SGCS Claims the Objectivist Claim is Fallacious

[coberst]

SGCS Claims the Objectivist Claim is Fallacious

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has introduced a new paradigm for cognitive science based upon four decades of empirical research. This empirically derived paradigm rejects the a priori rationalizations of objectivist philosophy.

An expression in a language is considered to be semantically autonomous if that expression meaningfully stands alone on its independent terms. There are two variations of semantic autonomy: conceptual autonomy and nonconceptual autonomy.

Conceptual autonomy assumes that expressions in a language, i.e. words and phrases, express concepts, which are part of human cognition; thus it is concepts that contain meaning. Words and phrases are thus semantically autonomous provided the concept noted is semantically autonomous.

Nonconceptual autonomy assumes that concepts either do not exist or that concepts have nothing to do with meaning. Thus words and phrases acquire meaning by means of what they designate in the world.

Literal Meaning Theory:

The literal meaning theory is about language and not concepts. This theory argues that all literal language, i.e. conventional language, is semantically autonomous. This theory rests on objectivist philosophy, which argues that objective reality is independent of human cognition, i.e. it is ‘mind free’. Objectivist philosophy argues that “statements made in ordinary, conventional language are capable of being objectively true or false
The notion of “literal meaning” presupposes the truth of the Literal Meaning Theory… This is in accord with the common philosophical view that all concepts are reflections of objective reality, and hence cannot be metaphorical.”

The Objectivist Claim:

“The world comes structured in a way that is objective—independent of any minds. The world as objectively structured includes objects, properties of those objects, relations holding among those objects, and categories of those objects, properties and relation.”

The objectivist claim takes for granted that “Conventional expressions in a language designate aspects of an objective, mind-free reality. Therefore, a statement must objectively be either true or false, depending on whether the objective world accords with the statement.”

SGCS claims that the Objectivist Claim is fallacious because it does not recognize “that truth and falsity are relative to conceptual frameworks…Thus it fails to recognize that a statement can be meaningful only relative to its defining framework, and it can be true or false only relative to the way we understand reality given that framework.”

Do you support the objectivist claim?

Quotes from “More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor” by Lakoff and Turner

[Brutha]

A good post about Lakoff from a real neuroscientist: Mixing Memory : Lakoff in the NYT
In general you don't get anything from the findings in neuroscience in the recent years that allow you to make better claims about reality.
Lakoff makes claims that are either trival or not empirical validated. Especially his political thesis that you can change a political opinions by changing names of things is not empirical validated.

Here you defended him by saying he is no philosopher but a neuroscientist so he doesn't have to follow philosophic rigor.
On the other hand over at a blog where neuroscientsits discuss he get defended that he doesn't have to be right on his neuroscience because he is a philosopher.

This empirically derived paradigm rejects the a priori rationalizations of objectivist philosophy.

No, the claims aren't any more empirical than any other postmodern philosophy.

The claim is basically that you can extract the meaning out of the fact that metaphors are stored in our brains.

The objectivist claim takes for granted that “Conventional expressions in a language designate aspects of an objective, mind-free reality. Therefore, a statement must objectively be either true or false, depending on whether the objective world accords with the statement.”

The word statement is defined in a way to only mean things that are either true or false. Claims that are not true or false are no statements in the logical sense.
When you don't know what your words mean and don't seperate those meanings you get huge problems.
Naturally if you think that meaning of words is irrevelant or doesn't exist you don't see that problem.

In addition you can't deduct from the fact that there are claims that are neither true nor false (like "This sentence is false") that there are no claims that are true or false.
Whether a=b is true largely depends on how a and b are defined.

If you don't know what your term mean you don't notice when you somewhere devide by zero.

Basically the argument is that "there are no statement in a logical sense". The problem is that it's no statement.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by coberst

The Objectivist Claim:

“The world comes structured in a way that is objective—independent of any minds. The world as objectively structured includes objects, properties of those objects, relations holding among those objects, and categories of those objects, properties and relation.”

I disagree with the objectivity of this statement. The world cannot be "objectively structured" because structures are a subjective interpretation. The world doesn't truly exist with the dichotomy of a structure being separate from the things that are not that structure. A thing cannot exist independent of its environment.

I believe that the universe objectively exists, but I don't believe that any definitions we put to it are objective. Language is a necessarily subjective distillation of infinitely complex objective phenomena.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

I disagree with the objectivity of this statement. The world cannot be "objectively structured" because structures are a subjective interpretation. The world doesn't truly exist with the dichotomy of a structure being separate from the things that are not that structure. A thing cannot exist independent of its environment.

I believe that the universe objectively exists, but I don't believe that any definitions we put to it are objective. Language is a necessarily subjective distillation of infinitely complex objective phenomena.

I think I agree with you. I would say that there is nothing that is objective and mind independent that humans can know. Objectivity is shared subjectivity.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, the claims aren't any more empirical than any other postmodern philosophy.

Cognitive science is not a philosophy.

[Brutha]

Cognitive science is not a philosophy.

Lakoff isn't science either. The claims aren't based on experiments that get verificated today empirically in reality.
What is it?
Fiction? Nice narratives (or metaphors)? I like Terry Pratchetts naratives better, but beauty might be a relative criteria .
By what rules do you want to play?