Philosophy of language and mind

OK. Today, it's if about recombines. I suppose that this is going to be photographing the first five minutes. So I'm going to do a piece on learning in later life. The Saga magazine, you are demonstrating that they all the plan events like. I do apologise. That's right. I guess so. Yes, I certainly will. Yes. What I find. But you know what this is about. Say goodbye. Yes, I think it's something anyway.

And Max is something I wanted to visit. So we're going to talk about lots of it. I had this last lecture to remember last week. I asked you to look at the online courses. I'm going to do is I'm going to run through what the online course looks like, what you would have to do, sort of course, as there are how it works. So I go online to that point. So you can see exactly what it's like. You don't have to say, let's don't want to serve three years. You can go OK or stay or if you feel like it.

I'm not sure it could be now that somebody in that region. OK. So let's look at the language and my philosophy of which is literally the philosophy of language. I think I've mentioned to you before. The thing about philosophy is because it's content neutral logic, the methodology we use, it doesn't matter in what area. You use logic. Language is one of the areas that you could do a philosophy of language. And that's exactly what I said. I looks at things like what is meaning?

Because the thing about language is the words and sentences. What have you claimed to have? Meaning. Meaning, exactly. Very, very interesting and deep philosophical question. How do words refer to objects? So I told you that the top his name was Richard. OK. I'll just quote Richard, which is just sounds awful. How does it refer to it? So that is it. So this is a particle. And if I mentioned the jumbuck, OK, I've done it without the person being here.

But you still. Why. Why you don't mind referring to when I say we're told that somebody will live. Another question related to those words. We actually understand each other. This 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 it in terms of cause and effect and I watch two of you conversing, do I explain that to in terms of. Or is this an explanation with a different kind?

Okay, so those are the questions that we look at, both the medical offices and possibly language. But those are the three I have today and then we'll go and find. So let's look first at me. So language, trust me. All of this is involved in language is the sounds which I am making now. We shouldn't be using your years. I could be speaking in French. They could be getting a raise without that big old French. But so let's say jump think that's okay.

And the sounds would be hitting your ears and there would be no understanding there. With that, my words would have no meaning to you unless you speak. So I speak Japanese as well. And I'd like to pay for, you know, to write for the flip charts you're reading watching on here. How did these squiggles on paper have meaning to you? How come you know the words elephant or you hear the word elephant?

And you you're immediately thinking of the Animal House. And it's not just because of the effects either. It's not just that you've put social it that words with that tangible because you can do it without the animal there. Okay. There's more to me than just cause and effect. One explanation for me is that we should think of meaning as the conditions of truth and falsehood. So think about your trying to explain the meaning of the word cat to a child.

I think I used to see. Before. So I think you're picking it up, right? Well, what would you do? You'd point out lots of different parts and somebody black, some of you would begin just some of the big fat cats or something, the cats and some tabby and so on. Some holds, some kittens. And what would be good is that the child would abstract away the essential callousness of all the examples you are pointing to. You not got what you're trying to do.

And then what would you do to test the child's understanding that the child's applauds the meaning of the word pass? How would you do that to show another picture? That was what was different, for example. OK. I'm gonna carry on. I did not want to ask you that. You say there's lots of pushing at what you can. Oh. You might say what it's like if you start with a stutter pussycat. If we're talking about teaching the child to give us a few clues, that sort of.

OK. What would you wait for? You said you showed a picture of a horse. Unbelievable. Good for you. Not a bit of both. If you learn the lessons of Katherine, we've said. No. OK. So testing the understanding that the child has got. You'll show pictures of cats and say it's what you have to devote to it. Is that the answer? Yes. You'll show pictures of dogs and other animals. And hope to elicit the answer. No. You'll sometimes say, what is that?

I hope to elicit the answer. Cat, I'm so upset. What are you actually testing for here? Well, what are you testing, boys? That count has grasped the conditions under which that is a cat is true. And that is a cat is false. You see what I mean? So you showed a picture of a cat and say, is this a pussy cat? It says, yes, there. But all you show is a picture of a passive say. What's that? So it says it's the cat. And it's demonstrating because it knows the conditions under which this is a cat.

It's true. I think you show the dog and you say, is this a pussy? So the child says, no. It's demonstrating that it's understood. The conditions under which this is a cat is false. Do you see what I mean? So lots of people feel that if you ask the question, well, to these meetings, the answer is meaning all the conditions of truth. So, I mean, it is the conditions of truth and of falsehood almost since it's.

OK. You've got to have me off uns falsehoods in there because I can show the dog in its sights. This is a catch that it clearly hasn't got it, has it? It's not on the spook yet. So what it's got to cross in order to understand to grasp the meaning of the sentence. This is a cat. It's got to know the conditions under which this account is true. And this is a cat is false. Once it's got no. Do you think it now knows.

Read it, don't you? There isn't anything more. The child has to do to show that sounds good.

Me. So lots of people look sort of demeaning as conditions of truth and falsity. That's what we're grabbing. And notice that meaning Colin's come apart from understanding to know the meaning of the sentence is to understand that sentence, isn't it? Okay, so meaning that if you construct a theory of meaning, what you are doing is constructing a theory of what it is. The people who speaks perfect language to understand something.

A case of meaning and understanding. Get it together. OK, so we're asking, how does language have meaning? We've got some hypotheses here. Maybe. Meaning constitutes the conditions of truth and falsehood. But 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. OK.

Right, Richard? Actually, no, I'm sorry. That's actually a very bad example because he's here and you know what I'm talking about. Well, I want to write this. John, is this tall? OK. You want to sign that sentence? Thank you. You understand what the meaning of that sentence is? Do you think somebody said no? No. They won't give it to you. OK. You want some what that means. But now tell me it's truth body. Is it true or false? It could be either. Since you don't know the truth. Audio of that.

But. But how can you know the meaning of something without being able to determine whether it's true or false? I mean, how she knows the meaning of something without being able to determine whether it's true or false.

There is also this question that no one wanted to admit it. Let's see if we can get it. Thoughts, you know what somebody is pushing for. Thank you for your concern. Because if we could fall back to spirit, why not? Why can't you? I mean, that was very good. But why do you have the communications? Of which information do you need? Don't need to know what this was. He refers to what else you need to know. What is told means as well.

Okay, um, 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. You see what I mean? That's why it's got tough folks around, because it's just a tiny percentage this, isn't it? It's a sentence that could be used to tell you something. So this sentence, the reason I suddenly realised it was a bad example. And did you see why it was a bad example? You've understood what I'm saying.

OK. This was a bad example because I said Ritchies is OK for having just introduced you to Richard, the photographer. So, of course, you can determine the truth value of that. So I was mentioning that. But I could just use this and therefore I confused you. Whereas this one might only benefit. I'm not using a tool and it's only a sentence in use that has a true value. Does that make sense? I that have facts and they have parents.

Well, in fact that's what I'd say. This is a type of sensories which which has very much has meaning, but it's just tough for me to say it's because you can't determine the truth, value what you understand. This is a census type. That could be used to say something. A pay could be used to say something, but it isn't being used to say something. I'm just talking about it. So I think that's what you meant. But but to use the technical terminology, this is a sentence type.

Not an abstract sentence sentence time, which could be used to say something. I did my job. No. It must be the only thing I her. I'm going to call you John, sir. Yes. OK. Would you like stand up? This is John. And now I'm going to use a sentence, I would say John Paul. Okay. Now I'm using this sentence. How do you determine the truth finally? Now you want to sell it to us. But most people, I think, would say yes. What was high tell you, John?

Fine. Fine. I know. Well, anyway, I think 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 the meaning. But it's not enough to determine the truth in the second case. Did you grasp the meaning? You know, enough to determine the truth. You. So in the first place, you know only the conditions of truth and falsehood.

Okay, so you know, a meaning that consists in nothing more than the conditions in which this sentence would be true. You would see. Whereas the minute I tell you to whom it refers, assuming you all understand what his total means, you could then determine the truth from you.

So if you know the truth conditions plus the context, you can determine the truth value. Okay. So some people have said that meaning in essence, the conditions of truth and falsity. It's actually the use of the conditions of truth and false. So this if I write I told the board without using is a tool that doesn't have any meaning. What you will prosper is grasping for. It's very difficult to not say what it means. This is not the meaning.

Okay. You're you're grasping what it could be used to be, but not its meaning. It's only what I actually make it concrete. I'm putting up your book. It's only when I tell you what John refers to, whom John prefers doesn't have proper meaning. So people talk about weak and strong meaning. And some people say that weak means less meaning, the meaning way unlawful use. If you just mentioned that it is that we need to talk and other people say this is meaning,

but there's meaning and there's use and there are two different things. You had a question. First of all, it's not so I that we should answer it. And you said comes up using that then this particular meaning of the word, you are using it to refer. No. Oh, I'm using it as an example. I'm not using the sentence to I seem to express that. Which is why it's wrong. Because it's it's very important. If I. I can. If like Roy Flat, that of which of those I say testify. That who's. What does it say?

I can't say what it says. What does this Chad and the is hair with quotes around it. OK. OK. Which of these could I say? Gates has five letters on the bottom one and only the bottom one, because here I'm using it to mean Chad. And here because they're close friends. I'm talking about the word on time. If I say Chad equates rounds, I'm not talking about chess a tool. I mean, it's very difficult to do this already. But if I say Chad has five letters, that's a grammatical sentence, isn't it?

Whereas FISA chair has five letters. Is that's a grammatical sentence? No, it isn't. And that's because I'm not making it clear by mentioning the word Chad, not using the word Chad. So there's a huge difference to use Mench against anyone these days, understands that quote. So used very sparingly and often wrongly and actually changes the meaning usually. So let me ask you this, when I first, whose job is Ocean?

Well, just put that sentence that I wasn't using, as I was mentioning, and then I was talking about it. And then when I use it to say all this talk, you could then determine the truth. But at what point you that to meaning if you can't tell the truth by yet. So if I ask for a sentence of. Well, I think it's a meaningful sentence. But are you able to determine which you can't. But unless you speak Russian.

So the meaning is completely useless to you. Sounds if you don't grasp with meaning generosity and two sentences meaning you don't tell them sunder. Speaking English I know you don't feel you used it. Well, what do you think I did? Well, two other people think, oh, OK. I'm just saying, if I'm talking about this tool in order to teach the verb to be. Am I using the old mentioning in the sentence. John is tall.

I actually I can do both, but I'm saying John is tall. John and Susan. Not all. John, Susan and No. I am too. I can't decline it. What am I doing? Would you rather. But I'm not using the sentence. John is toward healing. Yes. I'm mentioning it sounds I mean, I'm using the mention office to teach grammar superheavy. I'm using the mention of the census to teach. I'm not using the sentence from this tool. I do not intend to convey to you the information that John is taught.

I intend to convey to you the information that is is the correct. Got it right. OK. So we've got two hypotheses here about what the meaning is. One is the meaning is the conditions of the publicity 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 you. Okay, let's say that John is tall, as you brought me back, lost 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. So you don't actually grasp the meaning of this at all. You only cross the meaning when I say John is all right. So one theory is should be very clear.

Memories of meeting. What is truth? Theory? The second is use clearly. And you may be interested to hear that both of those are attributable to other people as well. But pre-eminent leaving injured time, the earlier victims sign for truth. Conditions vary, but later they can find full forward use theory. And he thought that if you persist, you accept to use that 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 with 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 meeting. Plus, we've got the strict literal truth is. Two slightly positive conditions, I say two conditions short, but she always handles the conditions as well.

The group tax free movement forward, that is that was the beginning of the Panopto. What are we gonna do? Can you still see the street actually? How about that? That's a. So I've got several things surface here 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, once you understood that the use of the meaning of the sentence, I started thinking the truth conditions or the use of the sentence, the door shut for truth conditions. You've understood how that sentence could be used. If I use that. OK. So I'll now use the door. It's not the case. The door is closed. OK. So I've use that sentence in Beijing. Another sentence if I wanted to answer something true. But maybe not something false.

The door. A shot was like using or imagining that sentence. I was using it then, wasn't I? I determined that it's false. So I felt I should simply. 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 for the sake of the door shut. In each case, I'm using a different tone on type esoteric term in the final case, interrogative tone, imperative tone, etc. So I operate in court, not sentenced to change what I'm doing with it.

You see what I mean? I'm using it in different ways here. The one sentence or one set of strict literal truth conditions plus a number of operations. Oh, not change what I'm doing with it then I've got. Sorry that was true. Or. That's because with which I'm using the senses not to tone is something different. But here is the door shut. Get a glass to make good on that. Do you see what I mean. I'm being sarcastic all the time. Something like that too.

So Tony can sometimes change things. I'm not angry. OK, what did I just say? You meaning you will adopt from that is that I'm hungry, won't you? It's also a tool. But, you know, I'm using the strict literal truth conditions, an esoteric force and a tone of that makes it absolutely clear that you understand the complete opposite of what was fixed.

Literal truth. Conditions are OK. So I can use those strictures to treat conditions in many different ways, depending on how varied the false undertone. And here's no one asked me whether so-and-so is a good philosopher. Ask me whether. Sorry. Until then. Peter asked me whether this is a good philosopher, Peter, a good listener. His handwriting is excellent. I want to say what you said earlier about Felstead. What if I just said exactly.

People understood immediately had to give up. You understood because I used the script to mithril truth conditions in the normal way. No. The fact is, the context changed everything. You didn't you thought you understood what I said. If you hadn't understood districts and literal truth. So what you needed was the whole thing, didn't you?

You needed to know that I was answering a question of whether certain meeting with an audience would be a the answer to a different question, but when is an insultingly irrelevant of to this particular question. And therefore, it do something different. The relevance, in other words, to something some change of mediated by. So if this is a representation of meaning, some people say this is me.

All right. So that's the truth. Condition theory of eating and other people thinks that you've got to have all of this before you have meaning. So that's the early sign of truth commission theory. And that's the late British. That used islands. Then there are people like me who think you've got to have those thoughts, actually.

You've got to understand a set of strict a literal truth conditions before you then operate on those strict literal truth conditions in all the different ways to generate strong reading. So I call that and so many other philosophers. This is not just me. We have meaning. And this is a strong feeling. So meaning is ambiguous. The word meaning is unambiguous. Lots of different meanings of the word, meaning certain. But what I've done is gone through.

We've got this and how I have landed at this time. Happy to allow with squiggles to sound soft, meaning one response is really of the truth and falsity problem with that history. It doesn't distinguish that use meaning. So other people think that meaning is use. And how do things like context contribute? Well, what they 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.

As you said. Understood. His handwriting is excellent. If you haven't understood both districts and this will treat conditions and the context with you had to get both of those to understand. And there are all sorts of other examples like that. Search being. What's your name? Yeah. If you're being late every single time to this lecture in ten minutes, few funds isn't the same as the door to door when I say early again.

What have I said? So you know, the tone of sarcasm, together with the context that you do, turns the meeting around again. And you know that because you are English speakers who answer some really old cultural have never. It's certainly the case that you do have to believe that there isn't any meaning in English because of being a marathon speaker. There are different context, different, totally different forces.

But it also means so different languages. They use different conventions to do the same thing. So this is where all the plot doesn't tell me. Can anyone give me an example of where would you like to go? Well, I'm sure there are issues. This is art. I make sure I get a good one. There are all sorts of others such that if you know I'm sorry, I come from a single example, but you have 10 tenses could be done different in different ways.

It's called the questions can be done differently in different languages. So each language is different. Of course, the problem, the counter individuated language, I might say Irish and English in the same language, or you might say that difference for that very reason. The here. So the American Navy ship right now is down.

But let's hope we have some rough minorities. It's a case where I can say, I'm sure, American and French, that you have the philosopher's tool making when you go I by doing so well, maybe those three. Well, what do you do? Have language. You're not really interested in that you you're interested in the noble advance meaning. And so it would it not interest that. Oh yeah. You know for me because. Fact, if the person doesn't phone stand and say, wait, do you want to send me back?

Of course, but they wouldn't particularly be interested in examining of a malfunctioning speak of language. And in this case, there is a malfunction. Do you have a video if you want to understand the phenomenon itself? You will you will look at normal function of that phenomenon and then you might go from that to look it up. Normal functioning. That's indeed by right. It's a fact. We'll talk a bit about something like that before.

But I had the chance to get one of us. I mean, there's something about. I mean. It to be something that every person would come through. It's valuable, but isn't it isn't truth valuable? I mean, when I was excited about ethics, I said to you, what would happen if I 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, great communication would break down completely, wouldn't it?

Because what would be the point that I ask you, what's a little set of all you tell me? That I think, well, can I believe her? So truth is hugely valuable. Honest exchange of information. And of course, we're not just talking about inflation, but the cinema. If I say I love you. Fine. Of course, in that sense, it's rough for you. I want to talk about that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I say, I love you, I'm getting information.

I'll type it, but it's information of a different kind from. But it's still the case that you hope that the conditions that make that sentence true. Point actually, a team, if I said that, sends this 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 feeling, but the value is usually attached to truth.

And if you shoot the truth about all sorts of things that we value right now, for example, we'll just a different people seem to find meaning differently. Oh, you're about being in a rather metaphorical sense here. I mean, there's another sense, meaning the meaning of a picture or a painting or something like that. The meaning of it. And what's the meaning of wearing that dress? Do you see what I mean? Is that 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 sort of the meaning of paintings or dresses or whatever. Oh, my God. You've got to do 20 years going to the meaning of life. I the with your analysis now. Oh well do another few lectures. I think we need to not only just starting with the beauty of the meaning of life. I'd be lecturing for 22 years now. I'm just asking. I mean, it's actually.

She was was. But what's the meaning of wearing that dress? I mean, that's an emotional thing. She knows I have a lot to do. I was going to wear that dress today. Why is she wearing that one, which is Crankcase with it? That's an emotional thing. You know, I love you. Doesn't that have an emotional me? I hate you. I love your skills as an emotional lady. But the meaning is in order to get the emotion behind my entrance or something, you got to understand the strict literal truth conditions of it.

If you didn't understand the conditions under which I love you, it's true, then you wouldn't get any emotional response when I say I love you because you know what that means. You see what I mean? The emotion is second to reading. It's to do with understanding it, but it's understanding. The meaning is what causes whatever emotion you work for. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's a secondary metaphorical meaning of meaning.

So that painting has a set meaning to me is not talking about language is a system that's painting and I'm talking about philosophy and language.

That man is not a sentence. He's a man. So that's not the meaning sort of meaning. I said to you that the meaning is multiple because I get one more Westerlund that I think just just matter. Is that his own words? Well, we can call it something like that. I think most people use meaning to use meaning in that context. So you would 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.

Focus on why the word meaning is used in that way as well as the other way. OK. So that's that's meaning when it comes time to see how the words effect objects. So I talk about meaning a meaning is actually a function of sentences instead of meaning, not words. This let me convince you of this. If I say chair, what if I said thank you. Yes, I had such was once a word. A word. I said anything with meaning. I haven't time. I, I've, I've given you anything with conditions. Apparels.

No. I can do anything I have. I use the word share in any meaningful way. OK, what I've got to give you to get meaning is is structured. OK. One word will not do it. There a lot you might think though. One word sentences. I say go. I'll give you something with truth conditions sometime. What you do is not is not fulfilled with conditions. Come on. Do you see what I mean. But where is the structure?

And yes, the English language is not there's a structure somewhere is they're actually the subject, but in some way. But you go back, they said the demonstration is part of the structure. The implicit to you, which comes from the classes, is an imperative that you go there. A. You've got something that has truth conditions. Now, what is good? If I don't talk to you and I do it demonstrate has no meaning, does it.

So in order to get. Meaning you've got a sense, something of structure, of words does not have meaning except in its contribution to a sentence. So when you're looking at a sentence like this. John is tall. OK? It's composed 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 words with actions or the contribution made by the words to the sentences.

It's also the way those words combines, says the grammar, the syntax, as well as the semantics of the word. So to understand that, you've got to understand who Joan Rivers and of course, you might to kill a name. So you've got to know to what Joan Rivers. And you've got to know what is tool is OK. Well, how do we do this? Well, let me tell you that, Calvin, introduce a new word for you. Get bouquet. Would you stand up for turn and face everyone.

You the same. And John, do you do the same, please? I'm Roger. I think that's it. OK. Not all these people are gross. Oh, gross. I'm not British. Neither is honest. OK, I know it's not broche either, but Pacer isn't gross. OK. Have we understood what is Groshen means? Yes. Is clarity glasses. OK. Another. How do you spell duration? Yes, I think about that issue.

The way I got you to understand that was by identifying your thoughts of people as Roesch, identifying a few others to see what I was doing. I was giving you the truth and conditions of this group. Well, it's true that something is broken. There's also something special. 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 the sentence. Okay. So in understanding a sentence, you're grasping the truth conditions and the skills and the use and an understanding of words. The to be the condition that cited the contribution made by those words to a sentence in which the words used. And once you've understood his approach, you can understand it in different contexts, can't you? Would you set up these turn and face people? Are you as this person, Groeschel not?

Yes, they are. OK, so you understand things like this question do separate is where I put this. Someone says that his son is gone. And as you heard, was difficult. Have you understood this means? Did you? And this is because words of the two actions that you've put together in various combinations and it just gives you in 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 combinations. And that gives you a potentially infinite understanding. OK. So how do we get to know the words refer? Well, some people have said since its definition, but pointed to the dot and say dot is broche thumbs up. OK, great. Would you have understood what I meant? I say, look, she's British. Well, I'm not. You'll use the word, but what why? Look, I'm ostensibly to the evil.

Yeah, it looks to us I'm pointing my point to a gracious even if I get my. I don't the thing is, I don't point to any one aspect of anything. I like what you have to say, that it could easily mean that the colour of the cattle, the sheep, the council whispers on the cattle. I mean, you're quite old movies instead of weekend school next weekend. Coyne says if you're in a foreign country, something points to the rabbit, says you got a guy.

OK. Do you seem to have a diving's rabbit? Or does it mean that rabbit fly is because in this particular country that applies, there's always fly around with rabbits, so you never see a rabbit without seeing rabbit flies. So I ostensively defining Gotho guy by pointing to the rabbits a rabbit fly. And how are you going to distinguish that. Oh do I mean by Gotho die attached detached rabbit part. In other words, I mean part of a rabbit isn't detached from a rabbit.

Because you never get those without seeing rabbits do you. So how do you do that. Avodart these functions as opposed to rabbit fly or defunct detached rabbit part you think. Oh shoot it. Yes. Yes. Well something, something like that might be a different.

I think if you ask somebody something was dangerous, you couldn't do something bold enough states to be defined that you know something. I knew I was upset. I think maybe you. Fine. Okay. So since its definition, it can't be an explanation. Also, since that time we would find. Says Felicitas, all, how about the words? And how do you ostensibly to find the words? And yet somehow you managed to have the word? I tell you, it's hard to believe.

But it wasn't because your mother simply defined it for you. It must be how you tell. The word is written. But of course, that's a very different thing for learning. Reading. Well, I said that what they've been pointing to demonstrative. Another question is, if we take a day like Anna, OK, it's the beginning 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 crossed the maybe you cross its reference.

OK. We'll just have a sense as well. OK. So she is. Word. Silverwood. If I'm spending properly, this is his first. This has phosphorus. OK. Now. These you might think that they both want, but they do compete. So they are both names for Venus, the planet Venus, which appears both in the morning and in the evening. So Hesperus became associated with his Russia mining for getting Companies Leather's morning star of the Evening Star.

But that, say, the Morning Star and Phosphorus became associated with the evening star. OK, so his first impulse is have the same reference. But you don't know that's true initially. I mean, imagine yourself before a solid astronomers showed that Hesperus false phosphorus that the saw we see in the morning is the very same style that we see in these things. You would have been very attracted to that. Hesperus is phosphorous, wouldn't you?

And yet you two crossed the meaning of the word. All you need to know is its reference. Then surely you would have known because you know the reference of Hesperus, you know, the restaurant of phosphorus and they all the same thing. So you should have known that long ago. You didn't. So the thought is that xpress and phosphorus must have something other than reference, meaning they must have a sense as well. And some people thought, what was science? Is it? Here's Venus and Phosphorus.

Here's one root of presentation of Venus. And test for us is another move to the present and to do this. So you could talk about me as Miss Albert, for you to talk about me as Marianne.

In both cases, you referred to me, but you use names with different different ways of presenting. Take the same writer and of course, epigraph, which has numerous ways. OK. So I could point to you as the woman in the orange scarf or the woman sitting next to the chap with a beard and long hair or the woman sitting behind Donna and all these different ways of getting a few different modes of presentation of you.

And I could associated name with each of them. It was like the woman with a pink and orange scarf. His suits, OK, the woman sitting next to the man with beard long hair is Jennifer. And then I tell you, Susan is Jennifer. I don't know why bother doing that, but that's OK. OK, so Postern is definition can't be an explanation of how the words refer. The reference of words can't be that then meaning all their own, they've got to have sense as well.

And then of course there are different types of breakfront. OK. Don't stand up. Sorry to say that. OK. Now sit down again. Now everybody stand off these. Undertows said. OK. Now sit down, if you will. Hey, sit down. If your wearing colours, colours, all of us. That's just the timing of this. Sit down if your not Grolsch. We also think so. Okay. Sit down. If you're wearing anything brown. So you sit down and they have to sort it out, if you're worried, if you're wearing a white t shirt.

Sit down, if you will. Wearing orange or if you've got some flak jacket or a fuel wearing a grey jumper. I spoke to one plus. So George is the person who is not wearing any of these things. Okay, so I can uniquely refer to it. I I tried to help you not to using the rhetoric, referring to designator, don't stand tall, stand up, or I can pick out Dalts by describing her uniquely.

And I do. This is another way. Here's a smart way of doing it. It sounds like it sounds up, but there's someone else where you can jump on it. So smart. Nice form of government. Stands up if you're wearing a pink pink jumper over a pink and grey shirt. That was easy. So do you see that there's different types of references, IBRA? Oh, I'd like to go straight for the person. Or I could 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 and designators as much as names from. But of course they they designated or refer in a completely different way, didn't they. So once I come up with the others like that, as we often have to use the next, but we cannot also go wrong.

I say good person drinking martinis stand up and say you drink from the martini glass. But actually she's got water in a martini. And so my reference goes from very difficult questions by how far I succeeded referring to you. Nevertheless, if you're not drinking martini. So the description is false. And yet you managed to do that halfway. You've got to see what was said. Well, I just need to be more precise. I managed to get you even know my references. It wasn't that big. Yes, but.

I thought martini. Okay. So lots of questions. And how do words refer? Now, I've just got to mind this. How do you understand the culture of one group of people say we use a theory. Just as I explained the physical world in terms of cause and effect, in terms of postulating theories and then looking for you can afford to support the fact. So how do I understand you? Well, I think know he's a person of a certain age of a certain time for certain.

So when they say they're simple being this. Lots of people would say, well, actually, that's not good enough, because if I went to a library to understand you, well, I've got to understand you in all your individuality. Well, I ought to be doing this is you say something crazy instead of saying, well, this is obviously crazy. I'm not listening to you anymore. I've got to say, why is that rational person saying something that sounds crazy? I must have misunderstood. OK. So what do you mean?

You asked another question. So this one says that we understand each other on the principle of the uniformity of nature. Exactly like any other parts of the physical world. There's no difference between you in this chair. In terms of my understanding. Your behaviour of charity says no. In order to understand things like you, I 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 all that, I could not maybe not even. But I can't just do this. What I've got to do to simulate you. I've got to put myself in your position. And what do I do? Says, hey, I'm not putting myself in your position, because when I do nothing, you get me decide what I'm doing. So 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, that's interesting, I think, oh, my God. And I know how much stock likes Madonna. I saw and I said, Oh, Fantastic Dolls, because I transformed myself into adults. And I see that she's telling me this because she wants me to to infuse with her about Madonna.

You see what I mean? So this simulation said these are three different theories about how you understand people. And believe me, that people are nearly as as all these theories at the moment, because 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 three. But some people think that it's either one or the other.

And whichever combination I think it is here, theory apparently projected now that it will be a simulation charity deputy, not area. So all sorts of permutations. But the theory of interpretation is a very big area. Lots of big. So we will be sure that. And sorry to us again. This will be years before that. I don't need not be sure about this, not because I mean it it was I would say you were not an actual English speaker.

I've no idea what you are not. But you have to learn English from a dictionary and ta door to door. And I said his handwriting is excellent. You use of theory. Theory. She's speaking English with the Swedish census. We can get anywhere with it. But you said charity. You might see that. The answer I'm giving is not an answer to the question, but would you understand me.

You specifically. Well, again, would you understand the answer? No. So I think these are perhaps, you know, it was a combination of necessary conditions from the study. But I doubt I think it would be much impossible to get any serious meaning which would guarantee that way to know the theory that would be sufficient to understand anyone. Could I speak English pretty well? But that doesn't guarantee that I understand things that you can say to me.

But up to now, I was reading one language, one that we were fun as understanding with which you could sign, which also side of things. And. Well, as I said, I'm not saying that it's not just language you're on to something. So just like you don't stand there either. OK. Let's move on to Biden's left. All of this lost his mind, focuses on questions like what is a mental state? OK. This is a mental state. How does the mental interact with the physical?

What's the nature of rationality and consciousness? I'm going to look at this, I think. Yes. You know, each of them separately, briefly faces look at nature of mental states. Descartes thinks that the mind is quite distinct from the body, but they are not the same thing me. And the reason that he thinks that, if you remember, is because he opens up between the mind and the world. And, in fact, that this is a pussy cat. A demon. Okay. But let's think about this for a minute.

In the world, we thought things like patterns, sheds, human bodies. We've got relations between these things like causation. So there are events like sounds that spatial relations. So Anna is sitting on a chair or there's a human body sitting on a chair. So there's spatial relations between these things. There are temporal relations between events. OK. Now, let's look at the mind. What sorts of objects or mental objects? I'll give you their beliefs. Sombat desires intentions.

OK. These are mental states. Now over. I'm sorry. I've got to go to Portland. OK, fair enough. Now all of these blue. Called Square is completely wrong, isn't it? Lots of the properties of mental things. I think it would take me out of belief at the moment. What sort of property does a belief have? This belief is strong. Strong. Yes, they put their degrees of certainty to report.

So because it's probably physically for virtual certainty, let's say three justifications to justify sorry, said it's going to be. I think isn't that sad, no. Oh, thank you. I've I've got a justification because colours come in intensities, too, and it's different. But they used. Simply, Spliffs saw show halls. Justified or unjustified? True or false? What else are they? Four o'clock is over at 8:00. You could say that. Yes, I was born eight. OK. What else, Solveig?

Unfair. I'm not sure beliefs or fair intentions might be. Beliefs just seem to be truth related. Well, do you really?

Again, that would be degrees of justification. It is an untested belief, would be an unjustified. They have content that they have intentionality to use a technical term. You can't have a belief that doesn't have a content. Can you? OK, do you have a brief? It doesn't have the content. The chair is blue or dots wearing pink or pieces wearing blue. Every belief has got to have a content hasseltine. That means it's got to have intentionality on quality of explicit.

Today is the technical term for it. All it means is about this. Everybody has a this. This is got to be about something or other. OK, what about relations between these tables? I mean, do they have spatial relations? Do you want to leave on top of another? You can metaphorically, perhaps one one is coming on top of another thing. Not necessarily. Can you? Can you believe somebody did number one cheque signs and other?

You can have one head in the side of that chart. Can you please sign your children that late again? Metaphorically, but not literally. I think that ought to be spatial relations here in the mind that businesses are on top of a belief, gets a new attention. Installing does not take so thoroughly to the other temporal relations to these. One thing they're not to be superseded by another. They're all temporarily sold between medals. And so I had that desire before I hold that we.

Not for nothing. But I will say this on. So there are temporal relations. There's another type of relation to beliefs and desires and lives on rational relations. Normally, I made you tell me that. But we haven't got time. So if I say if the dog barks, if we're strangers, don't dog. They're all strangers. Therefore, the dog will fall. OK. There are rational relations between those two beliefs. We talked about what we did contract. So if the first two beliefs are true, the third will be true.

So there are rational relations between beliefs. OK. Now let's look at this again. Do pairs Paganism shares for international relations? No. Okay. Do penance have intentionality? Are they about things? No. They do. Human volunteers have rational relations with each other. I'm not we might be reminded us here. Human bodies have spatial relations that they I'm in front of. I fructify. So human bodies are.

Is my mind in front of Ivy's mind. It would be very funny thing to say once it happens to be true. Is this pen? It may make a sentence, true? Michael, is this pen is blue. It's made true by this. But it is not itself true. If there weren't any beliefs and battle sentences with express beliefs, there wouldn't be any truth of one major question here is many beliefs cause all that causal racial relations between beliefs. What do you think? OK, you're right.

But actually, causation within the mind is usually a malfunction. If my desire that my husband is is having no [INAUDIBLE] affair, no [INAUDIBLE] cause, it's my belief that he isn't having an affair.

OK. I'm I. There's something going right here. It distances it because the fact is that they desire that my husband isn't coming to the there is no reason at all for the belief he isn't having an affair. Is it? What I thought there is is wishful thinking on the creation. One belief can cause another simply because I'm associated with the two beliefs in my mind.

But also the relation you want between your beliefs and the deed to your designs, to these sort of disfunctional relations, not simply causal relations. Sometimes, you know, there's nothing wrong necessarily with having causal relationship between your association is quite useful in many cases, but actually without reason you'd be in serious trouble. It's rational relationship between your beliefs, not false ones. So why do you always obfuscate all mental states, physical states?

Well, the physical things like Penn just didn't seem to have any of the properties or relations that mental state mental states like beliefs don't seem to have any of the properties or relations the physical state is going for. So please call me blue or square or honourable. Sue Moss. We think that mental states, all of the very same thing as physical states.

And yet. Well, coming up, we're about the first generation who has assumed the mental states, all physical states, because we know that the brain is very important to the mind. And we just assumed that all but they all seem to agree on what they say as far as what's being said to my crochets. Oh, boy. My next report. For me, yes, sir. So when you hear people on the television said the word brain instead of mine, you can say, oh, they shouldn't be doing that at all.

What do you make yourself? 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 in mind for any length of time, you will see the need to physicalism the idea that mental states are physical state. So my belief that P is nothing more than a brain state of mind. You'll see that actually that's hugely unlikely. It's not a reason to think it's unlikely.

Okay, I. But let's you stop. She said, I think. I probably I'm thinking about Doc now. I'm thinking the dot is wearing a pink jumper. Now if dot ts. Cordylines. Very funny. Do you think got. I have a belief like capons, I could have a belief about a woman wearing pants sitting in front of me. In other words, I could give a brief description of someone very similar to the opposite. But could I have the belief that Dalt is wearing a pink jumper?

I have a belief about tot's arsehole. A dog doesn't exist. No, it doesn't seem I could provide. Well, if that's true, given the time, I would have. We'll take a break. Stay tight. Outfits underpinning my belief about thoughts wearing. I could talk about couldn't find whether Toltz existed or not. Because what goes on inside my brain, this is goes on quite independently of DOT's existence or not. And yet I couldn't have a belief about to alter it.

Dot didn't exist. So my having a belief is been true of Marianne that she has a belief about dolls is dependent upon the existence of thought. Whereas Mayan's having the brains states for those opinions, her belief about Dalt is completely independent and dalts existence or not. So how can that brain state be the very same thing as liability?

It could be. So it may well be that brain brain states, all necessary conditions that have in place that the relation between the brain states hugely important, which 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 states, you'll spot yourself in the wrist and say Mariamne like that, you'll stop doing it. If you want to understand more about why you should do a. Also philosophy of mind.

Well, they pick your courses that have to be because somebody beliefs foreign policy states. OK. Is your mind. Oh. Now we've asked an interesting question that you've asked. Where in space is my mind. But mine's potential into spatial relations. So your because your hopefully the mind is on the model of a physical object. You're asking a question. That would be a question you obviously have because no physical object could exist without existing in space.

But the question of whether a mind exists in space. What do you want to say? I have to say mindstate exist is. Did he call him last? That is also why they didn't exist where two live events were in special occasions. If the minds were afraid, then my mind would be inside my head as I was, if my mind were inside my head. My belief that doctors wearing a pink jumper would also be a suicide. No, because my belief the dots were each of us couldn't exist unless Dot existed.

Whereas everything that's in my head, it exists independently of existing. That's true. But the husband and wife are married and the husband called their husband without his wife or the husband is independent, told his wife. Do you see what I mean? The man who is the husband could exist independently, but he couldn't be explained without talking so severely. The brain state that underpins my belief that Stolte is where anything could exist without being of belief that the is wearing a jumper.

Yes, I didn't think. Well, I'm not buying old stuff because I take myself to Humboldt's that that's all right. And if you want to do more than if it's a question of going to a castle, because, I mean, if you're I can see from your expression in your city that they can help. You can't find the holes in the argument. I'm hitting you at the moment. But bloody hell, that must be one, because, of course, my mind is the brain, for goodness sake. That's a girl thing. Yeah.

All right. Lots of you are OK. We're not going to get into this because we've only got ten minutes left. But I hope I'm excited. You want the question that the boys multi-colour them, because that's what this question is, is the minds. Same thing, things that. Right. That should be the mind. Body problem is the mind brain of somebody who will think the mind that actually you can't say that the mind is the brain.

If you can say that the mind visit is a sophisticated computer, this is another question. I think I. Let me just cheque where I'm. No, I'm going to skip the minds of computers and I just say look at. I'm going to go on to. How does the mental interact with his day? Of course, it's proof of corneal glands. Touch points to. For reasons I'm not going to bother to tell you straight on this.

I sense that there are rational relations between mental states and there are also relations between physical states. Greedo are also causal relations between the mind, but they seem to be malfunctions. But if the mind is going to be physical, I mean, if we are going to be physically solved some kind, then we would want to say that physical states and to international relations or again, we've got to deny the mental states, physical states.

Well, how can physical states enter into relations with 3-D?

How can. Physical states entail another company to physical states, speed consistent with each other. I be both true at the same time, a physical state isn't true at all. So if so, how? But if you're going to say that the physical state, our mental state, it's all physical sex. Also two reasons, all causes. In other words, the rationality is not a function of something peculiar. I don't mind. It's a function of certain types of physical.

So Chesterton's interactional relations. But your brain states, too. OK. You see, somehow we've got to show that. So believe me, it's not as easy to show as you might think. I can't remember what the exclusion was. So I'm afraid, again, you'll have to come to a vote on. I can do it for you, I take. OK. Isn't all of the mental states, all physical states, OK? His race is his mental state on this. So this is the point of all. He is designed to attract. But this is a dispute on his brain.

A. Now, when this happens, we say that Mario is waving her arm because she wants to attract lots of attention. OK, so the suggestion that this is the cause of the. Oh, wait, wait, wait. OK, but we all know. But actually, I wouldn't have done that had brain states and not formed in my way. So surely brain state aid is a cause of the way you feel. Now, if you're an identity, there is there isn't any problem with this because you just say the desire to attract attention is brain state.

And so, of course, if that causes this, this also causes it big funding, the same thing. You know, you're not talking about two causes here. You're talking about one and the same calls under different movements and presentation to the principal. But if you did know me that I'm not giving you several reasons to do it, you've got the exclusion problem. As a philosopher called King Yancoal kid, he would say that we know that this causes that.

So you're going to deny the fact is that the idea you're going to go for epiphenomenal isn't you're going to say that one event has to exist. And that philosophers like that. So we want to take Ockham's Razor to Boston. Well, it's possible that two causes with one. And you say this being the case, that would have been the case, whether that would be the case or not.

If you think that, then you're going to think that this becomes a phenomenal so high that you're postulating to causes all that you'll say the mental isn't causally efficacious and to. The mentor has a role to play in producing your behaviour. So when I walk across the stage like this, it's not because I want to demonstrate to you that the action. So I can say that it's my desire to do this. That's causing me to do this exactly what I did.

Something my brain, my desires. Just sort of going along with it. A rather is the shadow of a call. And it's not like the patience for the voice goes with the call. So my mental states sort of just know causally inert. They cause nothing. And this is. And there's a huge amount of evidence. Sorry, I'm not allowed to see it in the brain because it is not an issue that is so hard that I know that there is.

I believe if you look at them from the point of view of those, all three thought it was right. You've got to ask what intention is before you guys. We've got a. Strange in London, it has been a nice day. I know the same state has been replicated today because there's an experiment being conducted in this interpretation of the experiments. There's nothing wrong with the experiment. The experiment shows what it is and has been replicated many times.

The interpretation of the experiments is so easy to showcase. No, I'm not going to stop it. OK, so the exclusion argument leads either to the idea that mental saiz of physical seats, which is what hidden claims or if for the other reasons I've given you don't like the idea of mental states aren't. This is a story on physical states. It leads you to act as an organism. All you've got to tell some completely different story about how recent some causes all the same thing.

So we don't like. OK, so that's all we have to do in five minutes, right? We're really just concerned. I've already talked about Charles. At the moment is something that has to do, of course, would affect so shattered who is the phenomena of the 40s so everybody might have a causal impact on something but the champagne flute. See what I mean? So the idea is that my brain, because, of course, in fact, my mind to as an active phenomenon doesn't. So the mind is. Main is all about it.

We've got this thing. Mental brain is called the brain change, the mind is a mental. OK. Try not to touch. There is this suggests that the same thing I've noticed here is that the exclusion of problem suggests good lines. Great. I do the same thing. But if you believe the reasons I gave poor about why the why isn't the brain that you'll think that the execution problem shows not that the mind is the brain,

but that the mind is an anomaly. And then there are other theories that say we can get over the exclusion of them and show with it. Beliefs. And here's a reason for thinking the beliefs are causally efficacious. Let's say that I see others doing something and I interpret that as an. But they use this. And I think I back to the families. This is the way to this. I'll get that. Are you following here?

I might then do that. Now, one of the causes of my action was Anna's belief that whatever accounts, people's minds, everything. OK. Right. But you'll lose me if you do that. Okay. So I just believe that it causes me to do something. Now, even if others believe the P is a physical state of. I don't know what that physical state is. How could that physical state have caused me to do anything? But others believe the piece isn't reducible to some behavioural states.

Which, of course, I can see. But it isn't useful. So how can others believe you? Of course, it's the only thing that could have caused these people if I did is seeing and under a particular description where that description is us having the belief that. So I but believe has causal efficacy of what you cannot say. It's on his brain. Is causing me to do anything. My brain might be causing me to do something. But it certainly isn't. You would think so.

His brain doesn't cause me to do anything, but I'm his beliefs. I often act alone as belief. I don't believe that I wanted to get something else we can and pay it off with it and indeed gave me this. And it's honest, my belief that I don't believe that. You see what I mean?

They've got me to do something. So. So even if you think even if you think the exclusion of the children are split on my beliefs called cause me to act, it shows nothing at all about whether it's honestly could cause them to act on. It seems to be they obviously do anyway that we. Well, that's the end. You go to more philosophy. That's all you're ever going to know. No, I won't talk to you. Oh, my. That's what I think.