 OK, so we're going to talk about the philosophy of language and mind in this, the last lecture. And then, if you remember last week, I asked if there were some of you who'd like to stay on to look at the online courses. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to run through what the online course looks like, what you would have to do, the sort of courses there are, and how it works. So I'll actually go online and do that for you so you can see exactly what it's like. But you don't have to stay for that if you don't want to, so at 3.30 you can even go and have a cup of coffee or stay on if you feel like it. I'm not sure it will be half an hour but something in that region. Okay, so let's look at the language and minds. Philosophy of language is literally the philosophy of language. I think I've mentioned to you before that the thing about philosophy is because it's content neutral logic, y metodologi we use. It doesn't matter in what area you use logic, language is one of the areas that you can do a philosophy of language and that's exactly what language is. So it looks at things like what is meaning because the thing about language is the words and sentences and what have you claimed to have meaning. Well, what is meaning exactly? Very, very interesting and deeply philosophical question. How do words refer to objects? So I told you that the photographer's name was Richard. Okay, how does the word Richard, which is just a sound after all, how does it refer to him? How does it do that? Is it some sort of magical? And if I mention Madonna, okay, I've done it without the person being here, but you still know who I mean. You know to whom I'm referring when I say Madonna. Some of you will anyway. Okay, another question and related to those two is how do we actually understand each other? Is the way I understand you different from the way I understand the physical world? So if I watch two billiard balls interacting and I explain them in terms of cause and effect and I watch two of you conversing. Do I explain that to in terms of cause and effect? Or is that an explanation of a different kind? Okay, so those are the questions that we look at. Well, there are many more questions in the philosophy of language, but those are the three I'm going to have a quick look at today and then we'll go on to mind. So let's look first at meaning. So how does language have meaning? And all that is involved in language is the sounds that I'm making now which are hitting your ears. I could be speaking in French and they could be hitting your ears without their being. Well, French is a bad example, isn't it? Let's say Japanese, okay, and the sounds would be hitting your ears and there would be no understanding there, would there? My words would have no meaning to you unless you spoke Japanese. And I spoke Japanese as well. And I could write on paper. I mean, I often write on the flip charts. You're reading, writing on here. How do these squiggles on paper have meaning to you? How come you look at the word elephant or you hear the word elephant and you're immediately thinking of the animal elephant? How does that happen? And it's not just cause and effect either. It's not just that you've associated that word with that animal because you can do it without the animal there. Okay, there's more to meaning than just cause and effect. One explanation of meaning is that we should think of meaning as the conditions of truth and falsehood. So, think about you're trying to explain the meaning of the word cat to a child. And I think I've used this example before, so I think you're picking it up straight away, I hope. What would you do? You'd point out lots of different cats and some of them would be black, some of them would be ginger, some of them would be fat cats and some thin cats and some tabby and so on. Some old, some kittens. No, maybe not kittens. And what you'd be hoping is that the child would abstract away the essential catness of all the examples you're pointing to, wouldn't you? That's what you're trying to do. And then what would you do to test the child's understanding that the child had acquired the meaning of the word cat? How would you do that? Show another picture. Show another picture. And what? Okay, and go on, carry on, carry on, that won't do it. Ask him if that was a cat. You say, is that a pussycat? What is that? You might say, what is that? Okay, but you'd probably start with, is that a pussycat? We're talking about teaching the child. You've got to give us a few clues to start off with, I reckon. Okay, and what would you wait for? You said you've shown us a picture of a horse. Of another four legynw, of a small dog. Because it's a similarity. It's a cat, and hope that you've learned the essence of cat. And we'll say, no. Okay, so in testing the understanding that the child has got, you'll show pictures of cats and say, is that a pussycat and hope to elicit the answer, yes. You'll show pictures of dogs and other animals and hope to elicit the answer, no. byddai'n gyrfa ychydig, a phesias y ddechrau'r ddau, a ddau, his. So, so byddai'n cyfrif Systemaeth yn cael y cyfrif? Felly, mae'r cyfrif ein ddechrau'n ddau yn cael ei ddau hefyd yn cael ei ddau. Roedd y cwrdd, mae'n cwrdd, yn cael ei ddau. Do fe wneud amser y cyfrifswd a'r cyfrif ymwysig? felly mae'n rhywbeth b phrodiad a казhu gyda'r cy morhaol, mae'n oedd ymgarferwyr, mae'n dim p胡ferwyr Szty commissiongo hyn. Dwi'n iawn y Captain wedi gion y Llywodraeth yn ei add Szty, a mae'n iawn y Pney innovation, a pob eveg o'r postiadau a'i ffordd os mae'r cerddio'n gofalu yn'r pryd. Aher nyaidd nodw'i bydwyd, oedd pentebwyr y L май newid, y boedd ges fרא ard Holdy. Ryn ni'n cymdeithasio os ydych chi'n gweinwch ar y dyfodol, gallw'n fawr y dynod, mae'n gwybod y dyfodol o'r hwnnw, mae ydych chi'n gyfun cofnwyr, a'n gorffod drws ar hynny. hwnna, mae'n siŵt yn gwasbwys yng Nghaerdaeth, a i gwasbwys ein tŷm o mor yng nghylch y bydd businesses siblings yn teimlo i dda i ddweud y cysylltu amgylch i ddysgol yn ei ddweud i ddysgol ac fy dyfodol, ac mae'n cael gydweudio'r ddweudio ei ddweudio i ddweudio'r ddweud, yn nhw? Felly, nid oes yn ni'n dda'r pyfynnwys yn y ddweud y ddweud i ddweud i bethau y ddweud? So lot of people have thought of the meaning as conditions of truth and falsity, that's what we're grabbing. And notice that meaning can't come apart from understanding, to know the meaning of a sentence is to understand that sentence, isn't it? Okay, so meaning, if you construct a theory of meaning what you're doing is constructing a theory of what it is for people who speak a specific language to understand something. Okay, so meaning and understanding go together. Okay, so we're asking how does language have meaning? We've got a hypothesis here, maybe meaning constitutes the conditions of truth and falsehood. But then we've got another question here, well is that right? Because if I write a sentence like this, Richard is a photographer. I'm trying to make people forget you, Richard. Okay, if I write Richard as a photographer, actually no, I'm sorry, that's actually a very bad example because he's here and you know what I'm talking about. What I want to write is John is tall. Okay, you understand that sentence, don't you? You understand what the meaning of that sentence is, do you? Somebody said no. No, they won't admit to it anyway. Okay, you understand what that means, but now tell me its truth value. Is it true or false? It could be either, couldn't it? You don't know the truth value of that. But how can you know the meaning of something without being able to determine whether it's true or false? Let me ask that again. How can you know the meaning of something without being able to determine whether it's true or false? There is an answer to this question and I'll tell it to you in a minute, but let's see if you can get it first. And why not? That was very good, but why? Which information do you need? You need to know what this word here refers to. What else do you need to know? What is tall means as well. Okay, what I've done here is I've written on the board a type of sentence. And we're now talking about sentences of this type. What I'm not doing here is using this sentence. Do you see what I mean? That's why it's got to have quotes round, because it's just a type of sentence, isn't it? It's a sentence that could be used to tell you something. So this sentence, and the reason that I suddenly realised it was a bad example. And if you see why it was a bad example, you've understood what I'm saying. Okay, this was a bad example, because I said Richard is a photographer. Having just introduced you to Richard, the photographer. So of course you can determine the truth value of that, can't you? So I was mentioning that, but I had just used it and therefore I confused you. Whereas this one, I'm only mentioning I'm not using at all. And it's only a sentence in use that has a truth value. Does that make sense? Hold on. One, two. You can understand abstract sentences that don't refer to a particular individual or quality, as long as they have an internal coherence and debate the rules of grammar. Well, in effect that's what I'm saying. This is a type of sentence which has meaning, but it doesn't have full meaning, does it? Because you can't determine the truth value. What you understand here, this is a sentence type that could be used to say something. Okay, it could be used to say something, but it isn't being used to say something. I'm just talking about it. So I think, Anna, that's what you meant. But to use the technical terminology, this is a sentence type, not an abstract sentence. A sentence type which could be used to say something. Has anyone called John here? No, it must be the only room in this number of people in it. If I haven't got somebody called John, that is so unfair. I'm going to call you John, sir. Yes, you. Would you like to stand up? John. Okay, and now I'm going to use the sentence. I'm going to say John is tall. Okay, now I'm using the sentence. Can you determine the truth value now? Yes. As long as you know what tall is. Of course, you need to understand what tall is, but most people I think would say yes probably here. What height are you, John? Five nine. Five nine. I think that counts as tall. Okay, but do you see the difference between the meaning of a sentence that's not being used and the meaning of a sentence that is being used? In the first place, you grasp a meaning, but it's not enough to determine the truth value. In the second case, you grasp the meaning and you know enough to determine the truth value. So in the first place, you know only the conditions of truth and falsehood. So you know a meaning that consists in nothing more than the conditions under which this sentence would be true. Are you with me? Whereas the minute I tell you to whom it refers, assuming you all understand what is tall means, you can then determine the truth value. So if you know the truth conditions plus the context, you can determine the truth value. Okay, so some people have said that meaning isn't the conditions of truth and falsity. It's actually the use of the conditions of truth and falsity. If you see what I mean. So this, if I write that on the board without using it at all, that doesn't have any meaning. What you're grasping in grasping what it means, it's very difficult to not say what it means, is not the meaning, okay? You're grasping what it could be used to mean, but not its meaning. It's only when I actually make it concrete, so I'm now picking up your vocabulary, it's only when I tell you to what John refers or to whom John refers that you then have proper meaning. So some people talk about weak and strong meaning and some people say that weak meaning, this meaning, the meaning, the way, I'm not using it, but just mentioning it, isn't meaning at all. And other people say this is meaning, but there's meaning and there's use and they're two different things. You had a question first and I'll answer that then. I'm sorry, it's a bit out of context now. I'm sorry. You said I'm not using that sentence. This is a special meaning of the word use, isn't it? Because you're using it as an example. No, I'm using it as an example, but I'm not using the sentence to express something, which is why I've got the quotes around it. Because it's very important that if I write that and that, of which of those could I say it has five letters? I can't say what it says, because one says chair and the other says chair with quotes around it. Of which of these could I say it has five letters? The bottom one and only the bottom one, because here I'm using it to mean chair and here because they're quotes round, I'm talking about the word, aren't I? If I say chair with quotes round, I'm not talking about chairs at all, am I? It's very difficult to do this orally, of course. But if I say chair has five letters, that's a grammatical sentence, isn't it? Whereas if I say chair has five letters, is that a grammatical sentence? No, it isn't. That's because I'm not making it clear that I'm mentioning the word chair, not using the word chair. There's a huge difference between use and mention. Hardly anyone these days understands that. Quotes are used very sparingly and often wrongly, and actually it changes the meaning hugely. So going back to this, when I first put that sentence there, I wasn't using it, I was mentioning it, and then I was talking about it, and then when I used it to say John is tall, you could then determine the truth value, couldn't you? And what point is there to meaning if you can't determine truth value in the end? So if I utter a sentence of Russian now, have I given you... It's a meaningful sentence, but are you able to determine the truth value? Not unless you speak Russian. So the meaning that is completely useless to you, it sounds as if you don't grasp the meaning at... Well, you don't grasp meaning at all. Sentence is meaningful, but you don't understand it. What's going on if you're teaching English and you're using John is tall to teach the verb to be? Are you using it or not using it? Well, what do you think? I don't know, I'm lost. What do other people think? I didn't hear the question. Anna's saying if I'm talking about John is tall in order to teach the verb to be, am I using or mentioning the sentence John is tall? Are you using it? I'd probably be... I mean, actually I could do both. But if I'm saying John is tall, John and Susan are tall, John, Susan and... No, I am too... I can't decline the verb. What am I doing there? I'm teaching grammar, but am I using the sentence John is tall or mentioning it? I'm mentioning it, aren't I? I'm using the mention of it to teach grammar. See what I mean? I'm using the mention of the sentence to teach grammar. I am not using the sentence John is tall. I do not intend to convey to you the information that John is tall. I intend to convey to you the information that is, is the correct. Got it? Right. So we've got two hypotheses here about what meaning is. One is that meaning is the conditions of truth and falsity of a sentence. So when you grasp the meaning, you grasp the conditions under which the sentence would be true or false if it were used. OK? So you look at John as tall and you grasp the meaning because you grasp the conditions under which a sentence like that, if it were used, would be true or false. Or you say, well, actually, it's a necessary condition of grasping meaning that you can determine the truth value. So you don't actually grasp the meaning of this at all. You only grasp the meaning when I say John is tall. OK? So one theory is truth condition theory. So the theories of meaning, one is truth condition theory and the second is use theory. And you may be interested to hear that both of them are attributable to other people as well, but preeminently Wittgenstein. The earlier Wittgenstein put forward truth condition theory, the later Wittgenstein put forward use theory and he thought that if you accepted use theory, you had to deny truth condition theory and vice versa. But in fact, many people and I'm one of them think that actually you need both in order to have a full theory of meaning. And if you draw a representation of meaning, it's going to look something like this and I may already have done this for you at some point. Do you remember? This is a representation of meaning. Firstly, we've got the strict and literal truth conditions, truth and falsity conditions. I say truth conditions for short, but you should always hear falsity conditions as well. Oop, woop woop. Is that... Yeah, OK. Can you still see the screen? That's the... How about that? Better? OK. So, I've got several concentric circles here and in the centre I've written strict and literal truth conditions. So, the door is shut. Now, you've all understood that, haven't you? You know, what have you understood there? The use or the meaning of the sentence? Sorry, the truth conditions or the use of the sentence. The door is shut. Truth conditions. I understood how that sentence could be used if I used it. OK? So, I'll now use it. It's not the case. The door is shut. OK? So, I've used that sentence embedded in another sentence because I wanted to utter something true. But let me now utter something false. The door is shut. Was I using or mentioning that sentence? I was using it then, wasn't I? And you can determine that it's false. So, will I shut it? Certainly. I say I will. OK. Now I can operate on that sentence in various ways. I can say, shut the door! Or I can say, is the door shut? Or I can say, what else can I say? The door is shut. In each case I'm using a different tone, aren't I? Acetoric tone, a little final case. Interrogative tone, imperative tone, et cetera. So, I'm operating on that sentence to change what I'm doing with it. Do you see what I mean? I'm using it in different ways here. So, you've got one sentence, or one set of strict and literal truth conditions, plus a number of operations on that to change what I'm doing with it. Then I've got, sorry, that was force. That's the force with which I'm using the sentence, not the tone. Tone is something different. I mean, is the door shut yet? OK, that's tone. Wasn't very good, I'm not a very good actress, but do you see what I mean? I'm being sarcastic, aren't I? Or something like that. Tone can sometimes change things a lot. I am not angry! OK, what have I just said? The meaning you will have got from that is that I'm angry, won't you? It's not at all that I'm using the strict and literal truth conditions with an acetoric force and a tone that makes it absolutely clear that you understand the complete opposite of what the strict and literal truth conditions are. OK, so I can use those strict and literal truth conditions in many different ways depending on how I vary the force and the tone. And here's another one. Ask me whether so-and-so is a good philosopher. Ask me whether, sorry, what's your name? Peter. Ask me whether Peter is a good philosopher. Is Peter a good philosopher? His handwriting is excellent. That'll teach you. That'll teach you to say what you said earlier about that. What have I just said? He's not. Exactly, you've all understood immediately, haven't you? But have you understood because I use the strict and literal truth conditions in the normal way? No. The fact is the context changed everything, didn't it? But would you have understood what I said if you hadn't understood the strict and literal truth conditions? No. What you needed was the whole thing, didn't you? You needed to know that I was answering a question with a certain meaning with an answer that would be a perfectly good answer to a different question but which is an insultingly irrelevant answer to this particular question and therefore it means something different. The irrelevance alerts you to something, some change of meaning, if you like. So, if this is a representation of meaning some people think that this is meaning all on its own, that's the truth condition theory of meaning and other people think that you've got to have all of this before you have meaning. So, that's the early Wittgenstein, the truth condition theory and that's the late Wittgenstein, the use theory and then there are people like me who think you've got to have both that actually you've got to understand a set of strict and literal truth conditions before you can then operate on those strict and literal truth conditions in all the different ways to generate strong meaning. So, I call that, and so do many other philosophers this is not just me, weak meaning and this is strong meaning. So, meaning is ambiguous, the word meaning is ambiguous and there are lots of different meanings of the word meaning sadly but what I've done is gone through we've got a question how does language have meaning at all, how does squiggles how do sounds have meaning one response is meanings are conditions of truth and falsity problem with that is it doesn't distinguish between use and meaning so other people think that meaning is use and how do things like context contribute well what they can suggest they might suggest that one or other of those theories is true or they could suggest that actually both are needed before you get full meaning because you certainly wouldn't have understood his handwriting is excellent if you hadn't understood both the strict and literal truth conditions and the context would you you had to get both of those to understand and there are all sorts of other examples like that if I'm searching for a name here somebody give me a name what's your name? Eleanor, if Eleanor had been late every single time to this lecture and ten minutes she runs in and slams the door as usual and I say hello Eleanor early again okay what have I said that she's late so you know that the tone of sarcasm together with the context that you knew turns the meaning round again and you know that because you are English speakers you understand the meaning of English okay if you said that in America it's certainly the case that you have to be being an English speaker and being an American speaker and there are different contexts different tones, different forces well I don't think there are different forces I mean in lots of different languages different conventions to do the same thing so this is where the fact that I'm monoglot doesn't help me but can anyone give me an example of where would you not like to go for a walk? yes that's an interesting one okay that shows you that Irish is it Irish? is different from English okay yeah good one and there are all sorts of others actually if you no I'm sorry I can't think of a single example but you can tenses can be done differently in different languages can't they questions can be done differently in different languages so each language is different and of course the problem of how to individuate a language and you might say Irish and English are the same language or you might say they're different for that very reason sorry the American on a daily show he uses that sort of stuff quite a lot right right that's sarcasm rather than irony isn't it it's supposed to be the case that Americans don't use irony I'm sure I have heard Americans using irony but French don't do irony I'm sure that must be true are there any French people here? well when you're doing philosophy of language you're not really interested in that you're interested in the normal convenience of meaning and so on so of course but they wouldn't particularly be interested in examining a malfunctioning speaker of language and in this case there is a malfunction do you see what I mean if you want to understand the phenomenon itself you will look at normal functioning of that phenomenon and then you might go from that to look at abnormal functioning and that indeed might throw some light on it in fact we'll talk a bit about something like that later on but I hope that answers your question ok one more question but isn't it isn't truth valuable I mean if I when I was talking ethics about ethics I said to you what would happen if you couldn't suppose that most people are telling the truth most of the time what would happen if you couldn't rely on the fact that most people tell the truth most of the time communication would break down completely wouldn't it because what would be the point of it I ask you what's on at the cinema you tell me and then I think well can I believe her so truth is hugely valuable and the exchange of information and of course we're not just talking about information about the cinema if I say I love you I'm of course mentioning that sentence rather than using it at the moment but if I were to... I'm sorry I'm sorry but if I say I love you I'm giving information aren't I but it's information of a different kind from the theatre but it's still the case that you hope that the conditions under that make that sentence true would actually obtain if I said that sentence to you in a situation the right situation and you'd be very upset if they didn't so there is a lot of value in meaning but the value is usually attached to truth and it's usually the truth about all sorts of things that we value like love for example you're talking about meaning in a rather metaphorical sense here I mean there's another sense of meaning of a picture or a painting or something like that the meaning of a you know what's the meaning of the fact she's wearing that dress do you see what I mean that's a secondary meaning of meaning isn't it and I'm talking about philosophy of language so I'm talking about the meaning of sentences, words and so on rather than the meaning of paintings or dresses or or whatever or life yes 20 years of logic before you can do the meaning of life I'm on the meaning of life but you're not well we could do another few lectures if you like I think we'd need quite a few no I'm only just starting the beginning of the meaning of life I've been lecturing for 22 years now I've just started on the meaning of life well she was but this is an emotional thing but what's the meaning of her wearing that dress I mean that's an emotional thing she knows I was going to wear that dress today why is she wearing that one which she knows clashes with it that's an emotional thing you know I love you doesn't that have an emotional meaning I hate you yes of course there's an emotional meaning but the meaning is that to get the emotion behind my utterance of something you've got to understand the strict and literal truth conditions of it if you don't understand the conditions under which I love you is true then you won't get any emotional response when I say I love you because you won't know what it means do you see what I mean the emotion is secondary it's nothing to do with the meaning it's to do with understanding the meaning but it's understanding the meaning is what causes whatever emotion you have horror perhaps that's the secondary metaphorical meaning so that painting has a certain meaning to me is not talking about language it's talking about a painting and I'm talking about philosophy of language that man is not a sentence he's a man so that's not the sort of meaning I'm talking about I said to you that meaning is multiply ambiguous one more question and then I think we must move on well we can call it anything we like but I think most people use meaning in that context so we'd be changing language if we did that and that's not usually a good thing to do it's a much better thing to do to understand why the word meaning is used in that way as well as the other way okay so that's that's meaning we're going to run out of time here I can see how do words refer to objects so far I've talked about meaning and meaning is actually a function of sentences it's sentences that have meaning not words let me convince you of this if I say chair what have I said thank you yes I have said chair but what's a word have I said anything with meaning I haven't have I have I given you anything with conditions of truth and falsehood no have I given you anything have I used the word chair in any meaningful way okay what I've got to give you to get meaning is a structured thing okay one word will not do it there are you might think there are one word sentences if I say go I've given you something with truth conditions haven't I or I've given you know it's not got it's got fulfilment conditions because it was a command rather than truth conditions but you see what I mean but where is the structure in that go and it's a verb yes there's more to it than that there's a structure somewhere isn't it they're actually you go there so the demonstration is part of the structure the implicit you which comes from the fact it's an imperative form that you go there is a sentence you've got something that has truth conditions now whereas go if I don't talk to you and I don't demonstrate has no meaning does it so in order to get meaning you've got to have a sentence something with structure a word does not have meaning except in its contribution to a sentence so when you're looking at a sentence like this I swear I won't be able to find it now John is tall okay it's composer meaning of words and of course this is important because Mary loves John has a different meaning from John loves Mary doesn't it so it's not just the meaning of the words that matters or the contribution made by the words to the sentence it's also the way those words are combined so it's the grammar the syntax as well as the semantics of the word so to understand that you've got to understand to whom John refers and of course you might not even know that John is a name so you've got to know to what John refers and you've got to know what is tall means okay well how do we do this well let me tell you okay I'm going to introduce a new word for you here okay would you stand up and turn and face everyone and would you do the same and John would you do the same please and Roger and I think that's it okay now all these people are gross okay they're all gross I'm not gross neither is Anna stand up and turn okay Anna's not gross either I've gotten your name again Peter isn't gross okay have we understood what is gross means yet is wearing glasses okay sit down everyone thank you very much how do you spell gross do you think yes I think it's about that isn't it okay the way I got you to understand that was by identifying a class of people as gross and identifying a few others do you see what I was doing I was giving you the truth conditions of is gross when it's true that something is gross and when it's false that something is gross and so what you're doing when you're understanding words as opposed to sentences is understanding the contribution that they make to the truth conditions of a sentence okay so in understanding a sentence you're grasping the truth conditions and possibly also the use and in understanding a word you're grasping the condition that the contribution made by those words to a sentence in which the words used and once you've understood is gross you can understand it in different context can't you would you stand up please and turn and face people yes is this person gross or not yes they are okay so you can understand things like here's a question do zebras wear overcoats not often someone says okay well you the fact is you've never heard that sentence before unless you've heard me lecture before in which case you probably have but you all understood it immediately don't you and this is because words are the if you like the tools the atoms that you put together in various combinations and this gives you a potentially infinite understanding doesn't it you don't have to have heard a sentence before to understand what it means you understand the atoms and their combinations so you understand the meaning of the words and the meaning of the rules of combination and that gives you a potentially infinite understanding okay so how do we get to know that words refer well some people have said ostensive definition if I had pointed to dot and said dot is groesh stand up okay dot is groesh would you have understood what I meant I would say look she's groesh why not you're new to the word but why look I'm ostensibly defining you've got a name and what is it as I'm pointing can I point to her grossness even if I go like this no okay the thing is I can't point to any one aspect of anything can I if I point to a cat and say cat it could easily mean the colour of the cat or the shape of the cat or the whiskers on the cat or the coin on whom there's incident weekend school next weekend coin says if you're in a foreign country and somebody points at a rabbit and says gather guy okay do you assume that gather guy means rabbit or does it mean rabbit flies because in this particular country there are flies that always fly around rabbits so you never see a rabbit without seeing rabbit flies so am I ostensibly defining gather guy by pointing to the rabbit or the rabbit fly and how are you going to distinguish that or do I mean by gather guy undetached rabbit part in other words I mean part of a rabbit that isn't detached from a rabbit because you never get those without getting rabbits do you so how do you know that gather guy means rabbit as opposed to rabbit fly or undetached rabbit part or or shoot it yes exactly yes or something like that that might be a bit different just thinking I think if you were telling somebody that something was dangerous you'd probably do something more than ostensibly defining you know anyway never mind maybe you wouldn't fine ostensibly definition it can't be an explanation also how do you ostensibly define the word 5 it's impossible isn't it or how about the word and how do you ostensibly define the word and and yet somehow you've all managed to pick up the word and haven't you you know exactly what it means but it wasn't because your mum ostensibly defined it for you that might have been how you learnt how the word is written but of course that's a very different thing from learning the meaning of the word so it means pointing definitive definition if you prefer another question is if we take a name like Anna okay it's the meaning of Anna notice I'm using quotes here so I'm mentioning the name rather than using it does the name Anna just have a reference and when you grasp the meaning you grasp it's referent okay or does it have a sense as well okay so here's a word and here's another word I don't know if I'm spelling them properly this says phosphorus okay now these you might think if they're they're both the word sorry they are both names for venus the planet venus which appears both in the morning and in the evening so phosphorus became associated with and here's where I show my ignorance again I can't remember whether it was the morning star or the evening star but let's say the morning star and phosphorus became associated with the evening star okay so phosphorus and phosphorus have the same referent but you don't know that do you initially I mean imagine yourself before astrologers astronomers had shown that phosphorus was phosphorus that the star we see in the morning is the very same star that we see in the evening you would have been very interested to learn that phosphorus is phosphorus wouldn't you and yet if to grasp the meaning of a word all you need to know is it's referent then surely you would have known that because you know the referent of phosphorus you know the referent of phosphorus and they are the same thing so you should have known that long ago you didn't so the thought is that phosphorus and phosphorus must have something other than references meaning they must have a sense as well and some people have thought that what the sense is here's venus okay and phosphorus is one mode of presentation of venus and phosphorus is another mode of presenting venus so you could talk about me as miss Talbot or you could talk about me as Marianne in both cases you refer to me but you use names with different ways of presenting the same referent and of course every referent has numerous ways of okay so I could point to you as the woman in the orange and pink scarf sitting next to the chat with a beard and long hair or the woman sitting behind Anna and all these are different ways of getting at you different modes of presentation of you and I could associate a name with each of those like the woman with the pink and orange scarf is Susan okay the woman sitting next to the man with a beard and long hair is Jennifer and then I can tell you that Susan is Jennifer I don't know why I'd bother doing that but you can see the principle okay so our sense of definition can't be an explanation of how words refer the reference of words can't be their meaning all on their own they've got to have sense as well and then of course there are different types of referent okay dot stand up sorry keeping your fit here okay now sit down again okay now everybody stand up please keep you all on your toes won't you okay now sit down if you're male okay sit down if you're wearing dark colours all dark colours it is a bit ambiguous I know but okay sit down if you're not grolsh no well you're not at the moment so sit down okay oh Freudian slip, grolsh is a great oh cut up Anna sit down if you're wearing anything brown or fawn isn't that fawn that jump okay but sit down okay so you can sit down anyway sit down if your hair is dark sit down if you're wearing a pinafore sit down if you're wearing a white t-shirt sit down if you're wearing a orange or if you've got on a black jacket or if you're wearing a grey jumper oh it's blooms okay I've got left one person so dot is the person who is not wearing any of these things okay so I can uniquely refer to dot either by throwing a harpoon at her using a referring term a designator dot stand up you can stand up or I can pick out dot by describing her uniquely and I could do this in another way here's another way of doing it stand oh no dam um stand up if there's someone else wearing a pink jumper at the back which is very irritating sorry it's a very nice pink jumper stand up if you're wearing a pink pink jumper over a pink and grey shirt yes that was easier wasn't it so do you see that there are different types of reference there's either a harpoon if you like I can go straight for the person or I can throw a net over everything and pick out just one thing by a description okay I'm using a description to uniquely refer to so descriptions are designators as much as names are but of course they designate or refer in a completely different way don't they so one's like a harpoon the other's like a net and we often have to use a net but we can also go wrong if I say would the person drinking martini stand up seeing you drinking from a martini glass no you can keep sitting down but actually she's got water in her martini glass and so my reference goes wrong very difficult questions about how do I succeed in referring to you nevertheless because you're not drinking martini so the description is false and yet I do manage to do that how do I do that well I didn't need to be more precise though I managed to get you even though my reference didn't fit didn't I yes okay but that was due to the lack of a martini glass rather than the lack of martini okay so lots of questions in how the words refer now just quickly we've got to go on to mind how do we understand each other one group of people say we use a theory so just as I explain the physical world in terms of cause and effect and in terms of postulating theories and then looking for uniformities in cause and effect so how do I understand you well I think here's a person of a certain age of a certain type and so when they say this it'll mean this lots of people would say well actually that's not good enough because if I've got to if I'm going to understand you I've got to understand you in all your individuality and what I ought to be doing is if you say something crazy instead of saying well that person's obviously crazy I'm not listening to you anymore I've got to say why is that rational person saying that sounds crazy I must have misunderstood her okay so what do you mean you ask another question so this one says that we understand each other on the principle of the uniformity of nature exactly like any other part of the physical world there's no difference at all between you and this chair in terms of my understanding your behaviour charity says no in order to understand things like you I've got to use the principle of charity not just the principle of the uniformity of nature and simulation theory tells me that not only have I got to use actually maybe not even but I can't just use this because what I've got to do is simulate you I've got to put myself in your position and when I do that I'm not putting myself in your position because when I do that I only get me don't I what I'm doing is I'm trying to see the world through your eyes so I'm not just putting myself in your position I'm transforming myself into you in my imagination in order to understand what you mean so when I hear you say there are tickets for Madonna tonight instead of thinking oh is that interesting I think oh my god and I know how much dot likes Madonna that is and I say oh fantastic dot because I've transformed myself into dot and I see that she's telling me this because she wants me to enthuse with her about Madonna do you see what I mean so there's simulation so these are three different theories about how you understand people and believe me that people are nearly in blows on these theories at the moment I actually think that you've got to use all three and it seems to me that this isn't an either or it's definitely a use of all three but some people thinks that it's either one or the other and whichever combination you can either get some people believe it's theory, theory and charity but definitely not simulation and other people believe it's simulation charity definitely not theory and there are all sorts of permutations but the theory of interpretation is a very big area in philosophy excuse me so if you use all three you'd be sure that you would definitely understand another person sorry say that again if you are using all three theories would you be sure of understanding another person I don't think you'd never be sure of understanding another person because I mean if say you were not a natural English speaker I have no idea whether you are or not but you had learnt English from a dictionary and didar didar and I said his handwriting is excellent use of theory theory she's speaking English this is an English sentence wouldn't get you anywhere would it use of charity you might see that the answer I'm giving is not an answer to the question but would you understand me use of simulation well again would you understand me no so I think these are perhaps in whatever combination you like necessary conditions for understanding but I doubt I think it would be virtually impossible to give any theory of meaning which would guarantee that were you to know that theory that would be sufficient to understand anyone goodness I speak English pretty well but that doesn't guarantee that I understand things that people say to me in fact often I don't I wasn't meaning from the language point of view as well understanding a person which includes language and all sorts of other things yep yep no no well as I said I am not angry it's not just language you're understanding there is it and go it's not just language you're understanding there either is it okay let's move on to minds because we left all of half hour for this philosophy of mind conditions like what is a mental state I wonder what that was then okay what is a mental state how does the mental interact with the physical and what's the nature of rationality and consciousness and I'm going to look at those I think yes here we are each of them separately briefly okay so look at nature of mental states Descartes thinks that the mind is quite distinct from the body that they are not the same thing at all and the reason he thinks that if you remember is because he opens up a gap between the mind and the world and in that gap is this pussycat here the demon okay but let's have a think about this for a minute in the world we've got things like pens chairs human bodies we've got relations between these things like causation haven't we so there are events also like sounds there's spatial relations so Anna is sitting on a chair or there's a human body sitting on a chair there there's spatial relations between these things there are temporal relations between events okay now let's look at the mind what sort of objects are mental objects I'll give you a few there are beliefs aren't there desires intentions okay these are mental states now oh sorry I forgot to do there are properties here things like blue hard square okay fair enough now are any of these blue no hard square it's completely wrong isn't it what are the properties of mental things so thinking about a belief at the moment what sort of property does a belief have this belief is strong strong yes okay there are degrees of certainty should we put so because a strong belief is a belief of which you're certain let's say degrees of justification is probably a better of justification sorry say this again I think isn't that the same thing oh thank you no I'm going to put justification because colours come in intensities too but it's a different thing isn't it okay what else are beliefs beliefs are true or false they're justified or unjustified they're true or false what else are they acquired or innate you could say that yeah acquired or innate okay what else are they unfair unfair I'm not sure beliefs are unfair intentions might be beliefs just seem to be truth related rather than value related aren't they untested again that would be degrees of justification wouldn't it because an untested belief would be an unjustified one what about they have contents they have intentionality to use a technical term you can't have a belief that doesn't have a content can you okay could you have a belief that doesn't have the content the chair is blue or dots wearing pink or Peter's wearing blue or every belief has got to have a content hasn't it that means it's got to have intentionality seonality it's got an s not a t it's a technical term it all it means is aboutness every belief has aboutness that it's got to be about something or other okay what about relations between these things do they have spatial relations do you get one belief on top of another you can metaphorically perhaps you know one belief coming on top of another but not literally can you can you have one belief beside another and you can have one chair beside another can't you you can have one pen beside a flip chart can you have beliefs beside each other in that way again metaphorically but not literally there aren't any spatial relations here at all are there in the mind you don't get a desire on top of a belief you don't get an intention inside a desire okay so there aren't any are there temporal relations between beliefs and then that could be superseded by another belief there are temporal relations aren't there between mental states so I had that desire before I formed that belief now I've formed that belief I've lost that desire so there are temporal relations there's another type of relation between beliefs and desires and those are rational relations normally I would have made you tell me that but we haven't got time so if I say if the dog barks if there are strangers the dog will bark there are strangers therefore the dog will bark okay there are rational relations between those two beliefs we talked about them when we did logic so if the first two beliefs are true the third belief will be true won't it so there are rational relations between beliefs okay now let's look at this again do pairs pens and chairs enter into rational relations no okay do pens have intentionality are they about things no okay do human bodies have rational relations with each other I'm not talking about human minds here okay human bodies have spatial relations don't they I'm in front of you what's your name Eileen okay I'm in front of Eileen human bodies have that is my mind in front of Eileen's mind it would be a very funny thing to say wouldn't it what about can pens be true is this pen true it may make a sentence true mightn't it this pen is blue is made true by this pen but it is not itself true if there weren't any beliefs in fact or sentences that express beliefs there wouldn't be any truth one major question here is can beliefs cause are there causal relations between beliefs what do you think okay you're right but actually causation within the mind is usually a malfunction if my desire that my husband is having not having an affair not having an affair caus is my belief that he isn't having an affair okay am I is something going right here it isn't is it because the fact is that the desire that my husband isn't having an affair is no reason at all for the belief he isn't having an affair is it what I've got there is wishful thinking and then there's association one belief can cause another simply because I've associated two beliefs in my mind but of course the relation you want between your beliefs and indeed between your desires and beliefs and so on is rational relations not simply causal relations there's nothing wrong necessarily with having causal relations between your beliefs association is quite useful in many cases but actually without reason you'd be in serious trouble it's rational relations you want between your beliefs not causal ones so when you ask are mental states physical states well physical things like pens don't seem to have any of the properties or relations that mental states have mental states like beliefs don't seem to have any of the properties or relations that physical states go in for so beliefs can't be blue or square or hard or so why should we think that mental states are the very same thing as physical states and yet fun enough we're about the first generation who has assumed that mental states are physical states because we know that the brain is very important to the mind and we just assume therefore that they are the same thing but how can they be ah what does it say a pharl is about to be sent to my machine how alarming execute now I bought dear me so when you hear people on the television using the word brain instead of mind you should say they shouldn't be doing that at all and when you hear yourself doing it you should be ashamed of yourself it may be that mental states turn out to be physical states but actually it's hugely unlikely that they will and if you study philosophy of minds for any length of time you'll see that need your physicalism the idea that mental states are physical states so my belief that p is nothing more than a brain state of mind you'll see that actually that's hugely unlikely here's another reason for thinking it's unlikely ok I'm having a belief about no let's use dot she's got that nice pink jumper ok I'm having a belief I'm thinking about dot now I'm thinking that dot is wearing a pink jumper now if dot didn't exist could I have that belief that very belief do you think not I could have a belief very like it couldn't I I could have a belief about a woman wearing pink who's sitting a friend to me in other words I could have a belief about a description of someone very similar to dot but could I have the belief that dot is wearing a pink jumper could I have a belief about dot at all if dot didn't exist no it doesn't seem as if I could could I well if that's true given that I would have whatever brain state I have that's underpinning my belief about dot wearing a pink jumper I could have that couldn't I whether dot existed or not because what goes on inside my brain is goes on quite independently of dot's existence or not and yet I couldn't have a belief about dot if dot didn't exist so having a belief it's being true of Marianne that she has a belief about dot is dependent upon the existence of dot whereas Marianne's having the brain state that underpins her belief about dot is completely independent of dot's existence or not so how can that brain state be the very same thing as my belief it couldn't be so it may well be that brain states are necessary conditions of having beliefs that the relation between brain states and mental states is hugely important but it is not one of identity they are not the same thing so when you hear yourself using brain states when you should be using mental state you'll smack yourself on the wrist and say Marianne wouldn't like that and you'll stop doing it and if you want to understand more about why you should do a course on philosophy of mind although you've got to pick your course because it would have to be a course on beliefs rather than qualitative states or something okay but how is your mind now you've asked an interesting question because look you've asked where in space is my mind but minds don't enter into spatial relations so or because you're modelling the mind on the model of a physical object you're asking a question that would be a question you'd obviously have because no physical object could exist without existing in space but the question of whether a mind exists in space well you won't say I want to say minds don't exist in space but then where do they exist? well no you can't ask that because it's not aware it doesn't exist where at all they don't enter into spatial relations if the mind were the brain then my mind would be inside my head wouldn't it and if my mind were inside my head my belief that Dot is wearing a pink jumper would also be inside my head