star that signs show brightly in the Morning is the star that Site the same thing is a star that signs so brightly in the evening. Is that a priori? No, that is not a priori. That is an identity statement, but it is not a priori Is it analytic? Is it true just because of the meanings of the signs? No, of course not. I mean you that you really have to use a telescope to find out about take this object here Our own dear elf. Is that the same as that object there? Can you tell just by looking? No, you cannot so but I promise you that identity is true. That is the air first seen from platform So there is an identity all right, and it's a true identity, but it is Uninformed informative What do you think? Informative right, okay What about this this building here? Is this building here the same as this building here? Possibly. Yeah, so suppose I tell you that it actually is I just took that shot myself If I tell you that building there is the same as that building there is that informative I'm good. Okay. Now the thing is you see what's going on here intuitively is that when you look at it like this You have one take on the building You look at it like that. You have a different take on the building Yeah, so what's making it uninformative is that you have different take on the thing something like that Whereas if I just say is this building this building It's the same take two times. So intuitively the thing is going to be uninformative. I Mean this is very important in literature take The identity so Percy Blakeney The feet fob the leader of English fashion is the dashing scarlet Pimper Mel Now it's very important that that's informative right the whole story turns on it Clark Kenton Superman Is that an identity statement? Yes. Is it true? Yes Is it informative? Of course, it was completely amazed and I Mean, this is not just some idle academic entry because I take perhaps the most famous informative identity I mean like I say, this is not some idle ivory tower thing if George Lucas had been insensitive to the distinction between informative and uninformative identity statements You might have had the whole sequence working up to serve some revelation like look Your father is your father or Know this Luke Skywalker. I am myself You see the problem it wouldn't work at all So the distinction between informative and for uninformative identities is really very important in real life Here's Frega the discovery that the rising Sun is not new every morning But all was the same was one of the most fertile astronomical discoveries I once saw a cartoon that showed two cavemen looking at the setting Sun and one was saying You know, there's a big pile of them over there and That reflects the time at which it really wasn't knowing that the rising Sun was the same every day Right, so that is an informative thing to be told that it's the same one every day And a friend who used to play pinball heard a similar thing. Do you actually probably nobody knows what pinball is Do you pinball? Yeah, you got a bunch of balls and you well see the thing is my friend always thought you get a bunch of Five balls and you sent them around the thing each time right, but of course you don't get five balls You only got one ball and it goes around five times so It's just part of growing up There are these things you're well Okay, so is that all right for informative and uninformative identities? Yeah, that's rock solid Okay, the only word I kind of hesitate there is is because to say it's Uninformative is to say it's trivially true. That's right. You know, it's the same thing It's it doesn't tell give you anything of substance But the explanation of this phenomenon is actually quite a hard thing. Yeah, yeah Every order. Yes I don't think yes My memory. Yeah, Frigga thinks that two plus two is four is analytic though He does not think it's an easy thing to establish that. Yeah, but he does think it's analytic I but there are lots of complexities in that example. Yeah, I don't want too much to turn on it All I meant was on the face of it thinking about the meanings of the sign should be enough to let you know that that is true It shouldn't need any extra act Any special source of insight on the part of the mind some special organ to tell you that that is true So there must be another chair somewhere is another chair Okay Does that make sense yeah, okay Okay So Frigga says that what this the existence of this distinction shows is that you need To contrast on the one hand the sign itself the physical shapes the combination of words the letter whatever it is the physical bit of language and Then there's the sense of the sign and finally there's what the word stands for So if you take a term like that chair or a name like Bill Clinton on the one hand You've got the name Bill Clinton or the term that chair That's the physical bits of language. You've got the object they stand for but you must always also have this Intermediate level the sense of the sign now That contrasts to a more a simpler view where you say I don't know what this stuff about sense is This is what he calls mode of presentation in those passages and you might say well That's really pretty weird that stuff about mode of presentation I don't really see why we need that can't we do without that Can't we just say the simple common sense thing you get a sign and you get the thing that the sign stands for and That's all you need to say well What's going on in those first couple of paragraphs is that? Frege is arguing against this view that you only need the sign and this thing the object stands for Because how are you going to explain that distinction between uninformative and informative identities? if you were to regard equality or identity as a relation between that which the names a and b Designate it would seem that a is identical to b could not differ from a is identical to a If a is b is true that alright because if what you've got is The same two signs both referring to the same object and all that we're considering is the name and the object That when you say a is b you're talking about a relation that this object stands into itself namely identity so if you say So Percy Blakene is the scarlet Pimpernel Then you're saying just the same thing as if you said so Percy Blakene is so Percy Blakene You just took the same object two times and said it's identical to itself But that's the same thing you did in both occasions Yeah If you've just got the objects in the sign and saying a is identical to b is just the same thing as saying a is identical to a So saying the morning star is the morning star or the morning star is the evening star Well, what's the difference between these two the big difference was one's informative and the other one's informative But where is there a difference between them? There is no difference in which objects they're about That's alright So you might say well, maybe what this shows is that these statements are really about signs These statements the morning star is the morning star or the morning star is the evening star They really statements about language What these statements are saying is the sign the morning star Stands for the same thing as does the sign the evening star or the sign the morning star Stands for the same thing as does the sign the morning star And I say well, we're really talking about language here This is Frigge Expressing this view he says what is intended to be said by a is identical to be Seems to be this is not his view. This is the sign. He's going to the view. He's going to attack He says what state is set being said by that seems to be that the signs or the names a and b Designate the same things so those signs themselves are under discussion Identity looks like it's a relation between objects. You say one object is identical To another object then what you're saying is something about the objects, but that's not what's happening You're really talking about the signs And then Frigge's point is that relation between the names or the signs a Is referring to the same thing as be is referring to that would hold Between the names or signs only in so far as they designated something It would be mediated by the connection of each of the two signs with the same designated thing But this is arbitrary That's to say if you're saying Sir Percy Blakney is the Scarlet Pimpernel Then you seem to be talking about a fact if you say the The morning star is the evening star or the rising Sun is the same every morning That seems to be a fact about the world out there But if you're talking about the connection of a name to a sign That's just an arbitrary Fact about language any sign could have referred to something else But when you talk about the rising Sun being the same every morning That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the arbitrary conventions of language Nobody can be Orbidden to use any arbitrarily Producible event or object as a sign for something So you can use anything as a sign for anything right I can say let's have this coffee cup Stand for the Republican Party Why not? You can do that. I can say let's have this Remote stand as a sign for the Republican Party and then there you go. I got an identity here But that's just a fact about the these arbitrary things assignations of reference. I just gave to things So if you said the identity is just talking about what the two signs The sentence is identical to be would no longer refer to the subject matter, but only to its mode of designation We would express he says no proper knowledge by its means So this is first point By proper knowledge he means knowledge about something out there independent of language Like the rising Sun being the same every morning the rising Sun would be the same every morning even if language had never existed Even if humans had never existed there would still be the same rising Sun every morning That's what he needs proper knowledge by knowledge is not proper He means knowledge about the arbitrary conventions of language and this position is turning a is identical to be into some knowledge about the arbitrary conventions of language and he's saying well look anyway Suppose you think of the information that the sign the morning star here Refers to the same thing as does the sign the morning star over here Is that informative or not? If I tell you that the sign the morning star Let's just get so we should take that thing at the top and you interpret that as meaning This sign is referring to the same thing as that sign Is that informative or not? It is informative who said that Yeah, that's correct. I mean because after all you could perfectly well. Do you want to explain that a bit more? Yeah, there are two things at which sign. There's which object each is referring to And that's going to be informative and they're that they're referring to the same object and that's going to be informative, too Because after all you could have a language and in fact our language sometimes works like this Well, when you use the same name on two consecutive occasions When you use the same name on two consecutive occasions They actually always refer to different things One of my colleagues has His mother has two physicians both called dr. Jones who sometimes talk to each other and she reports our discussions So he gets a bit confused and he says wait a minute So dr. Jones said that to dr. Jones, but what did dr. Jones say to that and when you talk like that You would only talk like that if there were really two dr. Jones is there Right if I say to you so bill said to bill that you just assume there are two different bills there You see what I mean? If bill said to himself that that's that's a different thing. You see what I mean So sometimes we do talk In a way that requires that when you have the same sign being used twice is gotta be a different object There's being referred to So the near fact that you have the same sign being used here and used here does not guarantee you it's the same object So it's going to be informative to be told that The morning star is the morning star if what that saying is this sign refers to the same thing as that sign That would be informative and it would just carry about the same amount of information as the morning star is the evening star So that's his point Here the cognitive value of a is identical to a Becomes essentially equal to that of a is identical to b if a is identical to b is true So what we were trying to do was work with this analysis Well, you've just got the sign and the reference of the sign But if you what try to work with that first of all you say well a is identical to b is identical to a These are there's two remarks about the references, but then it turns out they're saying just the same thing And he said well no, maybe that's about the signs, but then it turns out they're both informative so that can't be right either So Friggy says that difference between the morning star is the morning star and the morning star is the evening star That can arise only if the difference corresponds to a difference in the mode of Presentation of that which is designated There's got to be some Difference between the morning star is giving you one take on this object The evening star the sign the evening star is giving you another take on the object And the object you get this take on is the same as the object you go that take on That's how it turns out that this can be informative Whereas if you get the same take two times then it's going to be obvious that it's the same object That's the idea mode of presentation the way the thing is presented to you Yes, so if you remember that thing about the shed that the way that shed is presented to you You're presented with the same shed twice then it's obvious It's the same thing if you're presented with it in different ways. It's not obvious. It's the same thing That's what he's saying the distinction is So you get the sign you got the way the sign presents the object and you get the reference of the sign We need those three components if we're going to explain the distinction between informative and informative identities That's what he's doing in just that first couple of paragraphs You were just saying if you have one take on something yes, that's right That's right that was my idea is it yeah, I think that's what Frank is saying so if you get if you've got a sign N is identical to M and if N gives you the same take on the object as M does Then that's going to be uninformative and if N gives you a different take on the object than M does then it's going to be informative if oh Yes, but only This is what I mean about what should follow me very closely So here frigate is talking about The idea that you he's saying consider a view on which you don't have this notion of sense Yeah, suppose you try to work without the notion of the take Then what are you going to say about these? Identity statements that are informative or uninformative the best you can do if you don't have that notion of the take This is bringing up why you need the notion of your take on the object your way of being given it The how it's presented. Yeah, your perspective on the thing If you try to work without it The best you can do is say something like this statement is talking about the relation between this bit of language and that bit of language But once you frame it like that it's going to come out to be on informative Which is the wrong answer. Yeah, so you're right I did say that but that was in the context of discussing this view, which is a wrong view At least I think that's a frigate thing. Yeah Okay, but remember that thing I was saying about so Dr. Jones said to Dr. Jones the signs are written exactly the same I mean, it's true that if you're in that kind of That's right, but that's just an accident you can't what I mean is you can't tell that just by hearing the signs Yeah, I mean after all our convention of language could be but whenever I mean I'm not saying it would be all that sensible, but you could set up a language where The first time you use the term the morning star you're talking about the Sun The second time you use in the in the conversation you use the term the morning star You're talking about the Venus the third time you use the morning star. You're talking about Alpha Centauri Yeah, you can set up a language like that. You know you set up a code like that Why not I mean that's what Frege means Nobody can be forbidden to use any arbitrarily Producible of you sort of enters a sign for something. I mean I'll talk whatever way I like You know, you might say well, you've got to use and stand for the same thing Well, I don't go to use and to stand for the same thing. You see what I mean So it's going to be informative If I make a statement saying well, I do use them to stand for the same thing. Yeah Some of those As I interpret in any way, it's just the same thing. Yeah, that's an uninformative identity The mode of designation mode of presentation is the same thing. Yeah Okay, so what plan is Dana That's right. It can't be known a priori if it's an if it's an informative identity. That's what he says yeah There are complexities But that's what he says. Yeah, I know you see why he says that too You get the same take on the object not just the same sign But the same take on the object then it's going to be obvious. It's the same thing That's the idea. So in contrast to that thing we were just talking about what you just say I just get the bit of language the same bit of language being used twice then it really is informative to be told You're using that to stand for the same thing two times But if as in the case of the shed, you get the same way of being given the thing two times That's going to be an informative You could but then you'd have a different sense Associated with the sign the morning star the first time it's used and the second time it's used If I if I understand you what you're saying is you could have a language Where the first time you use the sign the morning star you've got a different sense Associated with it then you have when you use the sign the second time Yeah, so it'd be two different senses and that would be informative Right, but if you use the sign in the same sense Both times having the same sense both times then it's Uninformative that is referring to the same thing How about that Exactly Okay, well the the idea is if I say Listen up class that cup is that cup The idea is you didn't I mean you learn some wonderful things in this class, but that wasn't one of them I just say this cup is this cup Yeah, because I'm pointing to just the same thing in just the same way both times. Yeah, so the idea is that's uninformative Yeah, it couldn't but be the same thing. I got both times That was the idea. So what about that? That's not that can't be informative. I Used the same bit of language both times, but there was more to it than that the way I got the thing On to your radar was exactly the same way both times and Then it was uninformative Okay, okay Okay This is really basic. So I mean what I mean is really basic for everything else would do so it's important to Get all this completely clear Okay, one Let me just go over a little bit why this matters so much We want to understand that how it is that the elements of a sentence can refer to the objects around us How do words get hooked up to objects and we ask that is the problem of language? That's the basic puzzle Over here. There's a system of signs over there. There is the world How do the two get connected? What are we saying last time is you can't really explain how the two get connected by appealing to the mind That's anyone's first reaction to that puzzle to say there's a language over there There's the world over here. It's the mind that connects the language to the world and what I was Arguing last time was it can't be right to think of it like that There is the mind that connects them up because there is also the puzzle how the mind gets connected to the world The mind is not some magical thing that can just do anything. It likes the mind only has the Representational abilities it has because the mind has a language It's because we've got a human language that we can talk about and think about the things in the world So that there's not really basic puzzle. How do the signs get connected to the things? And Frigge's answer is going to be is this sense that it connects the signs to the objects So if I've explained it correctly so far, he has a really Powerful I mean it's a very well when you get it It's really a very simple argument on a very forceful argument that there must be such a thing as sense And it's going to happen that that sense is what connects the system of signs to the world around us When you say well, I mean just to explain why this is so basic if you say What does it mean to say that the sign the morning star is standing for a particular object? What does it mean to say that there's that connect between the sign and the thing? Well What it means is if you've got any sentence the morning star shines brightly the morning star Twinkles the morning star Has a spectrum shift Any statement like that whether the that statement is true is going to depend on whether the predicate shines brightly or Twinkles or has a spectrum shift it will depend on whether the statement is true will depend on whether that predicate is true All that object so I hear about the sign the morning star here I got the thing the morning star and if I say in the language The morning star shines brightly whether that's true over here depends on whether the predicate shines brightly applies to that object So whether the sign whether the predicate applies to this object is what determines whether the sentence over here is true So that connection between the name and the object is basic for Sentences being true or false Our basic puzzle is how does the name get tied up to the particular object? Well, what is sense? Where we haven't sent so far what we've gotten sent so far is it's the mode of presentation of the object the Perspective from which you're getting the thing. These are not Terribly explicit so far and you it's a natural question. Well, what does that mean? What do I got on that? but whatever it is Sense has got to be what explains Informativeness if you get the same sense you get something Uninformative if you get a different sense you got something informative It follows from that actually when you think about it the sense has to fix the reference of the sign If you just take this slowly you will see that the sense has to be uniquely determining what the reference of the sign is Because if I've got a Sentence a is identical to a to I mean I've got the same this of sense for a and a to Same as a sense is going to make the identity Uninformative Therefore same as a sense must guarantee that the two signs have the same reference Excuse me if it's me making that noise But you see this argument here That what we've got so what we've done is so far is really minimal We've just get this distinction between informative and uninformative identities We said to explain that you must have this level of sense and Whatever that level of senses that's what's hooking up your sign to the world We've got that already from these very simple kind of rock-solid points Sense is what's hooking up the sign to the world Sense is explaining how the name gets tied up to the object That's why it's so important I'm gonna got a fix on it by that distinction between informative and uninformative identities So sense is going to explain how it's coming about That there's that connection between the sign and the object so that the truth or falsity of Sentences involving the name will depend on how things are with our object Sense is going to be the key to understanding how you can have a language in which sentences are right or wrong Here's Frega summing things up the regular connection Between a sign its sense and its reference is of such a kind that to the sign that Corresponds a definite sense and to that in turn my definite reference Well to a given object that does not belong only a single sign Okay, so just When you get a sign you hook it up to a sense and the sense uniquely fixes the reference But Freg is saying here. There's no backward path from the reference to the sense You see what he's saying there to a given object that does not belong only a single sign You see what he's saying? I mean The point here is eloquently illustrated by the story of Rumpelstiltskin. How are we in the story of Rumpelstiltskin? Okay, so I would say that's a mixed reaction. So The Miller had a beautiful daughter The Miller told the king my daughter can spin spin straw into gold and The king said that's great. Let's see her do it and the daughter was in despair faced with all these bales of hay and Said what shall I do or what is me? And then this imp appeared and said I'll help you. Give me your ring and I will spin the straw into gold And the next night she gave the king the gold And the king said that's fantastic do it again Again, she said what shall I do and again the imp appeared and he said give me your cloak and She gave him her cloak and Span the scorn to go for her and the next night the king king said look here's a ton of hay do it just one more time and The in said well, I'll do it, but you have to give me your first born child And she said first born child not a problem Just gives me the gold and So he spanned into gold and the king was so impressed that he married the Miller's beautiful daughter And in due course they had a child upon which the imp appeared and For the first born child and at that point she said well actually I was only joking He was extremely indignant and said You have to give me it but after some discussion He said okay, I'll tell you what You can keep the child if you can guess my name and she said well is it is a bill Is it Simon? And he said no and she walked through Illustrating Frigus point. There is no backward path from the object to the sign The rest of the stories of no philosophical interest so we'll leave it Okay, so you see what he means to a given object there must not be long only a single sign Okay Okay Let me just make It's just a slightly technical thing, but I think it affects how you think about Uninformativeness Consider this kind of inference the morning star is f the mornings the evening star is g Hence the morning star is both f and g Okay, what do you think plus is that inference valid or in a invalid or b? Valid that is the right answer. That is not a valid inference, right? You need an extra premise you need to say the morning star is the evening star and then it would work right consider in contrast The morning star is f the morning star is g Hence the morning star is both f and g is that valid or invalid? Valid that's fine. Just the way it is right now look at that. I got one inference here. There's valid and one inference here That's invalid valid invalid but look what's going on is Always happen between this one and this one is that I swapped out one sign Referring to an object with another sign also referring to the same object Yeah, and that's making a difference to whether the thing is valid or not Very good Very good. So your point is you could have an inference of look just like this Dr. Jones is f Dr. Jones is g But it wouldn't be valid Excellent. So same as a sign is not what's making this valid Yeah And really difference of sign is not the key thing making this invalid after all you could say Dr. Jones is f Dr. Simon Jones is g and if it's just the same guy you have in mind That's fine. Yeah So saying this a difference of sign is not the key thing for the validity or invalidity of the inference What is the name for the thing that is making a difference to the validity or invalidity? It can't be the reference right and your point is it's not the sign the sense Okay, so this you point is absolutely dead on there must be something like the sense. Yep There is a good question. Yeah, all we've said so far. I mean, we're not making any conjectures here But all we're doing so I mean this is why this stuff is important is because there seems to be so little element of guesswork or Speculation this is just rock-solid things about the distinction between an informative and a non-informative identity I'll be just brought sense in there. Yeah, so we're not answering that question yet. How does the sense get associated with the sign? But you're right. That's a really important question I mean, I thought we'd be awfully willing to discuss that in a great deal of detail Yeah Okay, so As you consider these inferences the morning star is F the evening star is G the morning star is F the morning star is G that difference Look at that right now what's going on there as you switch from valid to invalid and back again is Just that the sense is shifting the sense matters for validity and this really matters When you just put it in terms of informative versus uninformative identities Despite what I said about the importance in movies and literature that might really seem not that key but this kind of inferential behavior that's really critical to Ordinary talk about people or places at all when you think about your talk about someone, you know Talking about a friend of yours gossiping about a friend of yours talking about Mitt Romney talking about Anyone at all what you've got to be able to do is Put all the information you have of that person all together You're always collecting the information you have about people or things into a single cluster Yeah, and that ability to do that without any extra premises That's really basic to any use of names or Signs referring to objects at all So we need if we need the notion of sense here, then the notion of sense is absolutely basic your understanding of proper minds okay And so what validity is demanding there is? Same of sense Okay, we will carry on looking at these frigate paragraphs on Friday. Thanks very much