Thanks K 
...this looks very promising:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conte...stemology/
It's a big article with a lot to take in, but I'm certainly very interested, and want to approach it the same way as I will now be trying to do for my course; namely attempting to distill it down to its key premises and arguments... so thanks for that opportunity as well; for an interesting looking subject to be my first guinea pig for that practice
But from a skim read it definitely looks very promising, but it doesn't represent a universally held view; there are differences of opinion on what context means/what types of contexts are important, and also a distinction made between "attributor" - ie the person uttering a 'knowledge-attributing' sentence - and "subject" - the subject it refers to - contexts, with "attributor contextualism" being the main focus of the article. When I was talking about it before I was mainly thinking of it in subject terms... ie the relationships between different aspects of some 'objective' puzzle to solve through formal logic or otherwise. But though novel to me, this attributor perspective looks equally intriguing and is no different in terms of context dynamics than the other. The attributor is basically the person making the claim to knowledge... the person making the propositional statement. Though I'm getting it more and more as it sinks in I'm going to wait before expanding on that... but it's definitely something I want to seriously look into now, because either way... subject or attributor... it looks like a theory I could get behind and indeed looks, at first sight, like it expresses a lot of what I've been saying but in more logical language. After all, this logical approach (of epistemic contextualism) and my approach thus far do have one thing in common; examples based on phenomenal experience therefore since the phenomenal and the neural are equivalent for me, there should be no problem in following their logic and and relating it to NNs. It would be great for me too to have a school of thought to join, because then I wouldn't have to keep trotting out neural networks to people who don't care And also it might solve another problem that's been bugging me regarding my course and exams... namely how the fuck do I express my own position on certain of these questions without waffling on about NNs? So to have many of my views pre-packaged as it were, so I can just say 'I'm a epistemic contextualist, therefore such and such' would be great
...this looks very promising:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conte...stemology/
It's a big article with a lot to take in, but I'm certainly very interested, and want to approach it the same way as I will now be trying to do for my course; namely attempting to distill it down to its key premises and arguments... so thanks for that opportunity as well; for an interesting looking subject to be my first guinea pig for that practice
But from a skim read it definitely looks very promising, but it doesn't represent a universally held view; there are differences of opinion on what context means/what types of contexts are important, and also a distinction made between "attributor" - ie the person uttering a 'knowledge-attributing' sentence - and "subject" - the subject it refers to - contexts, with "attributor contextualism" being the main focus of the article. When I was talking about it before I was mainly thinking of it in subject terms... ie the relationships between different aspects of some 'objective' puzzle to solve through formal logic or otherwise. But though novel to me, this attributor perspective looks equally intriguing and is no different in terms of context dynamics than the other. The attributor is basically the person making the claim to knowledge... the person making the propositional statement. Though I'm getting it more and more as it sinks in I'm going to wait before expanding on that... but it's definitely something I want to seriously look into now, because either way... subject or attributor... it looks like a theory I could get behind and indeed looks, at first sight, like it expresses a lot of what I've been saying but in more logical language. After all, this logical approach (of epistemic contextualism) and my approach thus far do have one thing in common; examples based on phenomenal experience therefore since the phenomenal and the neural are equivalent for me, there should be no problem in following their logic and and relating it to NNs. It would be great for me too to have a school of thought to join, because then I wouldn't have to keep trotting out neural networks to people who don't care
And also it might solve another problem that's been bugging me regarding my course and exams... namely how the fuck do I express my own position on certain of these questions without waffling on about NNs? So to have many of my views pre-packaged as it were, so I can just say 'I'm a epistemic contextualist, therefore such and such' would be great
