I seems that I have done what I am capable of in almost everything.<\/p>\n
I think I am correct in my criticism of opacity (Quine, Stich).
\nBut many words (variables and quantifiers etc in logic) do not simply stand for an object.
\nThis gets very complex – I think it is really (mostly) a problem for linguistics – not philosophy.
\nI think the words other than those which stand for objects establish the “logical form” which
\nis a relations between those symbols in the mind. There are very many such relations. I think,
\nfor the most part, all philosophy needs is those studied by symbolic logic. These are an idealization
\nof what occurs in the mind. But also I think there are other relations that philosophy often gets muddled
\nwith, such as consciousness and free will. I am mostly satisfied with Daniel Dennett on these subjects.<\/p>\n
I had thought of doing something with partial differential equations similar to what I did with ordinary differential equations.
\nBut I think this is very hard.<\/p>\n
I had thought of fixing some problems in what I worked on in general relativity.
\nBut I think it not useful.<\/p>\n
I have some ideas in quantum mechanics – but think, if possible, someone would have done it.<\/p>\n
I had thought of working on port of Russell from c to Ruby.
\nBut I think I do not have enough info and without more I could not succeed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I seems that I have done what I am capable of in almost everything. I think I am correct in my criticism of opacity (Quine, Stich). But many words (variables and quantifiers etc in logic) do not simply stand for an object. This gets very complex – I think it… Continue reading