Search

José Zalabardo's recent book, Pragmatist Semantics, illuminates many important questions about the foundations of semantics. The main thesis is that the attribution of semantic properties is grounded on certain principles of abstraction defined over the real use of language. There are numerous problems concerning the introduction of ontological novelties through principles of abstraction. However, we will argue that the abstraction principles proposed by Zalabardo do not need to introduce any particularly suspect properties. Their basis could consist of projection processes in certain spaces so that some of the invariances originated can play, in quite a dynamical and open way, the role of the properties that are introduced for logical or semantic purposes. We will suggest the possibility of generalising our approach in relation to the application of abstraction principles in other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue that the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language and mathematics, substantially focused on rule-following, is relevant to understand and improve on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) alignment problem: his discussions on the categories that influence alignment between humans can inform about the categories that should be controlled to improve on the alignment problem when creating large data sets to be used by supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms, as well as when introducing hard coded guardrails for AI models. We cast these considerations in a model of human–human and human–machine alignment and sketch basic alignment strategies based on these categories and further reflections on rule-following like the notion of meaning as use. To sustain the validity of these considerations, we also show that successful techniques employed by AI safety researchers to better align new AI systems with our human goals are congruent with the stipulations that we derive from the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy. However, their application may benefit from the added specificities and stipulations of our framework: it extends on the current efforts and provides further, specific AI alignment techniques. Thus, we argue that the categories of the model and the core alignment strategies presented in this work can inform further AI alignment techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many, putting in doubt the existence of phenomenal consciousness is absurd since the distinction between appearance and reality does not apply to it. Many cognitive scientists and neuroscientists accept the existence of consciousness in virtue of such reasoning. The present work questions that justification. Consciousness is a concept whose scientific meaning comes from philosophy or colloquial language. From this, it concludes that the “self-evident nature of consciousness” is not a scientifically valid statement. This philosophical assumption rests on a category mistake in scientific language use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cadernos de Dereito Actual is the property of Asociacion Xuristas en Accion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As a celebration of the Tractatus 100th anniversary it might be worth revisiting its relation to the later writings. From the former to the latter, David Pears recalls that "everyone is aware of the holistic character of Wittgenstein's later philosophy, but it is not so well known that it was already beginning to establish itself in the Tractatus" (The False Prison, 1987). From the latter to the former, Stephen Hilmy's (The Later Wittgenstein, 1987) extensive study of the Nachlass has helped removing classical misconceptions such as Hintikka's claim that "Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations almost completely gave up the calculus analogy." Hilmy points out that even in the Investigations one finds the use of the calculus/game paradigm to the understanding of language, such as "in operating with the word" (Part I, §559) and "it plays a different part in the calculus". Hilmy also quotes from a late (1946) unpublished manuscript (MS 130) "this sentence has use in the calculus of language", which seems to be compatible with "asking whether and how a proposition can be verified is only a particular way of asking 'How do you mean?'" Central in this back and forth there is an aspect which seems to deserve attention in the discussion of a semantics for the language of mathematics which might be based on (normalisation of) proofs and/or Hintikka/Lorenzen game-dialogue: the explication of consequences. Such a discussion is substantially supported by the use of the open and searchable The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. These findings are framed within the discussion of the meaning of logical constants in the context of natural deduction style rules of inference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to complicate the opposition between "thick description" and "thin" thought experiments by constructing a thought experiment of its own. It compares the use of examples—thick and thin—in the work of Malinowski and Wittgenstein, who came to extremely similar conclusions about the importance of context to meaning, the former around a decade before the latter. By imagining the—by no means implausible—possibility that Wittgenstein read Malinowski, the article asks how it might change anthropological views about thickness and thinness if it turned out that one of the major philosophical sources of our disciplinary preference for "thick description" as a generalized prescription for ethnography took some inspiration for such ideas from Malinowksi's more modest and restricted empiricism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many, putting in doubt the existence of phenomenal consciousness is absurd since the distinction between appearance and reality does not apply to it. Many cognitive scientists and neuroscientists accept the existence of consciousness in virtue of such reasoning. The present work questions that justification. Consciousness is a concept whose scientific meaning comes from philosophy or colloquial language. From this, it concludes that the "self-evident nature of consciousness" is not a scientifically valid statement. This philosophical assumption rests on a category mistake in scientific language use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this work we argue that there is no strong demarcation between pure and applied mathematics. We show this first by stressing non-deductive components within pure mathematics, like axiomatization and theory-building in general. We also stress the "purer" components of applied mathematics, like the theory of the models that are concerned with practical purposes. We further show that some mathematical theories can be viewed through either a pure or applied lens. These different lenses are tied to different communities, which endorse different evaluative standards for theories. We evaluate the distinction between pure and applied mathematics from a late Wittgensteinian perspective. We note that the classical exegesis of the later Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics, due to Maddy, leads to a clear-cut but misguided demarcation. We then turn our attention to a more niche interpretation of Wittgenstein by Dawson, which captures aspects of the aforementioned distinction more accurately. Building on this newer, maverick interpretation of the later Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics, and endorsing an extended notion of meaning as use which includes social, mundane uses, we elaborate a fuzzy, but more realistic, demarcation. This demarcation, relying on family resemblance, is based on how direct and intended technical applications are, the kind of evaluative standards featured, and the range of rhetorical purposes at stake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What account of meaning is sufficient for understanding expressions? Using numbers and number-words as familiar forms of expression, I shall try to make an apology of Wittgenstein’s treatment of meaning. My apology is of two parts. The first part attempts to address two questions: Firstly, how do we account for our knowledge of mathematical objects such as those of numbers, numerals, and number-words? Secondly, how do we account for the meaningfulness of their application outside the domain of mathematics? As a reply to the f irst, I shall say no more than affirm, following Wittgenstein, the simple fact that our knowledge of mathematical objects such as those of numbers, numerals, and number-words is accounted for by how we learn a given language. As a reply to the second, I shall argue that said meaningfulness may be explained solely by an appeal to Wittgenstein’s account of languagegames and consequently of grammar. The second part puts forward, albeit in a general way, the idea that the correctness of a move in language is made possible not only by rules of grammar, as Wittgenstein puts it, but also by rules of grammatical salience which are also embedded in language itself.

In his post-Tractatus work on natural language use, Wittgenstein defended the notion of what he dubbed the autonomy of grammar. According to this thought, grammar - or semantics, in a more recent idiom - is essentially autonomous from metaphysical considerations, and is not answerable to the nature of things. The argument has several related incarnations in Wittgenstein’s post-Tractatus writings, and has given rise to a number of important insights, both critical and constructive. In this paper I will argue for a potential connection between Wittgenstein’s autonomy argument and some more recent internalist arguments for the autonomy of semantics. My main motivation for establishing this connection comes from the fact that the later Wittgenstein’s comments on grammar and meaning stand in opposition to some of the core assumptions of semantic externalism.

What account of meaning is sufficient for understanding expressions? Using numbers and number-words as familiar forms of expression, I shall try to make an apology of Wittgenstein's treatment of meaning. My apology is of two parts. The first part attempts to address two questions: Firstly, how do we account for our knowledge of mathematical objects such as those of numbers, numerals, and number-words? Secondly, how do we account for the meaningfulness of their application outside the domain of mathematics? As a reply to the first, I shall say no more than affirm, following Wittgenstein, the simple fact that our knowledge of mathematical objects such as those of numbers, numerals, and number-words is accounted for by how we learn a given language. As a reply to the second, I shall argue that said meaningfulness may be explained solely by an appeal to Wittgenstein's account of language-games and consequently of grammar. The second part puts forward, albeit in a general way, the idea that the correctness of a move in language is made possible not only by rules of grammar, as Wittgenstein puts it, but also by rules of grammatical salience which are also embedded in language itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article motions to a real contradiction between online security and civil rights. It traverses semantic and conceptual elaborations of both security and human rights, narrowing their range to national security and human rather than civil rights, and suggests that the concept of security itself, whether online or not, is a rhetorical instrument in the hands of interested parties, mostly states and militaries. This instrument is used to undermine human rights precisely by means of its association and even identification with military and national settings. Asking whether the same ethics applies in the case of online security (vs. human rights), our tentative conclusion is that a similar moral determination rules in the case of online security, which may be exponentially more complex, but no less ethically compelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Análisis Filosófico is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Filosofico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper I give a reconstruction of Dummett's main arguments concerning the theory of the occult origin of the Tarot, and discuss the reasons behind the success of the Tarot pack - in particular the Major Arcana - in the history of card games. I also provide some indication of the links between Dummett's interest in the history of card games and aspects of his philosophical background. As I am not an expert on card games, this paper is mainly a personal tribute to a side of Dummett's work to which philosophers have in general paid little attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]