Just a quick response: I don’t really understand what you mean by “binding”, got a link to where you discuss it more? But just going off my intuitive reading of it: the “binding” thing feels like a kinda Kripkean way of thinking about reference—something either binds or it doesn’t—which I am not a fan of. I think in more Russellian terms: we have some concept, which has some properties, and there’s a pretty continuous spectrum over how well those properties describe some entity in the world.
For example, when I’m uncertain about “cats are carnivorous”, it’s not that I have a clear predicate “carnivorous” and I’m uncertain which cats it “binds” to. Rather, I think that probably almost all cats are kinda carnivorous, e.g. maybe they strongly prefer meat, and if they never get meat they’ll eventually end up really unhealthy, but maybe they’d still survive, idk...
Just a quick response: I don’t really understand what you mean by “binding”, got a link to where you discuss it more? But just going off my intuitive reading of it: the “binding” thing feels like a kinda Kripkean way of thinking about reference—something either binds or it doesn’t—which I am not a fan of. I think in more Russellian terms: we have some concept, which has some properties, and there’s a pretty continuous spectrum over how well those properties describe some entity in the world.
For example, when I’m uncertain about “cats are carnivorous”, it’s not that I have a clear predicate “carnivorous” and I’m uncertain which cats it “binds” to. Rather, I think that probably almost all cats are kinda carnivorous, e.g. maybe they strongly prefer meat, and if they never get meat they’ll eventually end up really unhealthy, but maybe they’d still survive, idk...