92 P HI L OS OP HI C AL S TUDI ES

"A Note on Ontology," Philosophlcal Studies, 1:89-92 (1950).

R. Carnap, LogicaI Syntax of Language (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tmebner &
Co., 1937).
9 For PM this neglects only parentheses. In "Semantics" I added two primitive signs
for mention and designation. I am prepared to argue that ( I ) it makes sense to call
them structural rather than descriptive and (2) the very limited nonextensionality they
entail does not affect the argument in this paper.
ao "Comments on Professor Hempet's ' The concept of cognitive significance'," to be
published among the papers presented at the meeting of April 29, I950, of the Institute
for the Unity of Science.
"On Nonperceptual Intuition," Philosophy and Phenomenologieal Research, 10:
263-64 (1949).
On Observing and Perceiving
by H A N S R E I C H E N B A C H
U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A A T L O S A N G E L E S
IN THE Apr i l i ssue of t hi s j our nal , Ro d e r i c k M. Ch i s h o l m p u b l i s h e d a n o t e
c onc e r ni ng my t r e a t me n t of p e r c e p t i o n s e n t e n c e s ? I t h i n k hi s cr i t i ci sm is
cor r ect as far as t h e f o r mu l a t i o n i n my b o o k is c onc e r ne d, 2 a nd I t h a n k
Mr . Ch i s h o l m f or ha vi ng d r a wn my a t t e n t i o n t o t hi s error. Bu t I d o n o t
t h i n k t h a t t h e r e is a n y di f f i cul t y of a pr i nci pal na t ur e i nvol ved, s i nce my
f o r mu l a t i o n c a n b e easi l y c or r e c t e d. I n t h e n o t a t i o n us e d b y t h e edi t or s of
t hi s j our nal , t h e c or r e c t i on is gi ven as f ol l ows.
I ns t e a d of sayi ng t h a t t h e b o d i l y s t a t e of A is i mpl i e d b y d o g obs e r va t i on,
I wi l l r a t he r say t h a t t hi s s t a t e has al l t h e f ol l owi ng pr oper t i es : ( 1) t h e y
mu s t b e c o n n e c t i v e l y i mpl i e d b y d o g obs er vat i on, i.e., b e l o n g t o a cer t ai n
class 8; ( 2) t h e y mu s t b e neur al pr oper t i es , i.e., b e l o n g t o a class v. T h e
l a t t e r qual i f i cat i on is necessar y be c a us e s uc h ext er nal pr oper t i es as ha vi ng
t h e eyes ope n, wh i c h ar e i mpl i e d f or dog obs e r va t i on, ar e n o t r e qui r e d f or
me r e pe r c e pt i on, as i n a dr e a m. T h e pr eci s e def i ni t i on of t he s e neur al pr op-
ert i es is he r e i r r el evant ; a def i ni t i on i n physi ol ogi cal t e r ms is, of cour se, a t
t h e pr e s e nt t i me, t echni cal l y i mpos s i bl e.
T h e class 8 is de f i ne d f or t h e pe r s on A as f ol l ows:
8 ( f , A) - - Dr ( u ) [ ( 3 y ) o b s ( A , y ) d ( y ) b s t ( A, u ) --~ f ( u ) ]
He r e d = dog, obs ----- obser ves, b s t - - b o d i l y st at e. T h e ar r ow expr esses a
c o n n e c t i v e i mpl i c a t i on.
ON OBSERVI NG AND PERCEI VI NG 93
No w I replace f or mul a ( 3) , page 275 of my book, by t he fol l owi ng one:
( 3 z) {bst ( A, z) ( f ) I v( f ) " 3(f, A) --~ f ( z) ] }
I n t he l at t er formul a, t he arrow mi g h t even be repl aced by a horseshoe,
i.e., an adj unct i ve i mpl i cat i on. Thi s f or mul a does all t ha t can be r equi r ed
for a defi ni ens of my f or mul a ( 2) , page 274. I t meet s Chi s hol m' s argu-
ment s ; for i nst ance, bei ng alive is onl y one of t he propert i es i ncl uded i n
and is n o t sufficient t o defi ne per cept i on of a dog.
Si nce my connect i ve i mpl i cat i on is originally a met al i ngui st i c rel at i on,
t he t r anscr i pt i on of t he first f or mul a i nt o t he met al anguage mu s t be care-
ful l y done; t he all-operator referri ng t o a connect i ve i mpl i cat i on mu s t be
t ransl at ed i nt o a met al i ngui st i c al l -st at ement . But t hi s is her e again ir-
rel evant .
Thi s correct ed version shows t ha t t h e empi r i ci st thesis can be carried
t hr ough.
NOTES
1Vol. II, no. 3, p. 45.
2 Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 49.