Podcast appearances and mentions of stephen neale

Andrew White discovers about the history of the soon-to-be-opened England Coast Path with the writer Stephen Neale (https://www.stephen-neale.com/) and what is it like to change your whole life and buy your own campsite to run? Andrew finds out from someone who did just that - Sioned Bannister. Stephen's book "The England Coast Path: Exploring the World's Longest Continuous Coastal Path" is available here (https://amzn.to/2Z9kiNr) . Sioned's campsite is the wonderful Dolbryn (https://www.dolbryn.co.uk/) . To find out more about the Walks Around Britain Walker Friendly Campsite scheme, visit our website (https://www.walksaroundbritain.co.uk/walkerfriendly) . The Walks Around Britain podcast is presented by Andrew White (http://www.andrew-white.co.uk/) and sponsored by Travall (https://www.travall.co.uk/) . For more information, visit the Walks Around Britain website - www.walksaroundbritain.co.uk (https://www.walksaroundbritain.co.uk/) Every edition of Walks Around Britain is available on demand on Walks Around Britain+ - our "Netflix for Walking" subscription website - with new editions added monthly.  Visit https://walksaroundbritain.vhx.tv (https://walksaroundbritain.vhx.tv/) for a free trial. To keep in touch with all our news, follow us on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/WalksBritain Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/WalksBritain and Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/WalksBritain

Fresh from a two-year stint in a mental institution for the alleged “mercy killing” of his ailing wife, Stephen Neale visits a carnival where he wins a cake by guessing its weight. The cake, however, contains microfilm sought after by Nazi spies, and Stephen soon finds himself a target. On the run and unsure of ... Read moreGuns Dames Cigarettes Episode 4

Marie Duzi (Technical University Ostrava) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium (15 May, 2014) titled "A plea for beta-reduction by value". Abstract: This paper solves, in a logically rigorous manner, a problem discussed in a 2004 paper by Stephen Neale and originally advanced as a counterexample to Chomsky’s theory of binding. The example I will focus on is the following. John loves his wife. So does Peter. Therefore, John and Peter share a property. Only which one? There are two options. (1) Loving John’s wife. Then John and Peter love the same woman (and there is trouble on the horizon). (2) Loving one’s own wife. Then, unless they are married to the same woman, John loves one woman and Peter loves another woman (and both are exemplary husbands). On the strict reading of “John loves his wife, and so does Peter” property (1) is the one they share. On the sloppy reading, property (2) is the one they share. The dialectics of this contribution is to move from linguistics through logic to semantics. An issue originally bearing on binding in linguistics is used to make a point about -conversion in the typed ß-calculus. Since the properties loving John’s wife and loving one’s own wife as attributed to John are distinct, there is room for oscillation between the sloppy and the strict reading. But once we feed the formal renditions of attribution of these two properties to John into the widespread ß-calculus for logical analysis, a logical problem arises. The problem is this. Their respective ß-redexes are distinct, for sure, but they share the same ß-contractum. This contractum corresponds to the strict reading. So ß-conversion predicts, erroneously, that two properties applied to John ß-reduce to one. The result is that the sloppy reading gets squeezed out. ß-reduction blots out the anaphoric character of ‘his wife’, while the resulting contractum is itself ß-expandable back into both the strict and the sloppy reading. Information is lost in transformation. The information lost when performing ß-reduction on the formal counterparts of “John loves his wife” is whether the property that was applied was (1) or (2), since both can be reconstructed from the contractum, though neither in particular. The sentence “John loves his wife, and so does Peter” ostensibly shows that the ß-calculus is too crude an analytical tool for at least one kind of perfectly natural use of indexicals. The problematic reduction and its solution will both be discussed within the framework of Tichý’s Transparent Intensional Logic. Tichý’s TIL was developed simultaneously with Montague’s Intensional Logic. The technical tools of the two disambiguations of the analysandum will be familiar from Montague’s intensional logic, with two important exceptions. One is that we ß-bind separate variables w1,…,wn ranging over possible worlds and t1,…,tn ranging over times. This dual binding is tantamount to explicit intensionalization and temporalization. The other exception is that functional application is the logic both of extensionalization of intensions (functions from possible worlds) and of predication. I will demonstrates that, and how, the ß-calculus is up for the challenge, provided a rule of ß-conversion by value is adopted. The logical contribution of the paper is a generally valid form of ß-reduction by value rather than by name. The philosophical application of ß-reduction by value to a context containing anaphora is another contribution of this paper. The standard approach to VP ellipsis based on ß-abstracts and variable binding can, thus, be safely upheld. Our solution has the following features. First, unambiguous terms and expressions with a pragmatically incomplete meaning, like ‘his wife’ or “So does Peter”, are analyzed in all contexts as expressing an open construction containing at least one free variable with a fixed domain of quantification. Second, the solution uses ß-conversion by value, rather than conversion by name. The generally valid rule ...

Stephen Neale is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Linguistics, and Kornblith Chair in the Philosophy of Science and Value at the City University of New York. He is a British philosopher and specialist in the philosophy of language who has written extensively about meaning, information, interpretation, and communication, and more generally about issues at the intersection of philosophy and linguistics. This podcast is an audio recording of Professor Neale's talk - 'Means Means Means' - at the Aristotelian Society on 26 November 2018. The recording was produced by the Backdoor Broadcasting Company.

We interpret each others' words all the time. How do we do this? What part do intentions play? Does this have any implications for interpreting laws? Stephen Neale discusses these issues in conversation with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in assocation with the Institute of Philosophy - for further information about the Institute see www.philosophy.sas.ac.uk