User talk:Jy Houston

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rudolf Carnap (1891 – 1970).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rudolf Carnap (1891 – 1970).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Fodor at GAR

Hi, I see you've been editing the Fodor article recently. Not sure you knew it was up for delisting at GAR? I've done a bit of tidying, can look for refs ... some work is needed, and there's a comment on the talk page about missing content too. If you feel like helping, do write a quick note on the GAR page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, page numbers would be ... nice. The other thing is whether the refs neatly at ends of paragraphs actually cover the whole text as their positioning might or might not imply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, me again. I notice that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Fodor, ref [1], is used very little (it was only in the lead, actually), but is clear, wide-ranging, and comprehensible (now that's rare in philosophy of mind). Maybe we should use it in many more places, either together with or actually replacing the refs to his own books. I'd favour together with, as the book refs are relevant, and we can then say they're there for readers to follow up, page numbers or no. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries are not as compact (and more numerous) but are also useful. Thoughts? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the IEP is a reputable and accessible source worth using and I can see you've been usefully busy with that. I note it has an entry on The Language of Thought Hypothesis too.

IF I was able to rewrite a lot of this, I'd lean on the SEP - Robbins, Philip, "Modularity of Mind" AND, even more so, Rescorla, Michael, "The Language of Thought Hypothesis". But, frankly, I just can't.

I had actually had a shot at trying to draft something to clear up the first part of the Criticism section that focuses on Blackburn (whose bit on Fodor from p.51 on in the cited book is actually quite brief) using the latter SEP piece's relevant criticism section (I'd thought to cite the relevant section rather than whole page as such, thus "The Language of Thought Hypothesis: 6. Regress Objections to LOTH" ) and Laurence, Stephen and Eric Margolis, 1997, “Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought”, Analysis, 57(1) but both do seem to suggest the text that is there just now is so really very wrong-headed that it needs a complete rewrite. And even just to do that seems too much work for me. Small fixes and finding sources I can do but major rewrites of philosophy sections are just way beyond me. The days of writing philosophy essays are, I'm afraid, long past.

Rewritten the paragraph on Blackburn from SEP, new refs.

(Btw re that section I'm not sure the London Review piece helps with that section tbh. Its a hypothetical interlocutor in the original LOT book that is, *I think*, what is meant to be pointed to. And the talk of Fodor's 'response' to Blackburn is I think confused or badly put. Though, that being said, Fodor's 'its innate' response seems to me besides the point [though he uses the term in an odd way too] if the SEP piece and the journal article are right in how they present Blackburn's criticism).

Ditched the LRB.

Your plan sounds, and your progress looks, good to me. I'll see if I can do something to add a little to your efforts but you do seem able to make far better progress than me. Good luck in any event. Sorry for the verbose response. Jy Houston (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've really just thrown the books at the sections (helpful but not the whole answer) and noted the IEP and SEP articles, so it probably looks more scientific than it is. I think your suggestions of citing specific bits and rewriting anything that's nonsense is exactly correct. Paraphrasing SEP and IEP, with care to avoid close paraphrase, will be the easiest starting-point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly look over the article and tell me which bits most need the same sort of attention as above? (and perhaps add SEP/IEP refs...)? I think we're getting there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical work

Fodor argued in his 1975 book The Language of Thought that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are relations between individuals and mental representations.

Fodor and the nature of mental states

In his article "Propositional Attitudes" (1978), Fodor introduced the idea that mental states are relations between individuals and mental representations.

-Apart from it seeming to be claimed that he introduced in 1978 what he'd argued in 1975..

The first line seems nearer to right. Its not all mental states but ones with intentionality - aboutness - you believe that x, you desire that x (you can have mental states that are not about anything like a state of depression). Possibly the right word is 'thoughts' but part of the argument is that these are mental states, something, say, Frege didn't think. Both the IEP and Science Direct have entries on propositional attitudes, . Sorry I can't be more helpful than that right at this minute but I do think something's not at all clear. I'm not at all sure how to make it so myself. Minor tinkering is really all I'm any good at on this. Jy Houston (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the second one and tweaked the text after it, and the caption, slightly.

the bit in the IEP Propositional Attitudes entry re Fodor is c. Computational-Representationalism https://iep.utm.edu/prop-ati/#SH2c Jy Houston (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dennett section further down talks of propositional attitudes. I'm busy today, will try to look at it tomorrow. I'm starting to think the whole article needs rewriting, in which case we should either rewrite or !vote to delist from GA: but I haven't reached that point just yet. It may be that a few more fixes will do the job. Hah! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited a bit and added a few more refs. If there's anything else you think needs attention, let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]