What are the contents of de se beliefs?

First-Person Propositions

De se belief

Non-de se beliefs

I am burning.

Peter is burning. He is burning. (pointing at me) The DGS for Philosophy is burning.

• I can have this de se belief without having any of these non-de se beliefs, or vice versa.

Peter Hanks University of Minnesota [email protected] April 6, 2012, Institut Jean-Nicod, Paris

• Assumption: different beliefs have different contents. • The content of the de se belief must be distinct from the content any non-de se belief. What is the content of the belief that I am burning?

1

2

Fregean first-person thoughts

Problems for Fregean first-person thoughts

‘I am burning’

• Mysterious, dubious

• Incommunicability: no one else can grasp the thought I express when I say ‘I am burning’

mode of presentation of me that only I can grasp “Now everyone is presented to himself in a special and primitive way, in which he is presented to no one else.” - Frege, “Thoughts,” 1918

• General problems for Fregean descriptivism (e.g. rigidity)

‘Peter is burning’

Back to the drawing board ...

mode of presentation of me that anyone can grasp 3

4

Propositions as types of spoken and mental actions

Peter is burning.

⊢ < Peter, burning>

Peter is burning.

assertion

assertion Peter is burning.

predication type of reference act

judgment

In each case the subject: refers to Peter expresses the property of burning predicates burning of Peter

type of expression act

Tokens include particular judgments and assertions that Peter is burning.

Tokens of the same type: ⊢< Peter, burning> 5

Predication

6

Fregean picture of judgment and assertion thoughts/propositions

• Type of action in which a subject applies a property to an object.







• Not neutral. Commits the subject to the object’s having the property.



• Rejection of Frege’s content-force distinction. Rejection of Fregean picture of judgment and assertion. No entertainment.

Peter is burning.

entertain judgment

assertion

• Requires a notion of cancellation, e.g. for conditionals and disjunctions. subject

7

8

Peter is burning.

My picture

Soames’s picture in What is Meaning?, 2010

Soames identifies propositions with types of events in which subjects predicate properties of objects, but the kind of predication involved is neutral and non-committal.

⊢ < Peter, burning>

proposition

token

token

Peter is burning

Peter is burning

judgment

“What is it to entertain a proposition? It is, I suggest, to predicate something of something else. To entertain the proposition that o is red is to predicate redness of o.” - Soames, What is Meaning?, 2010

assertion

subject

• act of reference to Peter • act of expressing the property of burning • act of predicating burning of Peter

“Since to entertain the proposition that o is red is simply to predicate redness of o, and since this predication is included in every attitude with that content, entertaining the proposition is one component of any propositional attitude we bear to it. To judge that o is red is to predicate redness of o, while endorsing that predication.” - Soames, What is Meaning?, 2010

10

9

Soames’s picture in What is Meaning?

Problems for Frege and Soames

Problems for Frege ⊢* < Peter, burning>

proposition = type of event

• Problem of the unity of the proposition: how do we account for the fact that propositions have truth-conditions? Acts of predication are the source of truth-conditions.

neutral predication

Peter is burning entertainment / neutral predication

• Conditionals and cancellation Peter is burning judgment

Peter is burning assertion

subject

Problems for Soames

• No entertainment (understood as a neutral kernel in judgment) • No neutral predication

11

12

∼ = cancellation

Conditionals and cancellation

⊢ < ∼⊢, ∼⊢, if >

• An utterance of ‘If p then q’ is neither an assertion that p nor an assertion that q. • The contents of ‘p’ and ‘q’ do not change when used inside a conditional.

The contents of ‘p’ and ‘q’ must not contain assertion.

The contents of ‘p’ and ‘q’ contain assertion, but the element of assertion is cance"ed or overridden when ‘p’ and ‘q’ are used inside a conditional.

Frege

If Russell is right then Frege is wrong.

⊢ < ∼⊢, ∼⊢, or >

Russell is right or Frege is wrong.

⊢ < ⊢, ⊢, and >

Russell is right and Frege is wrong.

13

14

Cancellation: ∼ ⊢

⊢ < Peter, burning>

Analogy with stage acting

Which type of reference act?

Peter is burning.

• Object-dependent reference type

actor

• The actor performs an act of predication in a context in which conventions about stage-acting cancel or override the usual commitments and consequences of predication.

• Something similar happens when you utter the antecedent and consequent of a conditional.

The type of reference act in which someone refers to Peter using any name or referential device. Any act of reference to Peter falls under this reference type.

• Name-dependent reference type ⊢ < ∼⊢, ∼⊢, if> If Russell is right then Frege is wrong.

• In uttering the antecedent I predicate right-ness of Russell, but the consequences of this act of predication are cancelled by the fact that my utterance is inside a conditional.

• A feature of the meaning of ‘if ’ creates a context in which the consequences of

The type of reference act in which someone refers to Peter using the name “Peter”. Only acts of reference to Peter using the name “Peter” fall under this reference type. Peter ≠ object-dependent reference type ≠ name-dependent reference type Peter = semantic reference type

predication are cancelled. 15

16

Example

Semantic reference types

Suppose Joe is a childhood friend of Barack Obama who knew Obama only as “Barry”. Joe does not realize that his friend Barry grew up to become the president of the United States.

Peter = semantic reference type Define a relation R on token acts of reference: x, y = token acts of reference nx, ny = names used in x, y respectively

Barry is president.

xRy iffdef anyone who is semantically competent with nx and ny will realize, under relevantly ideal conditions, that x and y have the same referent.

Michelle

Obama is president.

Me

• Joe is competent with the names “Barry” and “Obama” but does not realize that these two token acts of reference co-refer.

• Intuitively, x and y bear R iff semantic competence with the names used in those tokens is sufficient on its own for knowing that x and y co-refer.

• These two acts of reference do not bear R and so fall under different semantic reference types.

• For a token act of reference x, the semantic reference type of x is the type of reference act of being an act of reference that bears R to x. • The semantic content of a name n is the semantic reference type of token acts of reference using n. Neither a Millian nor a Fregean account of the semantic contents of names.

Barry ≠ Obama • Same for most co-referential names, “Cicero” / “Tully”, “Hesperus” / “Phosphorus”, “Mark Twain” / “Sam Clemens”, etc.

17

Context sensitive semantic reference types

18

Perry’s Enterprise example Perry, “Frege on Demonstratives,” 1977

x, y

token acts of reference

dx, dy

referential terms (names, indexicals or demonstratives) used in x and y

cx, cy

Kaplanian contexts of interpretation for x and y

USS Enterprise

xR*y iffdef anyone who is semantically competent with dx and dy, and can identify the applicable parameters in cx and cy, will realize, under relevantly ideal conditions, that x and y co-refer. That is the Enterprise. Applicable parameters:

“I” agent “now” time etc.

That is the Enterprise.

Perry

• The semantic reference type of a token act of reference x is the type of reference act of being an act of reference that bears R* to x.

• The semantic content of an indexical relative to a context c is the semantic reference type of the use of that indexical in c.

• Perry’s friend is competent with the demonstrative “that” and can identify the applicable parameter in both cases. But Perry’s friend fails to realize that Perry’s token acts of reference co-refer.

• Perry’s token acts of reference do not bear R*, and so fall under different semantic reference types. 19

20

Perry’s Enterprise example

Perry’s messy shopper example

Perry, “Frege on Demonstratives,” 1977

Perry, “The Problem of the Essential Indexical,” 1979

He is making a mess.

USS Enterprise

a

b That is the Enterprise.

I am not making a mess.

That is the Enterprise.

• Perry fails to realize that his two token acts of reference co-refer.

Perry

• These tokens do not bear R*, and so fall under different semantic reference types. ⊢ <, identity>

⊢ <, identity>

21

22

first-person proposition

Non-repeatability Typically, a context sensitive semantic reference type will have at most a single token.

c ⊢

I am making a mess.







e d

f I am making a mess.

I am making a mess.



He is making a mess.

.....................................

Perry is making a mess.



Exceptions:

• Multiple uses of an indexical in a single utterance, e.g. “I think I am making a mess” • Multiple uses of an indexical in the premises and conclusion of an argument.

23

24

Communicability

Grasping vs. entertaining



judgeable/assertable by others

graspable by hearers

Fregean first-person thoughts

NO

NO

my first-person propositions

NO

YES

c I am burning. me hearer

• Because of non-repeatability, no one (including me) can assert or judge another token of this proposition. In that sense, this first-person proposition is inaccessible to others.

• NB: grasping ≠ entertainment • Entertainment is something subjects are supposed to do prior to, or in the course of, making a judgment. I am skeptical about entertainment.

• However, there is no barrier in principle to a hearer recognizing that I have performed a token of this type. First-person propositions are communicable in this sense. Hearers can grasp first-person propositions in the sense that they can recognize that speakers have performed tokens of these types.

• Grasping is something hearers do in understanding a speaker’s utterance. On my view, this is a matter of classifying utterances under types.

• The Fregean picture runs entertainment and grasping together - treats both as neutral cognitive contact with a proposition. 25

26

Hume-Heimson

De se reference

Perry, “Frege on Demonstratives,” 1977

What is it to make de se reference to yourself? What kind of reference act is that? ⊢ <, identity>

super-type What is I?

de se reference type First attempt ⊢ <, identity>

⊢ <, identity>

g

h

I am Hume.

I am Hume.

Hume

Heimson

Intuitively, Hume and Heimson said the same thing. Cf. Lewis, “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se,” 1979.

27

An act of self-reference is de se iff in performing that act the subject cannot fail to know that she refers to herself in that act of reference Problems: too reflective, regress Second attempt An act of self-reference is de se iff in performing that act the subject must lack the (false) belief that she does not refer to herself in that act of reference NB: must hold fixed the fact that the subject is competent with the term she uses in her act of reference 28

Definition of first-person propositions

Back to the problem of de se belief

I = de se reference type = the type of reference act in which a subject refers to herself without the possibility falsely believing that she did not refer to herself

• What is the content of the belief I express when I say “I am burning”?

I

super-type

• The content of this belief must be distinct from the content of the beliefs I express by saying “α is burning”, where “α” is any term or description, other than “I”, that designates me. c



I am burning.



d

me

He is burning.



Peter is burning.



Definition: A first-person proposition is any proposition containing a de se semantic reference type, i.e. a semantic reference type that is a sub-type of I.

29

First-person propositions: • well-defined, not mysterious • communicable • not descriptivist, no problems about rigidity 30

First-Person Propositions

act of predication are cancelled by the fact that my utterance is inside a ... is sufficient on its own for knowing that x and y co-refer. ... Perry is making a mess.

106KB Sizes 1 Downloads 240 Views

Recommend Documents

Against Structured Propositions
data about sentences with embedded clauses to provide evidence for theories ..... proach. Instead of supposing propositions to be unstructured sets, the struc-.

Necessity and Propositions
It​​seems​​to be​​a​​necessary​​feature​​of​​a​​solution​​to​​our​​problem​​that​​it​​either​​gives​​an​​illuminating​​statement​​of conditions ...... more​​practical-min

Propositions, Synonymy, and Compositional Semantics
we can all agree that in the theory of meaning it is better to be direct than indirect. ... 2 See (Hanks 2015, ch.1) for more on the Fregean conception, and why I call it ...... President Obama says that snow is white at a news conference (and that i

Recent Work on Propositions
Section 3 covers two arguments against the existence of propositions, due ..... Schiffer calls entities whose existence can be deduced in this way pleonastic.

The Modigliani-Miller Propositions After Thirty Years
and with new size records being set almost every year. ... incentive and agency problems that might be expected under such high leverage ratios have been ...

Necessity and Propositions Tristan Grøtvedt Haze A ...
but with a new illuminating notion in the place of the big mistake. ...... when I turn from elaborating my account of necessity​ de dicto (Chapter 5), to the development of ...... Longman, Green, & Company, Inc.: New York. Quine ...... point of app

The Emergence of Propositions from the Co-ordination ...
co-ordinated parsing of the visual eld (in service of the built-in goal), ...... The data represent each agent's production of a “test corpus” at this point in time.

Customer Value Propositions in Business Markets
exploration of the article's ideas and applications. 11 Further ... If you sell products to other companies, you know how hard it's ..... An online tracking tool al-.

Comments on New Thinking about Propositions, by Jeff ...
Feb 21, 2015 - parallels between Speaks's approach and Russell's. Both reduce propositions to non- representational entities: facts for Russell, global properties for Speaks. Both identify truth and falsity with properties had by these non-representa

Propozície - Propositions Z POLYTANU SK CUP CACIT 2016.pdf ...
Within the competition is held the open Championship of Slovakia for. Belgian Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweiler, Boxers. 14th. -16th October, 2016 Malý ...

Why the idea of framework propositions cannot contribute
looking at marble tables in a café, becomes convinced that the world is about to end. Maher suggests ... He takes as his starting point the fact that. Delusions and ...

Speaks's Reduction of Propositions to Properties: a ...
Sep 22, 2016 - University of California, Davis ... the best candidates to which propositions might be reduced. If one then decided to .... world w and any proposition p, either (i) at w, everything instantiates p, in which case p is true at w or (ii)

Argument structure and existential propositions at the ...
meaning as part of their core predication (Freeze 1992; Borschev and Partee 2002, and .... distribution of there will not play a role in the analysis here)2 b. ... 3It is likely, as McCloskey suggests, that the content of ann—and particularly the .

Why the idea of framework propositions cannot contribute
be explained in natural scientific terms). They are un-understandable. If Jaspers is correct then psychiatry has a fundamental limitation: it cannot achieve ...

A critical Look at some Propositions on consumption ...
expenditure in both rural and urban India, over the ..... Let us try to solve the puzzle. If the relation of calorie intake to MPCE levels (which is available only for the .... account of non-food items under the .... limits are fixed except for the