11.26.2006

peter's blog, On Philosophy

On Philosophy

Thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking

Two Causal Theories of Names

Posted by Peter on November 26th, 2006

If proper names are to be thought of as rigid designators we can’t explain how our use of a name comes to refer to a person by appeal to definitions alone (of the kind: “A” is the person who ….), as that would make proper names simply abbreviations of definite descriptions. We do need some account though; if rigid designators are to be anything more than an intellectual curiosity it must be shown that our use of proper names comes about in such a way that we can legitimately say that the name refers rigidly to some person. To fill this gap Kripke introduced the causal theory of names. In its original version Kripke proposed that a name became “attached” to some object through an initial naming event, and that if we come to know that name through a causal sequence of the right kind then when we use the name we are using it as a rigid designator for the thing that was initially named.

Let us put aside the problematic nature of the right kind of causal chain.* Even if we assume that such chains exist for proper names there are still problems with this theory. Let us pretend that the baby who was named Napoleon was replaced with another baby, who had been named something else, who then went on to do all the things that we think that Napoleon did. It would seem that when we speak about Napoleon we are really speaking about the imposter, and that when we use the name “Napoleon” we are making reference to the imposter. But this contradicts the causal theory of names because according to Kripke when we speak of Napoleon we are making reference to the baby who was named Napoleon, and not the imposter. Although it might be possible for some to accept this consequence it certainly seems unintuitive. And more importantly it means that we can have perfectly understandable conversations about the man who we mistakenly think is Napoleon, communicate information about the imposter, ect, all while referencing someone completely different. And if we accept this we are accepting that the reference of rigid designators makes no difference. And if that is the case there is no point in discussing them, or appealing to them, since they don’t reflect actual the actual use of proper names, exactly the problem Kripke was trying to avoid.

To solve this problem Garth Evans has come up with a second version of the causal theory of names. He proposes that the person who a rigid designator refers to is the source of the majority of our information that we have associated with the name. Thus “Napoleon” refers to the person who is the source of most of the information we associate with the name Napoleon. This causal theory of names thus resolves the problem of imposters, since if the imposter replaced the baby named Napoleon at birth then when we use the name Napoleon we are referring to the imposter, since it is he who is the source of most of the information we associated with Napoleon.

But let us pretend that I am talking to you, and that I have told you that the baby named Napoleon was replaced shortly after birth. If I then tell you that Napoleon went on to become a flower salesman you know exactly whom I am referring to, the man who was originally named Napoleon and then replaced. But how is this possible? If Evans’ theory is correct then whenever I use the name Napoleon as a rigid designator it refers to the imposter. But here I am clearly using it to refer to someone else. Now some might contend that my use of it in that context was not as a rigid designator, but it is hard to see why not. We can’t appeal to the causal theory itself; that would be begging the question. And, aside from the causal theory, it seems just like every other use of name; if we can legitimately claim that it isn’t a rigid designator than we can legitimately claim that names are never rigid designators.

Obviously then context at least partially determines whom we are referring to with the use of a name. We might then to be tempted to attempt to construct some kind of hybrid theory, in which we combine context with a causal chain, but I don’t think this can be done without making names just a kind of definite description. This is because context can be best captured as some set of properties that hold for the person being referred to (i.e. the person originally named Napoleon, the person that appears to be drinking a martini to my friend, ect). And if these properties are involved with reference then what we have are definite descriptions, not rigid designators.

And so I must conclude that proper names are not rigid designators, and thus that rigid designators, if they do exist, are not part of language.

Side note: Another example that shows how context plays in important role in whom we are referring to when we use a name is when we know two people with the same name. In such a case we are able to refer successfully to both of them, usually without confusion, a fact that cannot be explained by naming events, or information about them, alone.

* It is extremely hard to describe what constitutes a valid link in such a chain. We might initially think that it has something to do with a speaker who uses the name as a rigid designator passing it on to another person in the right way. But this seems to be a flawed definition since the name might be passed on in an indirect fashion, though a book, or electronic medium, in code, ect. What if in transmission of the name there is an error, changing one letter to another, but then later there is a second error that changes the letter back to the way it originally was. Is this an invalid causal chain (it certainly seems it should be, since the name communicated isn’t completely dependant on the original name, but instead depends also on the nature of the error)? But if it isn’t valid why does a transmission of the name containing a reversed error and a transmission with no errors have the same end result (results in the same behavior, same use, ect)? Doesn’t this show that our use of the name is the same even if it isn’t a rigid designator, which is the exact opposite of what the causal theory of names was supposed to show?



http://viral.lycos.co.uk/attachments/3561/Reading_Test.jpg

found at: http://viral.lycos.co.uk/attachments/3561/Reading_Test.jpg

10.14.2006

whoba!

click on this link to see a very interesting experiment: Ruben's Tube

and if you're interested in sciency-type stuff, this is an excellent blog to "thumb through"!
www.whoba.com

10.09.2006

http://theamusementmachine.blogspot.com/

Reruns?

It is unbelievable to me that people would want to watch reruns on the reality TV and NFL channels.Why? I think it's because there is nothing else on worth watching.It amazes me that the most popular video on google video is the one of steve irwin(the croc hunter).People are so callused now adays because of shows like law and order , csi ,and bones.who would want to watch murder like that?
posted by Mark at 6:22 PM 2 comments

and i must add, Amen...

you can find this post at:

http://theamusementmachine.blogspot.com/

10.04.2006

http://musings-of-a-domestic-goddess.blogspot.com/


Amish shootings: turn them into a positive influence

I know that sounds a bit strange to turn the actions of a very sad, sick man into a positive influence, but I think that the best way to deal with the craziness in this world is to try and learn from it and make our personal lives better from it.

Case in point. When my youngest, now in 7th grade, was in kindergarten there was a news story of a Kindergartner that took his daddy's gun to school and shot and killed a class mate. That struck my heart so deeply. Not only the tragedy, but the fact that it happened to someone the same age as my own child.

It made me realize how fragile and fleeting life is. From that point onward, even if we have had a "grumpy" morning, I always tell my kids "have a good day, I love you" when they leave for school or to play with a friend etc.

I can't imagine having a grumpy day, not saying that to my kids and having a very sad, sick man come into their school.

Could I live with myself if my last words to my children weren't " I love you"!

http://postagripe1.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 26, 2006
Oil Prices

According to the news oil prices should have reached a high for the year and will not rise further and will start to lower as fall arrives unless something happens to cause a shortage in oil supplies, like another Katrina, oil spills etc. which can cause prices to fluctuate. Isn't it amazing we could have been energy independent by now. For those of you old enough to remember during the alleged oil crises in the 1970's I seem to remember a coal gasification program where we would make our own oil from coal and rid ourselves of the dependence on foreign oil.There are so many alternatives today, one more energy efficient vehicles, and why not vehicles that run entirely on alcohol, we can use synthetic oil to lubricate the parts, if we start to manufacture and use alcohol in mass quantities the price should drop making it cheaper to use.What are your opinions and ideas in this area, ideas on what we can do till hydrogen technology takes over, and we have vehicles running on hydrogen, a renewable energy which burns with as I understand no pollution

Posted by Len at 5:47 PM

10.03.2006

http://deathbyriskaversion.blogspot.com/2006/09/gator-bait.html


Gator Bait


Take a good long look at this photo.

Me (in disbelief): "Did you do that on purpose?"
Local (drunkenly): "Shoooit, yea. It's a great convuhsashun starter."
Me: "..."
Local (gleefully): "But, you know... if you look at 'em right, they ain't the wrong way around!"

All things considered, Gainesville was very fun. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that we (i.e. UK fans) seemed to out-hillbilly the locals, at least if the belligerently drunk crew we joined up with for tailgating was any indication.
Pros: The surprisingly upscale 'Mid-town' area, congenial locals, low prices for drinks and cigarettes ($3.50/pack), flask-friendly stadium, and clear weather.
Cons: The heat (it was crotch-pot-cookin' hot), lack of Hooters (for Dwayne), late-night dining options, and the stone mattresses of Days Inn.

Posted by mike at 11:49 AM

http://www.sixfaces.blogspot.com/

10.02.2006

fun

http://www.blufr.com/


Powered by Answers.com:
free online dictionary and more

http://crazyfatchick.blogspot.com/

Which Barbie Are You?



Slut Barbie
You're that naked barbie that you always see discarded on someone's bedroom floor........and you like it. (At least you aren't the beheaded barbie, whew!) Anyway, you have long since gave up on that Ken. You need that hot plastic injection and you need it now!

Quizzes by myYearbook.com -- the World's Biggest Yearbook!


How much does that suck? I am not a slut. I have friends that are sluts (you know who you are) but me, I am practically a virgin. ;) Oh well, I guess it is better than being trailer trash barbie. Although, it hit the nail on the head - I do need some now, right now, as in imeediately! | | Comments from the fruit loops(0)

9.29.2006

http://humanelement.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-motivates-you.html

What Motivates YOU?

Is it money, power, family, sex, job or all of the above? I guess this question would kinda depend on what stage you are at in your life, but what really makes you get out of bed in the morning? Is it your boring 9-5 job that is slowly killing you? I mean what keeps us humans going day in and day out. I guess some people just fall into a routine and wake up 20 years later and wonder where their lives went.... Everyone works their whole life just to retire, but by the time they get there it is too late and they have waisted the best part!

Hey, you might as well leave a comment, you know if you hit that next blog button it will just be a dead end with a page full of ads! Or you could go somewhere else......

http://browniesforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

stay up to date!

Add to any service