• Posty McPostface
    4.3k


    I feel like I'm at an impasse here, creative. I don't know how to carry on this discussion with so much misunderstanding.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    May be best to have a better re-read later...

    Have I left any objection uncovered?

    If I'm missing a valid objection, by all means, please let me know. I do not like doing that.
  • Posty McPostface
    4.3k
    Re-read it, and have some simple questions if you will:

    Call them what you wish, as long as they meet the criterion I'm setting out. The point I'm raising here is that thinking about one's own mental ongoings(metacognition) requires a creature with a common and rather complex written language.creativesoul

    What do you mean by that?

    Whatever rudimentary thought and belief consists of, it is not language. It is existentially dependent upon neither our awareness of it, nor our means for becoming so. We can know that much for certain.creativesoul

    Ok, then what are they?

    I mean, all thought and belief must have something or other in common in order to qualify as more than just a language game akin to Witt's notion of game where the only thing all games have in common is that we call them such. Thought and belief are no such thing.creativesoul

    So, again what are they?

    Games are inventions of humans. Thought and belief are not. The only commonality relevant here is that they are both existentially dependent upon humans. The remarkable difference is that games are created/invented by us, whereas human thought and belief is discovered. Games are existentially dependent upon both, our awareness of them and our existence, whereas rudimentary thought and belief is only existentially dependent upon our existence.creativesoul

    I don't see how they are at the same time existentially dependent upon our existence and at the same time independent of being discovered. If you want to use the term, then they are emergent properties, while culminate within our existence.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Re-read it, and have some simple questions if you will:Posty McPostface

    Notta problem Posty.



    Call them what you wish, as long as they meet the criterion I'm setting out.

    What do you mean by that?Posty McPostface

    I'm setting out a criterion which - when met - counts as being thought and belief. I am claiming that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon physiological sensory perception, pre-existing spatiotemporal distinction and the attribution/recognition of meaning and/or causality.




    Games are inventions of humans. Thought and belief are not. The only commonality relevant here is that they are both existentially dependent upon humans. The remarkable difference is that games are created/invented by us, whereas human thought and belief is discovered. Games are existentially dependent upon both, our awareness of them and our existence, whereas rudimentary thought and belief is only existentially dependent upon our existence. — creativesoul

    I don't see how they are at the same time existentially dependent upon our existence and at the same time independent of being discovered.

    We form thought and belief prior to being able to talk about thought and belief. Thought and belief are mental ongoings. We discover things that existed - in their entirety - prior to our discovery. Our awareness of our own mental ongoings requires language. That is how it's able to be discovered and independent of discovery prior to it.

    Human thought and belief could not have ever existed if humans had not. That's how it is existentially dependent upon us.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    All thought and belief consists of the attribution/recognition of causality/meaning. We say this because all known examples do. There are no exceptions. If we are to remain sensible, any future discovery of thought and belief would be a novel candidate that includes the attribution/recognition of causality/meaning.

    This all happened prior to language. It had to have. Otherwise, there could be no rudimentary(pre-linguistic) thought and belief to be taken account of later. But we clearly think about our own thought and belief. It clearly existed prior to our taking account of it. We had best get it right.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Our considerations increase in interesting ways when setting out what the attribution/recognition of causality and meaning consists in/of. Whatever it takes, rudimentary thought and belief includes it. Rudimentary thought and belief are prior to language acquisition. Whatever rudimentary thought and belief consist of, it is something that exists prior to language, but it also included in thought and belief during and after language acquisition.

    The creature is drawing correlations between different 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and itself, That is more than adequate for attributing meaning and causality. All correlation presupposes the exist of it's own content(regardless of subsequent qualifications). That's the presupposition of correspondence inherent to all thought and belief, including but not limited to statements thereof.
  • BrianW
    77


    I think dependence and independence are just ways to imply relationships. Fundamentally, everything in LIFE relates/interconnects to each other in one way or another. LIFE does not exclude. When two things are said to negate each other, it just means they have a particular kind of relationship (perhaps antagonistic; or, one in which the distance between them, from a certain perspective, seems to be greater than expected or on the increase). Even human inventions and creations just mean new 'configurations' of already existing material (and are only new, at least, from our perspective).

    There is nothing new under the sun and no man is an island.

    If the relationship between things is of current import or we are aware of it in real-time, we often use the word dependence; if the relationship is not of current import or we are not aware of it, we use the term independence.

    I think we have always been dependent on LIFE and everything in it. We just have a different outlook of it from our perspectives. For, example, we have always depended on tools - at one time they were fingers, hands, teeth, etc. At some other times, sticks, ropes, fire, wheels, pulleys, gears, machines... Nonetheless, tools.

    We may notice the distance/difference/distinction between the various aspects of LIFE, but they are not permanent, hence not real. Subjectivity is about limiting perspective or being aware of the relative aspects of LIFE; while objectivity is about unification into wholes, the ultimate being LIFE itself.

    Therefore, anything that seems to depend on another, is itself depended upon by that other.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k


    Are you objecting, agreeing, or both? It is unclear to me.

    Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon humans and others are not?

    Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon our awareness and others are not?

    Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon both, our existence and our awareness, and others are not?

    Are you denying or agreeing that we can acquire knowledge of existential dependency?

    Is there some other relevancy within your post that I'm missing?
  • BrianW
    77


    Through the processes of creation, invention, dependence, etc., humans are neither the first nor last in that chain of cause and effect. I understand the term 'existentially dependent upon' to imply 'owing existence to'. My point is nothing owes its existence to humans. Life is the pattern we are a part of; it determines us, we do not determine it.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Through the processes of creation, invention, dependence, etc., humans are neither the first nor last in that chain of cause and effect. I understand the term 'existentially dependent upon' to imply 'owing existence to'. My point is nothing owes its existence to humans. Life is the pattern we are a part of; it determines us, we do not determine it.BrianW

    This looks like an 'argument' for strict determinism.

    I'll take issue with the bit about "nothing owes it's existence to humans"...

    I hope the notion of "owes" isn't the issue here. That said...

    Books, type writers, computers, human thought and belief, social(human) constructs...

    Are you claiming that these things are not existentially dependent upon humans?
  • BrianW
    77


    I'm not saying we don't have things we call 'inventions' and 'creations'. But they are all imitations of some function already existing in nature.
    Books, typewriters, computers -> imitations of some brain functions.
    Human thought and belief, social constructs -> we had them before we were consciously aware of mental process. They are instinctive. We didn't create or invent instincts.

    As much as we think they depend on us, we also depend on them. That is my point.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k


    There is considerable disagreement here, but that isn't my interest. My interest is setting out human thought and belief. One means is existential dependency. I am quite hesitant to employ the notion of "instincts". It's historically a catch all phrase for autonomous behaviours and the like. It's an ad hoc explanation that fills in all the gaps of our ignorance regarding where causality meets pre-linguistic basic human behaviour(s).

    Are you claiming that hard determinism is incompatible with the notion of being existentially dependent upon humans?
  • BrianW
    77


    I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism. (I hate -isms, they limit philosophy to human bias)

    You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius.
    My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point? That, there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist?

    My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism.BrianW

    Ok.

    So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it.



    You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius.BrianW

    None of this follows from what I've written. I'm afraid you've misunderstood.



    My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point?BrianW

    No.

    Rudimentary human thought and belief are neither invented nor created by us. That I can say emphatically.



    ...there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist?BrianW

    Agreed if we change "prior to their creation/invention" to "prior to their existence". That would be a rather trivial claim though.


    My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately.BrianW

    There is nothing prima facie disagreeable here.
  • Blue Lux
    245
    What is thought? And what is it that thinks?
  • Blue Lux
    245

    In an existential affirmation of freedom, the freedom of Dasein is as such, alongside the fact of the existentiele Dasein-with.
  • BrianW
    77
    So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it.creativesoul

    Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

    It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs. Most of those we learn from were not limited to the schools of thought they have been ascribed to. So far, these distinctions to knowledge seem to be a modern and progressive theme. Moving back towards antiquity, we find a unification of disciplines where philosophy, mathematics, alchemy, science, astronomy, astrology, spiritualism/religion, metaphysics, etc were all part of the same discipline.
    Presently, most of the -isms we have are just shades of fanaticism. Schools have become like religion -> they want to be special in an exclusive way. (I don't mean specialization. Even in the olden days it was possible to specialize without the exclusion of other disciplines. Also, most great scholars and philosophers had multiple fields of study, experience and practice.)
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

    It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs.
    BrianW

    Understood. We are alike in this way.

    It is my well considered opinion that no discipline has gotten thought and belief right. Thus, the thrust of this thread is to correctly set out thought and belief as the first step in establishing the consequential scope that that has had.

    By virtue of getting thought and belief wrong, we've gotten something or other wrong about everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written...
  • Blue Lux
    245
    Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed. William Blake
  • Blue Lux
    245
    But what is knowledge? Can knowledge give truth?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.