Semantics

[JALoth]

Hello, Dr. Pruss! I have a few comments about your chapter on semantics that you are writing. I hope this is the right place to put it. First, for the easy game, one might say that it is just as utility-maximizing if both defect than if both keep their promises, so both are equally as likely. Therefore, one should refrain from pressing. One might respond that making each other commit to the promise is utility-maximizing.

Second, for the regress of meaning, one might respond that because of the evolutionary history of the squeak, the sound of the squeak is most factually connected with the concept of predators. Alice knows this fact, as well as the ones that can protect it. When Alice squeaks, it is doing so with the knowledge that both it and the others know that it is connected with squeaking. Therefore, when Alice squeaks, it can reasonably assume that the concept of a predator will come into the others' minds. The others will then see this and then recognize that Alice probably did so to put that in their minds and indicate danger. There might be a problem, though. Evolutionary history is not the only thing about a squeak. For example, a fact about squeaking is that dog toys do it. So it might be just as reasonable to suspect that when one hears a squeak, they are referring to dog toys just as much as they are referring to predators for the same reasons.

[arpruss]

Thanks!

[JALoth]

I saw your new commit about priors. I'm not well-versed in philosophy, but I'm guessing that prior just means a pre-existent belief about the probability of things. I'm just wondering about your statement that Bob cannot be confident in his prior. Doesn't your statement that the prior is self-confirming help prevent the undermining of the conviction? Maybe I'm not understanding it fully. Maybe because of the undermining you said before, Alice would have less of a reason to think that they would respond because she knows it will be doubted more, and so it is undermined. Sorry if I am misunderstanding things.