Propositional Attitudes. FACTS AND STATES OF AFFAIRS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EECS 690 April 5. Type identity Is a kind of physicalism Every mental event is identical with a physical event In each case where two minds have something.
Advertisements

1 Knowledge Representation Introduction KR and Logic.
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Hyperintensionality and Impossible Worlds: An Introduction
Kees van Deemter Matthew Stone Formal Issues in Natural Language Generation Lecture 4 Shieber 1993; van Deemter 2002.
Freges The Thought Meaning of true –Grammatically appears as an adjective –So a thing cannot be true, but a picture or idea about it might be The thing.
The value of certainty. Foundationalists suppose that true beliefs held with certainty (indubitable) together with logical and linguistic analysis offer.
Utterance By: Shorooq Al-Masoudi.
THAT CLAUSES. 1. Many people believe something.(Main Clause) 2. They must work hard in order to be happy.(That Clause) Many people believe that they must.
Kaplan’s Theory of Indexicals
Summer 2011 Tuesday, 8/ No supposition seems to me more natural than that there is no process in the brain correlated with associating or with.
Possible World Semantics for Modal Logic
Kaplan’s Theory of Indexicals
Propositions. Recap Common Three-Way Equivalence: Sentence meanings The objects of the attitudes The referents of ‘that’-clauses We can call whatever.
Sense. STRUCTURED PROPOSITIONS Structured Propositions Like SofAs: objects, properties, relations Structural isomorphism w/ sentences New kind of “going.
CAS LX 502 Semantics 10b. Presuppositions, take
SEMANTICS.
Presuppositions (and Focus) Sabine Iatridou. What does it mean to understand (the meaning of) a sentence? Do you understand this sentence? 1.The instructor.
Universals, Properties, Kinds
Deduction and Induction
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Computer Science and Engineering CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.6 [P]: Reasoning Under Uncertainty Section.
Meaning and Language Part 1.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
What makes communication by language possible? Striking fact (a) If someone utters a sentence and you know which proposition her utterance expresses, then.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 3 Movement. A brief history of movement Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules cannot.
What makes communication by language possible? Striking fact (a) If someone utters a sentence and you know which proposition her utterance expresses, then.
Pragmatics.
David Lewis Counterfactuals and Possible Worlds. David Lewis American philosopher, lived between UCLA and Princeton Modal realism.
Bertrand Russell, “Existence and Description” §1 General Propositions and Existence “Now when you come to ask what really is asserted in a general proposition,
SENTENCES, UTTERANCES, AND PROPOSITIONS
Practice Examples 1-4. Def: Semantics is the study of Meaning in Language  Definite conclusions Can be arrived at concerning meaning.  Careful thinking.
Meaning. Semantics (the study of meaning) Semantics: the study of meaning, or to be more specific, the study of the meaning of linguistic units, words.
EEL 5937 Agent communication EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 10, Feb. 6, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
LOGIC AND ONTOLOGY Both logic and ontology are important areas of philosophy covering large, diverse, and active research projects. These two areas overlap.
02 Truth and Rationality Philosophy. 2 Part I: Sentences and Propositions.
Epistemology ► Area of Philosophy that deals with questions concerning knowledge ► Philosophy of Knowledge.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 4. In this lecture Compositionality in Natural Langauge revisited: The role of types The typed lambda calculus.
LECTURE 2: SEMANTICS IN LINGUISTICS
Worries about Ethics Norms & Descriptions. Hume’s gap In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author.
Predicate Logic for software Engineers Sagnik Bhattacharya Siddharth Dalal.
Presentation about pragmatic concepts Implicatures Presuppositions
 The value of certainty.  Foundationalists suppose that true beliefs held with certainty (indubitable) together with logical and linguistic analysis.
EEL 5937 Agent communication EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lotzi Bölöni.
Thinking Mathematically Statements, Negations, and Quantified Statements.
Lecture 2 (Chapter 2) Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.
What makes communication by language possible? “What makes the task [of understanding others] practicable at all is the structure the normative character.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1-b What is Philosophy? (Part 2) By David Kelsey.
The Chinese Room Argument Part II Joe Lau Philosophy HKU.
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 23 Multiple Agents Biointelligence Lab School of Computer Sci. & Eng. Seoul National University.
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Some topics and historical issues of the 20 th century.
Two central questions What does it mean to talk of, or believe in, God? –Is talk about God talk about something that exists independently of us? Or a way.
Philosophy of Science Lars-Göran Johansson Department of philosophy, Uppsala University
 Modal verbs express a variety of moods or attitudes of the speaker towards the meaning expressed by the main verb in a clause.
SEMANTICS DEFINITION: Semantics is the study of MEANING in LANGUAGE Try to get yourself into the habit of careful thinking about your language and the.
What is truth. Common theories Truth is correspondence between a proposition and a fact Truth is the coherence of propositions (or beliefs) Truth is what.
Aristotel‘s concept to language studies was to study true or false sentences - propositions; Thomas Reid described utterances of promising, warning, forgiving.
Philosophy of Religion
If: expressing different scenarios through language
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT
Lecture 6 Modality: Possible worlds
Lecture 7 Modality: Metaphysics of possible worlds
Logic.
Dummett about realism and anti-realism
Lecture 1 – Formal Logic.
Zeno Vendler and Traditional Epistemology
Language, Logic, and Meaning
Introduction to Logic Lecture 1 What is Critical Reasoning?
ALI JABBER KARAM Presented by :
Presentation transcript:

Propositional Attitudes

FACTS AND STATES OF AFFAIRS

Common Three-Way Equivalence: Sentence meanings The objects of the attitudes The referents of that-clauses

Propositional Attitudes Agent + Attitude + Content Attitudes = belief, knowledge, desire, hope, etc. The functionalist consensus What are the objects of the attitudes (contents)?

Propositional Attitude Ascriptions Subject + Attitude Verb + that-Clause Attitude Verbs = believe, know, desire, hope, etc. Attitudes distinct from their ascriptions Contents of that-clauses objects of attitudes?

Evidence for Equivalence Anaphora: Today is Tuesday but John doesnt know it. Conjunction Reduction: Its true that its raining and John believes that its raining. Its true that, and John knows that, its raining.

Correspondence Theory Truth as correspondence with the facts. Sentences/ statements are true/ false No semantically evaluable semantic entities Obtaining Sentences mean facts?

Facts Objects, properties, and relations Going together in the world Instantiation The Unity of the Fact (problem thereof)

Platos Third Man a is F a instantiates F-ness instantiate instantiation, instantiation> instantiate instantiation etc.

We note that when a detective says Let's look at the facts he does not crawl round the carpet, but proceeds to utter a string of statements. (Austin, Truth)

The Multiple Relations Theory No such thing as false facts. What do we believe when we believe something false? Belief is a relation to semantically unjoined objects, properties, and relations. Problem of unity: order.

States of Affairs Like facts, but dont need to actually exist, only possibly exist.

Problems for SofA Problems for SofA = Meanings No impossible states of affairs (going together again) Problems for SofA = Objects of Attitudes Coarse-grainedness of SofA Problems for SofA = Referents of That-Clauses Compositionality

Truth-Evaluable? Sentences are true vs. sentence meanings are true What I believe is true vs. my belief is true (You can believe what I believe, but you cant have my belief) John believes something true vs. Johns belief is true.

Propositionalism Maintain equivalence Propositions fine-grained, truth-evaluable– more language-like Still mind-independent A new type of going together

Mind-Independence a proposition (gedanke) is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. when one apprehends or thinks a [proposition] one does not create it but only comes to stand in a certain relation… to what already existed beforehand.

Ordinary Language Scruples I imagined [F: the proposition] that a purple donkey was nibbling on lettuce. I was surprised [*the proposition/ F: at the proposition] that John never came to the party.

PROPOSITIONS AS SETS OF POSSIBLE WORLDS

Possible Worlds Semantics Possible worlds: Lewis and Stalnaker Possible worlds semantics: Carnap and Montague Analysis of necessity and possibility Meanings as truth-conditions Functions from worlds to truth-values Sets and characteristic functions

Problems The deduction problem The aboutness problem Directly referential expressions collapsed into rigid expressions

Even less coarse-grained than SofA: all necessities equivalent, all impossibilities equivalent. Going diagonal (or metalinguistic) Still get all provable truths equivalent, for those who accept the axioms.

Lewiss Two Gods Consider the case of the two gods. They inhabit a certain possible world, and they know exactly which world it is. Therefore they know every proposition that is true at their world. Insofar as knowledge is a propositional attitude, they are omniscient…

Lewiss Two Gods …Still I can imagine them to suffer ignorance: neither one knows which of the two he is. They are not exactly alike. One lives on top of the tallest mountain and throws down manna; the other lives on top of the coldest mountain and throws down thunderbolts. Neither one knows whether he lives on the tallest mountain or the coldest mountain; nor whether he throws manna or thunderbolts.

De Se Exceptionalism 1.The manna god knows exactly which world she inhabits. 2.She does not know that *I am the manna god.* 3.Therefore, *I am the manna god* is not solely about which world she inhabits. 4.Therefore, the de se is special and subject to special semantic treatment.

STRUCTURED PROPOSITIONS

Structured Propositions Like SofAs: objects, properties, relations Structural isomorphism w/ sentences New kind of going together Limits: articulated non-constituents John is a tall ballet dancer Limits: unarticulated constituents

Benefits Systematicity: if you can think aRb, you can think bRa Reverse compositionality Conflating contexts: watch + PAST vs. watch + PROG + PAST

Grainedness SPs strictly more fine grained than SofAs SPs determine sets of possible worlds, not vice versa (composition post-linguistic) No logical omniscience, deduction, aboutness problems Too much grain? A & B vs. B & A Names and natural kind terms, a = b vs. a = a

Problems Which set-theoretic objects? (order arbitrariness) Why do some set-theoretic objects have truth- conditions and others (regular ones) not? Is the going together really not set-theoretic? If not, then what is it?

Overly Linguistic-y? If propositions have a largely linguistic structure… do they get it from language? If so, are they really mind/ language dependent? If so, did the proposition that dinosaurs exist not exist until we did? And can animals think?

INTERPRETED LOGICAL FORMS

Interpreted Logical Forms Linguistic syntax LFs vs. surface structure (not particularly important) Interpreted LFs No new going together

Benefits Strictly greater grain the SPs (Hence same or worse grainedness problems, same or better benefits) Names and natural kind terms, a = b vs. a = a Meaningful sentences with empty names? Sensible why they have truth-conditions

Problems Compositionality? Speakers of different languages no longer expressing the same proposition, believing the same things Data: I believed that even when I was a monolingual French speaker! Attitudes, propositions dependent on language Pierre and Londres est jolie