X-Message-Number: 4110
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #4034 - #4044
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 21:29:15 -0800 (PST)

Re: Zimov's comments on symbols

That's very good. And helpful, too. I will say that it puts Hofstadter down
several steps in my estimation, for his lack of clear thinking, but it does
explain something about how Mr. Clark can consider that so many different
things are symbols that don't look like symbols to me at all.

I'll also say this: when I was working as a math professor in Australia, I
got very tired of philosophy just from hearing the philosophers (ie. people
in the Philosophy Dept) discuss things over the table at tea time. They 
came perhaps as close to Wittgenstein and other philosophers that I had
read as a beetle comes to a human being. I will look up some of the authors
you suggest and read them for myself.

One thing Wittgenstein talked about in his later writings comes in here very
strongly. Just by introspection, if you think about what you really do
when you use symbols, it's clear that you are not using symbols to work out
what you will say or do with symbols. Just try it. Even the simple problem
of searching for just the right word can't be done with symbols alone.
Witt's earlier writings were all ensnarled in that issue, the belief that
symbols and language were needed for thought and truth, but he worked himself
out of it, in the end.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4110