What twaddle. — Banno

There we have it. It's all twaddle. :smile:

"Twaddle" is a nice word. :smile:

You beat me to it! Of course Jack didn't know the clock was stopped. So he didn't believe a stopped clock was working, he believed a clock was working.

Jack believed that the clock was working and believed that "the clock is working" is true. Your insertion of the adjective 'stopped' muddies the waters: it adds a perspective: it adds the perspective of some X that knows the clock is stopped.


(Again, I won't be hurt if you don't want to engage. If I can't play with others I'm content to play with myself :sweat: ) — ZzzoneiroCosm

↪ZzzoneiroCosm
You beat me to it! Of course Jack didn't know the clock was stopped. So he didn't believe a stopped clock was working, he believed a clock was workin — Janus

I made the same observation a while ago.

For me propositions are just abstract representations resulting from metalinguistic analysis on the truth-functionality of our descriptive statements. So there are no “propositions” as mind-independent entities, nor as original bearers of truth values. Since propositions for me require developed human linguistic skills then they can not constitute the content of perceptions. — neomac

Hi there. I've been enjoying reading your clear and detailed commentary on the debate.

This subject is fascinating but I don't know a lot about it. I'm spending some time trying to understand what a proposition is. I was looking at Moore's explanation:

In the one case what is apprehended is the meaning of the words: Twice two are four; in the other case what is apprehended is the meaning of the words: Twice four are eight… Now by a proposition, I mean the sort of thing which is apprehended in these two cases…. I hope it is plain that there certainly are such things as propositions in this sense.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/

Your definition seems clear to me. If you have time I would like to ask you a few questions about your understanding of a proposition.

Can you explain in what way your explanation of a proposition (bolded above) is similar to and different from Moore's explantion?

Is it correct or reasonable to say a proposition has a form and a content?

In understanding a proposition, is it important to draw a distinction between the statement and what is apprehended in the statement?

Thank you! :smile:

Are you saying that Jack did not believe that the stopped clock was working?

...Jack didn't know the clock was stopped. So he didn't believe a stopped clock was working, he believed a clock was working. — Janus

Jack believed that that particular clock was working. That particular clock was one that had stopped. Jack believed that a stopped clock was working.

Which premiss are you denying?

Which premiss are you denying? — creativesoul

I am denying that it makes sense to say that Jack believed a stopped clock was working, because there is a fatal ambiguity in that way of describing the situation. Jack believed, or better, simply assumed in that moment, that the clock was not stopped. If he was asked whether he believed the clock was running, and if he was a sensible fellow, he would say "Give me a minute or so and I'll tell you".

I made the same observation a while ago. — neomac

And a very sensible observation it is, I think.

I am denying that it makes sense to say that Jack believed a stopped clock was working — Janus

Was the clock he believed to be working not stopped?

I'm amazed here. What is so difficult to understand about the stopped clock? I think it goes to show us how mistaken convention can turn into dogma.

Was the clock he believed to be working not stopped? — creativesoul

As I said he just assumed in that moment, in passing, that the clock had not stopped. So, I don't think it is really accurate to say that he believed the clock was working, because if he had thought about it, he probably would have realized that he couldn't know it was working unless he hung around for a bit to check. So there is "believing", and then there is believing, so to speak.

So, Jack looked at a clock that he did not believe to be working in order to tell time?

I think you're just playing with words CS.

Are we taking our critical thinking caps off?

I don't think it is really accurate to say that he believed the clock was working, because if he had thought about it — Janus

There it is!

If he had thought about his belief that that particular clock was working...

Why would he do that? He wasn't engaged in a metacognitive endeavor. He was wondering what time it was. We do not go around second guessing such things as whether or not all our clocks are running when we look to them to know what time it is. We believe that they're working, unless there is some blatant-in-our-face-reasons to doubt that.

Where's the ambiguity? We're talking about a particular clock, a particular person, and a particular belief that that person has about that particular clock.

When we want to know what time it is, and we look towards a clock to tell us the answer, we believe that that clock is telling us the right time. We believe that that clock is running. If that clock is broken, we believe that a broken clock is telling us the right time.

We do not know that that clock is broken. We do not believe that that clock is broken. We believe that that broken clock is telling us the right time.

For Pete's sake...

If we knew it was not running, we would not believe that it was telling us the right time!

If we believed it was not running, we would not believe that it was telling us the right time!

We believed it was telling us the right time, because we believed that that particular stopped clock was working!

What twaddle.
— Banno

There we have it. It's all twaddle. :smile:

"Twaddle" is a nice word. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yeah. That's odd to me. Not the word. The word I've seen and used. Odd that Banno would object to such a clear cut case.

Are you saying that Jack did not believe that the stopped clock was working? — creativesoul

You're playing with substitution in an intensional (with the "s" - non-extensional...) context.

One cannot guarantee that substituting coreferential terms within belief statements, or other propositional attitudes preserves truth value. Lane believed that Superman has X-ray vision, but not that Kent had X-ray vision.

You are going to have to do some work to get your head around the relation between intension and intention.

What is clear cut is that you are diddling the grammar.

"To quite the contrary, it's always about the mouse, the tree, and the spatiotemporal relation between them; none of which are propositions." - @creativesoul

I didn't track far along the thread but from the first argument:

As you can break down your content of belief, so can I the proposition - that a certain statement about either the mouse, the tree, or the spatiotemporal relation is true or false - and as far as your atomization of content can go so can the proposition.

The interesting part that you mentioned is that belief does not require naming, but does proposition? I don't know.

the relation between intension and intention. — Banno

The simplest explanation is the best, assuming there is no loss in explanatory power.

What I've presented here is as easily understood as it is explained. It's true and verifiable. It is impossible to believe that it's three o'clock after having looked at a clock that says so without believing that that clock is working. The same holds good of looking at and believing stopped clocks.

It is impossible to believe that it's three o'clock after having looked at a clock that says so without believing that that clock is working. — creativesoul

If when Jack looked at the clock he had no awareness of a belief, do we still call this believing?

I see no reason to suppose that in order to have a belief one must be aware of the fact that they do. Not all belief anyway. Let's say Jack became aware of how he had luckily arrived at his true belief that it was three o'clock by virtue of having the fact that he believed that that stopped clock was working explained to him in those terms. If asked, he would certainly agree that he had believed that that particular stopped clock was working. How else would he come to believe that it was three o'clock after looking at it?

I'm just at a complete loss to explain how any objection to this makes sense in light of what I've put forth here. It's as if the simplest of adequate explanations for some of the simplest beliefs can no longer be understood as a result of placing far too much unquestioned faith in some of the conventional accounting (mal)practices historically and currently used for taking an account of belief.

We can and do have some beliefs without knowing that we do...

Form is being used in two ways in this discussion:

I've said:

The form of a proposition is: subject-predicate.

and


A languageless proposition takes the form of images, sensations, emotions, feelings and their relationships.

In the second statement the expression "takes the form" is confusing in light of the previous usage of the word "form." It might be clearer to say: the content of a languageless proposition is images....etc

But I'm not sure it's correct to say a proposition has content. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It would help if you just stopped avoiding my question and answer it. What form does a language you don't know take? How does that change when you learn the language? Do the scribbles and sounds cease to be scribbles and sounds, or is it that you now know the rules to use those scribbles and sounds?

I'm backing up until I understand what a proposition is. — ZzzoneiroCosm

But I thought you were asserting that a proposition is a subject and predicate. I've been saying that a proposition is scribbles or the sound of spoken words, or braille, or the movement of hands in sign language. It's like we're arguing whether or not the table is made of atoms or molecules. What is the table made of - atoms or molecules? What is a proposition made of - scribbles and sounds or subjects and predicates?

I'm still a bit confused about it, namely whether it's correct to try to divide it into form and content. Something circular might be happening there.

In short, I don't think I have much to contribute to your more in-depth discussion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You can contribute an answer to my question above that I've asked several times now and you've avoided it. It makes me think that you aren't interested in being intellectually honest.

Does a table take the form of an arrangement of atoms, or is the content of the table an arrangement of atoms? What state-of-affairs are you trying to show is the case? Is there a difference?

As you have shown, beliefs exist prior to putting them into propositional form, so what form do beliefs take before being placed in propositional form?
— Harry Hindu

Correlations. — creativesoul

What form do correlations take? Correlations between what?

Does the cat believe that a mouse is behind the tree - without words?
— Harry Hindu

Yes. — creativesoul

In saying that the cat believes there is a mouse behind the tree, I'm saying that language is not necessary for holding the belief. I'm implying nothing at all with regard to whether or not the cat's belief is true, nor am I implying anything at all regarding whether or not the description of the cat's belief is true. What I'm saying is that if one believes there is a mouse behind the tree, and they are capable of reporting their own belief, then they will believe the statement is true as a result of believing there is a mouse behind the tree and knowing how to talk about it.

What I'm saying is that there is an actual distinction between what it takes to hold the belief and what it takes to hold the belief as true, or hold something to be true. There is an actual difference between holding a belief, and holding something to be true. — creativesoul

You're confusing the belief with the report/statement of the belief. Are we checking if the belief is true, or the report of the belief is true? Do we believe a belief is true, or do we believe a report of a belief is true?

What does it mean to believe something if not to have some degree of certainty (that something is true as opposed to false)? What does it mean to hold a belief - that you acknowledge that the belief exists, is true, have it in your hands, or what?

Saying that there is a difference is different than showing the difference. I need you to show me an example of the difference between holding a belief and holding something to be true? Can you hold things to be true that are not beliefs? If so, then describe the difference between holding beliefs to be true and holding other things to be true.

All I'm getting from you and Banno is a lot of words but no examples to show what you mean.

No. Checking to see if a belief is true is checking on the belief. Checking on the belief is thinking about the belief. Thinking about the belief requires language.

A cat can believe that a mouse is behind the tree, and go look for the mouse, but they are looking for the mouse, not looking to check and see if their belief about the mouse is true. — creativesoul

Thinking does not require language. It requires images, sounds, feelings, etc., of which language is a part of (scribbles and voices). You need language to report a belief, not check a belief. You need observations to check a belief.

I need you to show me an example of the difference between holding a belief and holding something to be true — Harry Hindu

Read the opening and second posts in the debate.

The cat believes there is a mouse behind the tree. <------that's holding a belief.

The cat's owner saw the same events. The owner also believes a mouse is behind the tree, and that "a mouse is behind the tree" is true.<--------------that's holding something to be true.

How about this:

First, lets substitute 'a' for 'the'.

Jack believes a stopped clock is working.

What is Jack's belief about? We have to say: A stopped clock.

Can Jack have a belief about a stopped clock if he doesn't know that he's looking at a stopped clock?

In other words: even though the clock is stopped, Jack's belief isn't about - a stopped clock.it's about a clock.

— creativesoul

Do the perceptions of the believer play any role in the formation and formulation of his belief?