Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Wed Feb 11 08:44:46 EST 2004


In article <BC4F9A03.100C4%fred.mailhot at videotron.ca>, Fred Mailhot 
<fred.mailhot at videotron.ca> writes
>On 2/11/04 3:11 AM, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> EO: Oh, memory is not of the past, great, then
>> perhaps it is of future? Trust me, this is non-sense.
>>
>> GS: I remember that I have to give a lecture later today. If I said "I
>> remembered that I gave a lecture today." you would say that I am
>> "remembering the past event." By the same token if I say "I remember that I
>> have to give a lecture later today." we must say that I am remembering a
>> future event. That is certainly how the language game is played. Trust me.
>
>Bzzzt!! Incommensurability in action...
>
>Glen & Eray are using "memory" differently above, and so the argument is
>moot...
>

As I have said elsewhere - remembering (that) is an intensional context.

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list