Perhaps this will help:
?Abstract: When stripped of its everyday familiarity, the virtually
constant inner dialogue experienced by virtually everyone presents a
mystery: why do we use language to communicate to ourselves. When
examined from a design perspective in light of currently plausible
cognitive neuroscience, language seems highly non-optimal as an
internal communication medium. Other than its role in maintaining the
privacy of thought, proposed functions for self-dialogue raise more
questions than they answer. Therefore, it is appropriate to question
the role played by the familiarity of self-dialogue in shaping our
intuitions about consciousness.?
This article can be purchased for $30 US
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(blttpi55kg2yxt2dqawuqs55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,4;journal,11,35;linkingpublicationresults,1:100672,1
?In Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Kripke's Wittgenstein
argues that it is possible for individuals in communities to speak a
language and otherwise follow rules, but impossible for a single,
conceptually isolated individual to do so. I show that the roots of
the argument lie in his general account of the legitimacy of
practices, and that he actually argues for two distinct conclusions:
(a) solitary individuals cannot have useful practices of
rule-following and (b) solitary individuals cannot place substantive
restrictions on their own behavior. I show that if it is, in fact,
possible for individuals in communities to use language and follow
rules, then both of Kripke's Wittgenstein's anti-solitary language
arguments fails; and, furthermore, that his general account not only
fails to exclude the possibility of solitary language-use and
rule-following, it actually guarantees their possibility.?
You can purchase this abstract?s entire article for $26 US
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1468-0114.00171/abs/?cookieSet=1
Regards, Crabcakes |
