Great breakdown of a classic. The core idea that 'meanings ain't in the head' is a powerful challenge to the notion that we are isolated minds defining our own reality.
This suggests a parallel in personal identity: the difference between a 'Defined Identity' and an 'Anchored Identity.' A 'Defined Identity' is what we construct in our heads ('I am a philosopher'). An 'Anchored Identity' is determined by our causal links to the world (the writing, the arguments, the readers).
Just as 'water' on Earth is anchored to H₂O, our identities are anchored to our actions.
We don't just decide who we are in a vacuum; we discover it through contact with the world.
This concept of an 'anchored self' is a foundational piece of the practical philosophy I've been exploring.
I guess the social learning aspects of twin-Oscar's humanity of the twin-earth is the same too? Is that 'world' explored in these twinnie discourses, i.e. convergent social evolution only with a Ship of Theseus level of granularity.
I suspect the internal-/externalism would collapse into a blur of impracticality if social learning is included, at least as a focus instead of each individual Oscars experience (or Ockers as we call them in Australia) in which case the hypothesis is a restricted language-game and is as useful and as entertaining as minecraft.
In one infinite-worlds scenario not only would there be a twin earth, but other infinite-earths where everything is the same except for the term twin-earth where some other term is used instead. There is an infinite variety of these twin-earths which vary by one term for twin, as well as any other term, let alone chemistries.
I mean why stop at one, how does that parsimony help exactly? I do not think intuition can help, we need to experiment on these leads.
Great breakdown of a classic. The core idea that 'meanings ain't in the head' is a powerful challenge to the notion that we are isolated minds defining our own reality.
This suggests a parallel in personal identity: the difference between a 'Defined Identity' and an 'Anchored Identity.' A 'Defined Identity' is what we construct in our heads ('I am a philosopher'). An 'Anchored Identity' is determined by our causal links to the world (the writing, the arguments, the readers).
Just as 'water' on Earth is anchored to H₂O, our identities are anchored to our actions.
We don't just decide who we are in a vacuum; we discover it through contact with the world.
This concept of an 'anchored self' is a foundational piece of the practical philosophy I've been exploring.
I guess the social learning aspects of twin-Oscar's humanity of the twin-earth is the same too? Is that 'world' explored in these twinnie discourses, i.e. convergent social evolution only with a Ship of Theseus level of granularity.
I suspect the internal-/externalism would collapse into a blur of impracticality if social learning is included, at least as a focus instead of each individual Oscars experience (or Ockers as we call them in Australia) in which case the hypothesis is a restricted language-game and is as useful and as entertaining as minecraft.
In one infinite-worlds scenario not only would there be a twin earth, but other infinite-earths where everything is the same except for the term twin-earth where some other term is used instead. There is an infinite variety of these twin-earths which vary by one term for twin, as well as any other term, let alone chemistries.
I mean why stop at one, how does that parsimony help exactly? I do not think intuition can help, we need to experiment on these leads.
Where does Putnam’s argument rely on the assumption that Oscar and his Twin use the same word?