No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2006. / Full text release at OhioLINK's ETD Center delayed at author's request

One common element of Kripke’s and Chalmers’ reactions to physicalist theories of mind is their reliance upon the intuition that concepts about conscious experiences are essentially identified by the “immediate phenomenal quality” of the conscious experience, how the experience feels from the subjective point of view. I examine how Kripke’s and Chalmers’ critiques require that concepts about conscious experiences be identified by their subjective feel and then move on to provide some ways in which this intuition about concepts of conscious experience could be wrong. Specifically, the intuition is not consistent with our intuitions about unusual cases reported by pain researchers and does not take such cases to be genuine cases of pain. These inconsistencies weaken the intuition, making it problematic for any critique of identity theory or physicalism to rely heavily upon it.

In recent years the normativity of thought and meaning has been the subject of an extensive debate. What is at issue is whether intentionality has normative features, and if so, whether that constitutes a problem for naturalistic attempts to account for intentional phenomena. The origin of the debate is Saul Kripke’s interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, published in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Kripke claimed, on behalf of Wittgenstein, that dispositional accounts of linguistic meaning - accounts, i.e., which attempt to reduce semantic phenomena to facts about how speakers are disposed to employ words - fail to ground the factuality of semantic statements. From this, and other arguments, the far reaching conclusion was drawn by Kripke’s Wittgenstein that there are no semantic facts, that every application of a word is “a leap in the dark”. This position has become known as meaning scepticism. In the present essay, it will be argued that meaning scepticism is incoherent, but that the normativity argument is interesting in its own right. The development of the debate will be traced, primarily through detailed consideration of the writings of Paul Boghossian, who has shifted the focus from the normativity of linguistic meaning to that of belief. It will be contended that even though Boghossian’s attempt to locate a normativity of belief fails, there is a related form of normativity that has to do with the intrinsic badness of false beliefs. Also, suggestions made by Kripke regarding the normativity of intentions will be investigated, and related to contemporary arguments in the philosophy of rationality. The tentative conclusion is that there are some interesting kinds of normativity associated with the intentional, but of a somewhat different variety than those usually discussed.

In Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference, Saul Kripke posited two kinds of reference involved in every use of a designator—a semantic reference, to the object picked out by the meaning of the words used—and a speaker reference, to the object to which the speaker aimed to call attention by deploying the designator. Kripke tentatively defined the notion of the speaker’s referent as the object that (i) the speaker wishes to call attention to, on a given occasion, and (ii) that he believes fulfills the conditions for being the description’s semantic referent. Although offered as a definition, this account is best interpreted as a tentative statement of the normal success conditions of speaker reference. As such, it raises the question of how special a role semantic reference plays in successful speaker reference. This report addresses that question by evaluating Kripke’s tentative account in the light of an extended series of examples in which definite descriptions are used to speaker refer to objects other than the objects to which the descriptions uniquely semantically refer. The report concludes that words’ semantic characteristics are only one of several forms of evidence that audiences regularly rely on to discern what object a speaker intends to call attention to by a particular act of reference. / text

The rule-following problem can be condensed into the paradox that a rule cannot determine any course of action because every course of action can be made to accord with that rule. In his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke sees this paradox as potentially leading to a radical semantic scepticism that renders meaning itself meaningless, and attributes a sceptical solution of the problem to Wittgenstein. After a critical examination of Kripke's work, I conclude that this solution fails on account of allowing neither for a normativity beyond the subjection of the individual to correction by others in her community, nor for a non-interpretive conception of the understanding. Finally, I propose an alternative solution that incorporates the notion of communal background understanding into that of a form of life and thus preserves the normativity of rule-following and of language.

This is a study of the semantics and proof theory of the logic of bunched implications (BI), which is promoted as a logic of (computational) resources, and is a foundational component of separation logic, an approach to program analysis. BI combines an additive, or intuitionistic, fragment with a multiplicative fragment. The additive fragment has full use of the structural rules of weakening and contraction, and the multiplicative fragment has none. Thus it contains two conjunctive and two implicative connectives. At various points, we illustrate a resource view of BI based upon the Kripke resource semantics. Our first original contribution is the formulation of a proof system for BI in the newly developed proof-theoretical formalism of the calculus of structures. The calculus of structures is distinguished by its employment of deep inference, but we already see deep inference in a limited form in the established proof theory for BI. We show that our system is sound with respect to the elementary Kripke resource semantics for BI, and complete with respect to a formulation of the partially-defined Kripke resource semantics. Our second contribution is the development from a semantic standpoint of preliminary ideas for a hybrid logic of bunched implications (HBI). We give a Kripke semantics for HBI in which nominal propositional atoms can be seen as names for resources, rather than as names for locations, as is the case with related proposals for BI-Loc and for intuitionistic hybrid logic.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 1998. / Cover title. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 158-159).

El Enigma de Frege es considerado como uno de los principales problemas al que se enfrenta el millianismo. Como se sabe, el millianismo sostiene que el significado de un nombre propio es simplemente su referente. Dicho brevemente, el problema consiste en explicar por qué dos oraciones de identidad que contienen nombres propios co-referenciales (por ejemplo, “Mark Twain es Samuel Clemens” y “Mark Twain es Mark Twain”) parecen tener distinto valor informativo, esto es, por qué una de las oraciones parece ser trivial mientras que la otra parece ser informativa. El propósito del presente trabajo es mostrar que el millianismo puede responder de manera plausible al Enigma de Frege haciendo uso de la distinción entre la proposición semánticamente expresada por una oración y la(s) proposición(es) pragmáticamente impartida(s) por el uso o la emisión de una oración. El trabajo consta de tres capítulos. En el primer capítulo planteo el Enigma de Frege, explico cuáles son los principios presupuestos al plantear el problema y expongo qué respuesta le dio Frege al Enigma de Frege. En el segundo capítulo expongo los argumentos anti-descriptivistas de Kripke que pusieron en duda la respuesta que dio Frege al Enigma de Frege. En el tercer capítulo expongo un intento milliano por responder al Enigma de Frege que consiste en distinguir entre la proposición semánticamente expresada por una oración y la(s) proposición(es) pragmáticamente impartida(s) por el uso o la emisión de una oración, y, finalmente, evalúo si haciendo uso de esta distinción el millianismo responde de manera plausible al Enigma de Frege. / Tesis