Re: A question of semantics

Estel Telcontar wrote:
>  --- Tristan McLeay wrote:
>
>>Estel Telcontar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This, what you're talking about here, gets me into a tangled knot of
>>>thoughts, which I'm going to try to disentangle.  I'm not sure how
>>
>>much
>>
>>>of these thoughts are relevant to what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>First, your example reminds me of a specific instance where I've
>>
>>never
>>
>>>found adequate words to express the kind of certainty/uncertainty of
>>
>>an
>>
>>>experience.  I'm thinking of an experience that we've probably all
>>
>>had,
>>
>>>though I sometimes think it occurs to me with a higher-than-average
>>>frequency (often several times daily): the experience of "seeing"
>>>someone, only to look again and find it's someone you don't know.
>>>Let's say the person I didn't actually see is called Jenny.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with 'I thought I saw Jenny'.
>>Indeed,
>>I would say that describes exactly what happened. If I was unable to
>>tell whether or not it actually was Jenny (looked again and I she
>>wasn't
>>there, or even after looking again I wasn't sure because I hadn't
>>seen
>>Jenny in some time), then I would've said 'I think I saw Jenny' (even
>>if
>>I'm no longer actively thinking it and I'm just mentioning it, so the
>>tense is technically wrong).
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with it either, though I'm trying to
> figure it out.  It may be a case where -  how do I explain this? - the
> statement is technically correct because it includes what I want to
> express, but unsatisfyingly inaccurate because its centre or focus is
> not on what I want to express.  Almost as if the statement I make draws
> a circle around a some semantic territory, and my meaning is inside the
> correct semantic territory, but not near the middle, and I feel that
> when  my statement is received, the listener/reader will automatically
> understand something near the middle of the circle of semantic
> territory.  Whether or not this is such a case, I know I've found cases
> like that.
>
>
>>>The problem is, I can't say "I saw Jenny", because it wasn't
>>
>>actually
>>
>>>her.
>>>
>>>I also can't say "I thought I saw Jenny", because that makes it all
>>>sound too intentional - like I actually believed I saw Jenny till I
>>>looked again and saw it wasn't her.  But that's also wrong, because
>>>after "seeing" Jenny, I was aware that, given the briefness of the
>>>"seeing", and the frequency with which I mistakenly "see" people, it
>>>most likely wasn't her.
>>>
>>
>>But for the brief moment between seeing notJenny the first time and
>>the
>>second time, didn't you think it was Jenny? Isn't this the reason for
>>the looking a second time? Belief isn't an intentional thing, nor is
>>thinking (in this sense).  When you say 'I thought I saw Jenny', the
>>only thing I would interpret that as is:
>>1. Light entered your eyes from a scene only briefly in view.
>>2. Your brain processed said light and decided a part of it was what
>>looks like Jenny. Therefore, at this stage, you think you saw Jenny.
>>3. Intrigued, you move your head to see if it is Jenny. Why we do
>>this
>>I'm not sure but it seems almost automatic.
>>4. More light from the same source enters your eyes and is processed
>>by
>>your brain.
>>5. Your brain decides this time that it isn't Jenny. Therefore, at
>>this
>>stage, you *thought* you saw Jenny, but you no longer do (and 'I
>>thought
>>I saw Jenny' is sufficient to express this).
>>or
>>4. You can't see the same person again. At this stage, you aren't
>>sure,
>>so you think you saw Jenny, but aren't certain (and 'I think I saw
>>Jenny' is sufficient to express this in certain contexts; you might
>>want
>>to add the '... but I'm not certain' disclaimer).
>>
>>Is that not what you mean?
>
>
> I understand your point, and I can't find any flaws in your argument,
> but somehow it doesn't satisfy me.  Perhaps it's an issue with
> different kinds of thinking -
> 1. thinking on an uncontrolled, not necessarily rational, intuitive
> level, which does think I saw Jenny.
> and
> 2. thinking on a rational, controlled, I'd almost say conscious, level,
> on which for no instant do I think I saw Jenny.
>
> And perhaps I shy away from saying "I think/thought I saw Jenny"
> because I expect it to be understood with "think 2" not "think 1".
>
> Does that make any sense?
Sounds like the difference between "think" and "know".