Monday, October 10, 2016
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
It stays complicated
Crossed signals and miscommunication
Heard on the 4th
Forgotten on the 2nd
24 hrs of love
The Gettier argument is concerned with false propositions that seem to have sufficiently true justifications. Gettier problems occur when belief states become misrepresented by their indexicals. Ordinarily a justified premise should result in a true conclusion. However in Gettier cases it turns out that there are varying degrees of justification. By degrees of justification I mean a scale of weak justification to strong justification for beliefs deduced from propositions. The weaker justifications resulting in false conclusions may arise in multiple ways. A couple possibilities are, it could be that an agent's belief in the validity of a particular justification is incorrect or an agent’s use of the least efficient of multiple possible justifications. What Gettier needs is a tool that reliably contextualizes weak justification in order to produce strong justification.
A solution to Gettier’ problem of weak justification would be to employ the use of indexicals. Indexical’ are linguistic expressions whose reference can shift from context to context adding or subtracting information. Where Gettier’ justification is dependent on the binary relationship between subject and object; indexicals would add to the equation context. A contextually justified belief is the type of strong justification that produces true conclusions. This condition would have the effect of limiting possible rational deductions to only strong justification.
When S deduces Q from P without indexicals Q is justified via S’ acceptance that Q is true. Yet if for whatever reason Q is actually false week justification is the result. Q must be systematically confirmed as a fail safe or a way of avoiding week justification. To accomplish this task a step, contextualizing P has to be added between the deduction of Q from P and S accepting Q as true. So in that Q needs to be true P needs to be contextualized. Thus the new conditions for Q to be true would be via S’ acceptance and strong justification based on its indexical context.
Gettier problems create a false belief state by taking a shared experience and repurposing it as a single experience. This occurs when the first object of belief has either no indexical or an artificial indexical. And only by correcting the indexical can strong justification be deduced from the original object of belief.
If the belief state if (I) is artificial, the true belief state is represented by the indexical we. We the indexical gives P the appropriate context and makes Q true with strong justification in regards to Gettier problems. For example: (a (Jones is the man who will get the job.) As a rational deduction no longer coheres with the added condition of the indexical we. However, (b) the man with who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket) does still fit and is not only true but it has a strong justification. So to summarize, in order to solve Gettier’s problem invert the indexical of the subject being deduced, if it becomes an irrational deduction cast it to the flames and if it fits the indexical it has strong justification.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Here or there
Now and then
You reaching for I
The aim of Perry’ article is to make two key points. The first point is on the nature of change and the second point is on beliefs in general. Perry uses the doctrine of propositions in order to represent traditional ways of thinking about beliefs. His argument is that for certain justifications of beliefs, essential indexical’ create problems for the more plausible accounts of traditional beliefs. An indexical is a linguistic expression whose reference can shift from context to context. Change seems to be just another placebo prescription for reality. It is us that exist in an infinite and perpetual state of transition(belief states). The arrow of reality is a timeless and motionless experience. We simplistically just perceive the experience of reality in a multiplicity of ways. Indexicals can point at a moment(belief state) within that multiplicity but they do not help describe them.
For example take a random instagram selfie post tagged with the caption “I am the object and I am not the object”. Out of context it seems to be a logical contradiction, that the agent (I) could at the same time both be the object and not the object. However, if context can manipulate the relationship between our agent and object Perry is correct about the problematic nature of indexcality and belief. Support for this example is can be seen in three ways: a) (I) is in fact just witness to the agent's instagram actions. So the (I) being read is really a he/she. b) The agent is a witness to a past act on instagram. So the (I) being read is in fact a (me). c) In the context of the act of viewing instagram the (I) of experience is the object and instagram is an illusion and not the person (Me). Support for the example challenges the doctrine of propositions in several ways. The relationship between subject and object is challenged by (a). Truth value in the absolute sense is addressed by (b). While (c) concerns truth value, object relation, and same concepts.
The second example problematizes the proposition “I stole the milk”. If it is the case that the context of this proposition happens in a dream, its truth value in the absolute sense can be questioned. Or if I read this proposition in a book, the relationship between (I) and the object is context sensitive. Finally the answer to the question who stole the milk could and would change dependent on the context of all the known facts; concerning truth value, the same object of relation and same concepts. Both examples highlight Perry’ challenge to traditional ways of thinking about belief. It seems a objects of belief are not complete until we can know who the experience is for. Objects of belief do not contain the agent of experience without the indexical. However, belief states inherently do contain the who of experience. Hence the reason to me he points out the limited accessibility of objects of belief.I personally take away from Perry the question “what do you mean about what do I mean”. In that the I of experience seems to act as a signal rather than an accessible feature of truth. Complexity in regards to the multiplicity of objects of belief seems to demand a useful tool such as indexical’ in order to describe our world. Yet the truth when tethered to experiences becomes hard to grasp.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Clean to the ears
on fast forward in the game
Bars on point
Smoke this joint
But Lowwkis' 3AM produced by Blvckmish breaks that rule.
If it is the case that the best kind of music tells a story Lowwkis' bars are in a good space.
No need to cry in the rain over this track it is well worth the listen.
Not to mention even the push back on what she wants him to do is real talk.
I think he has a ways to go on his journey but if the growth is right the Lowwki is going to be a standout in the game for sure.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
On Indexical' :
Change is just another placebo prescription for reality.
It is us that exist in an infinite and perpetual state of transition(belief states).
The arrow of reality is a timeless and motionless experience.
We simplistically just perceive the experience of reality in a multiplicity of ways.
Indexical' can point at a moment(belief state) within that multiplicity but they do not help describe them.
Zero F G