ℓ(t)

This is all very reminiscent of our note that, given one true, correct explanation, there can be many others that are correct expect for the premise.

Also, does pre-logical mean pre-proof? If so, then this is relevant to the genealogy of explanation.

“\textit{His mental activity does not differ in any fundamental way from ours.} It is, as I have said, his assumptions alone that set him apart from ourselves.” [italics added]

“To him it is an unquestionable truth that disease and other ills are caused by spirits or witchcraft, just as for us it is a foregone conclusion that an illness has a natural cause. We would no more lay it down to sorcery than he to natural causes.

“There is nothing whatever within the experience of primitive man-provided that it is at all unusual or impressive that will not be accounted for on similar grounds. In explaining things in this way he is just like ourselves: he does not examine his assumptions.

“We feel we are stating a natural sequence of events when we say: this house was burned down because the lightning struck it. Primitive man senses an equally natural sequence when he says: a sorcerer has used the lightning to set fire to this particular house.

“To all that is in any way out of the ordinary and that therefore disturbs, frightens or astonishes him, he ascribes what we should call a supernatural origin. For him, of course, these things are not supernatural; on the contrary, they belong to his world of experience.

“As a matter of fact, primitive man is no more logical or illogical than we are. His presuppositions are not the same as ours, and that is what distinguishes him from us. His thinking and his conduct are based on assumptions other than our own.

“reasonable.

“But it only strikes us in this way because we start from assumptions wholly different from those of primitive man. If we were as convinced as he is of the existence of sorcerers and of mysterious powers, instead of believing in so-called natural causes, his inferences would seem to us perfectly

p127 Remarks on assumptions and explanations
“This story is a perfect example of that capricious way of accounting for things which is a feature of the ‘pre-logical’ state of mind. We call it pre-logical, because to us such an explanation seems absolutely illogical.

This may be an erroneous or incomplete sentiment, but it’s amazing that some #Greek verbs are syntactically—though not semantically—passive. It makes sense if you think about it: one doesn’t really actively exist (είμαι), sleep (κοιμάμαι), or remember (θυμάμαι).

#langsky #linguistics #ελληνικά

Mais je ne sais pas pourquoi je dis ces choses. Je divague.

À un certain moment, il faut qu’on fasse confiance à l’inférence. (Remarques sur la pensées critique)

« Maternelle », c’est en effet le mot principal hahaha

Donc, à un certain niveau, la lecture semble plus importante que ces applis d’apprentissage des langues qui toujours commencent et arrêtent, commencent et arrêtent et donnent toujours les mots de la langue cible \textit{avec} ceux de la langue maternelle.

Sauf si, bien sûr, notre mémoire est parfaite, mais…

Mais il semble que le sentiment original était que l’inférence spontanée—comme quand on apprend avec des définitions ostensives—est une meilleure méthode que la construction routine d’une bijection dans la mémoire.

Or, ici, on est redondant, car les définitions et exemples d’utilisation sont le même. (Tentez de définir cerise et vin sans dire qu’on boit l’une et mange l’autre.) Tant pis.

« Lequel boit-on » (ou « Ποιο πίνουμε; », si on connaît les mots.), et lequel mange-t-on ? » (ou « Ποιο τρώμε; »).

Mais on devrait peut-être aller au-delà de cela aux exemples d’utilisation. En ayant reçu « κρασί » et « κεράσι » et en sachant qu’il faut être l’un ou l’autre, il ne faut pas demander « Lequel est cerise, et lequel est vin ? » mais plutôt

#langsky #linguistics #français #ελληνικά

Last chance to turn it off.

On Monday, November 3rd, Microsoft will start using your LinkedIn data for AI training. And remember, you're opted in by default.

To toggle it off 👉 Account - Settings & Privacy > Data privacy > Data for Generative AI Improvement.

Anybody familiar with Troelstra & Schwintenberg’s book “Basic Proof Theory”?

#mathsky #mathematics #prooftheory

I’m not sure this is useful, but it is a striking description.

Perhaps: philosophers as \textit{imprudent} troublemakers.

Ibid “But the genuine philosopher—as it seems to \textit{us}, my friends?—lives ‘unphilosophically’ and ‘unwisely,’ above all \textit{imprudently}, and feels the burden and the duty of a hundred attempts and temptations of life he risks \textit{himself} constantly, he plays the wicked game—“

“And if a man is praised today for living ‘wisely’ or ‘as a philosopher,’ it hardly means more than ‘prudently and apart.’ Wisdom—seems to the rabble a kind of escape, a means and trick for getting well out of a wicked game.”

Remarks against Platonism?

§205 “Indeed, the crowd has for a long time misjudged and mistaken the philosopher, whether for a scientific man and ideal scholar or for a religiously elevated, desensualized, ‘desecularized’ enthusiast and sot of God.

Damn it. Now I don’t know what to do. I feel betrayed, bamboozled! I don’t trust this book anymore (._.)

« un système grammatical existant virtuellement dans chaque cerveau, ou plus exactement dans les cerveaux d'un ensemble d'individus; \textit{car la langue n'est complète dans aucun, elle n'existe parfaitement que dans la masse.} » [italique ajouté]

Oserais-je dire…Wittgenstein ? 👀

p21 « Si nous pouvions embrasser la somme des images verbales emmagasinées chez tous les individus, nous toucherions le lien social qui constitue la langue. C'est un trésor déposé par la pratique de la parole dans les sujets appartenant à une même communauté,

Notes sur Cours de Linguistique générale de Ferdinand de #Saussure

#langsky #linguistics #french #français