• creativesoul
    11.4k
    I would only point out here that Meta is not drawing the crucial distinction between thought, belief, and thinking about thought and belief...

    Same problem historically that epistemology has succumbed to...

    The logical consequence is either non linguistic agents have no belief or propositions are prior to language. Neither is acceptable.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    So, back to Jack's toy...

    There's no reason to deny talking in terms of Jack believing that the toy is under the rug, but we must be careful to not personify Jack(anthropomorphism). He doesn't believe the statement. He believes that the toy is under the rug. Our statement sets out the way things are. Jack's belief is made up of much the same, but without language. We draw meaningful correlations between language use and the way things are with the terms "rug", "cat", and "rug" and the spatial relationship between them. We know what sort of situation that statement describes. Jack doesn't have a clue about describing the situation, nor need he. He witnessed it.

    If our language sets out a situation which does not require being set out in order for it to obtain(be that way), then we've hit upon a case of our describing something that is not existentially dependent upon language.

    Language allows us to become aware of(discover) things that are not existentially dependent upon language, and things that are. Jack knows nothing about nouns or verbs or any other sort of syntax, nor can he. He can, however, hold belief about some things we name.

    The difficulty lies is knowing the limits.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    We cannot frame a belief without a language, but it doesn't follow from this that we cannot believe without a languageJanus

    That is the distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief. Framing a belief is thinking about it, assuming we're framing it on purpose, as in offering our ground for assent.

    In order to frame one's own belief, one must have belief and an ability(means) to frame it. Belief comes prior to framing... or simultaneously in many cases...
  • Janus
    15.4k


    Thoughts and beliefs are already framed in language, and that framing doesn't require thinking about thought and belief. Thinking and believing are not necessarily framed as thoughts and beliefs. though. Thinking about thought and belief is a still further process.

    I would only point out here that Meta is not drawing the crucial distinction between thought, belief, and thinking about thought and belief...creativesoul

    I would say you are not drawing the crucial distinctions between thinking and thoughts, and believing and beliefs.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    I would only point out here that Meta is not drawing the crucial distinction between thought, belief, and thinking about thought and belief...

    Same problem historically that epistemology has succumbed to...

    The logical consequence is either non linguistic agents have no belief or propositions are prior to language. Neither is acceptable.
    creativesoul

    What I am saying is that what is required to fulfill the conditions of what we understand by "belief", is thinking about thought. This is the only thing which can bring about the conviction required by what we understand as "belief". If this produces the conclusion that non linguistic agents have no belief, then you ought to accept this, instead of trying to characterize some type of thinking which does not suffice to fulfill the conditions of "belief" as belief. Calling that type of thinking "belief" is nothing but a misuse of the word.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Thoughts and beliefs are already framed in language, and that framing doesn't require thinking about thought and belief.Janus

    Agreed regarding some kinds of thought and belief, as well as some kinds of talking. However, regarding classic epistemology, one is most certainly thinking about one's own thought and belief. When one argues for what they believe, they are thinking about their own thought and belief. When one is arguing against what another thinks and believes, they are doing the same...



    Thinking and believing are not necessarily framed as thoughts and beliefs. though. Thinking about thought and belief is a still further process.

    This is just self-contradictory language use. While I would agree that folk frame their own thought and belief using different terms than "thought" and "belief", that is as far as my agreement would stretch.





    I would say you are not drawing the crucial distinctions between thinking and thoughts, and believing and beliefs.

    I would agree. Thinking is what we do and/or ore doing when we're drawing correlations, and thought is the correlation. The same holds with believing and belief. There is also a clear distinction between thought and belief, if the former is not necessarily held to be true by the agent in question, and that is most certainly thinking about one's own thought and belief.

    We - as believing agents - do not determine what our mental ongoings consist of. We believe things long before our ability to talk about our thought and belief. Thus, we can be wrong in how we take account of that which exists - as it is - prior to our awareness of it.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    What I am saying is that what is required to fulfill the conditions of what we understand by "belief", is thinking about thought. This is the only thing which can bring about the conviction required by what we understand as "belief". If this produces the conclusion that non linguistic agents have no belief, then you ought to accept this, instead of trying to characterize some type of thinking which does not suffice to fulfill the conditions of "belief" as belief. Calling that type of thinking "belief" is nothing but a misuse of the word.Metaphysician Undercover

    Oh, the irony...

    What I'm telling you is that in order to fulfill the criterion for your notion of "belief", one must think about one's own thought. Doing that requires complex(written) language use. Thus, according to your criterion for "belief", one cannot have belief until and unless one is already fairly affluent in language use. As a matter of fact, if what you say here is true, when one first learns that that is(called) a "tree", s/he does not believe - cannot possibly believe - that that is there(whatever and wherever that may be). Nor can they believe that that is called a "tree" until after they've learned to consider their own mental ongoings. For fuck's sake, if what you say is true, then one cannot even believe that they have things called "thought" until they've already begun thinking about their thoughts...

    Seems to me that you've no idea what you're talking about. The notion of "belief" your working from is found lacking, wanting, and basically begging for truth. Everyday fact contradicts your notion, and yours isn't the only one...

    Misuse of a term is neither determined by nor equivalent to being different from your use. I've just shown some of the issues with yours. All you've done is hand wave... Gratuitous assertions won't do Meta. It does not follow from the fact that you work from a different notion of "belief" that I am misusing the term. Take the semantic quibbling elsewhere...

    :-}
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    Thinking about Knowledge and Belief.

    It seems to me that Knowledge without Belief is impossible and maybe at a certain level their distinction vanishes, but it is clearly not the other way round, Belief without Knowledge happens all the time.
    Belief has an emotive quality, an intensity, perhaps this how we bring value to the epistemic. If belief is traceable back to feeling then language may not necessary for belief, but still some sort of semiotic connection.
  • Janus
    15.4k
    Agreed regarding some kinds of thought and belief,creativesoul

    Note I said "thoughts" and "beliefs" and you responded using "thought" and "belief". I have been referring to thought as 'thinking' and belief as "believing". So, in my terms a thought or a belief, being defined as a determinate entity, must be linguistically framed; whereas thought and belief, or thinkings and believings need not be so framed.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    I have been referring to thought as 'thinking' and belief as "believing".Janus

    Not my problem.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    So, in my terms a thought or a belief, being defined as a determinate entity, must be linguistically framed; whereas thought and belief, or thinkings and believings need not be so framed.Janus

    The term "thought" can refer to either a plurality of thoughts, or a single one. It can also be used to refer to what one is doing when they are sitting around contemplating their own mental ongoings.

    When the discussion is based upon what counts as a single thought, it goes into the direction of content. That's where I've been and will stay.

    I've set out the necessary and sufficient conditions for each and every sense of each and every word ever spoken and/or written, regardless of the individual particulars.

    Belief must be meaningful. Thought must be meaningful. All meaning consists entirely of correlations being drawn by a capable agent. The capability consists of something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and an agent to draw a correlation between the two... All meaning is attribution, and that's precisely how it's done.

    Now what?
  • Janus
    15.4k


    No, your problem is that you're not interested in anyone else's thoughts and beliefs, even when they are patently more coherent than your own.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Got either an argument or a valid criticism of the ones I've been putting forth?

    I'm not interested in such petty bullshit.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    We agree that one can believe stuff and think stuff and that doing so doesn't require being framed(taken account of).
  • Janus
    15.4k
    The term "thought" can refer to either a plurality of thoughts, or a single one.creativesoul

    No, the term "thought" refers to the process of thinking; it is the noun equiavelnt to the verb "thinking, in other words. The term "a thought" refers to a single thought, and the term "some thoughts" refers to a plurality of thoughts.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    It's not "petty bullshit" but suggested refinements, for the sake of greater clarity, of your inadequate terms.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    No, your problem is that you're not interested in anyone else's thoughts and beliefs, even when they are patently more coherent than your own.Janus

    That is not a suggested refinement. That's petty bullshit.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Your charge of inadequacy requires more than just gratuitous assertion.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    That's right, it's a goad to motivate you to pay attention to suggested refinements.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    More adequate terms are more precise in that they enable more distinctions and acknowledge more subtle distinctions.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Provide some, and make sure that these purported 'refinements' are both necessary and/or warranted.

    Show the flaw. You've done nothing hitherto aside from teetering upon the fence of equivocation.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    I've clarified everywhere you've asked. I said nothing wrong before your asking. Your misattribution of meaning does not count as a problem with the arguments I've provided.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    The term "thought" can refer to either a plurality of thoughts, or a single one.
    — creativesoul

    No, the term "thought" refers to the process of thinking; it is the noun equiavelnt to the verb "thinking, in other words. The term "a thought" refers to a single thought, and the term "some thoughts" refers to a plurality of thoughts.
    Janus

    Evidently the term "term" refers to more than one. By my lights, not everything captured by quotation marks counts a being a term.

    See how this works?

    "A" is a term. "Thought" is a term. "A thought" is two terms captured between quotations.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    From Google search, here:
    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=term+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=amyCWq6XL83N8gealryYAw

    Term
    təːm/
    noun
    noun: term; plural noun: terms

    1.a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study.
    "the musical term ‘leitmotiv’"
    synonyms: word, expression, phrase, turn of phrase, idiom, locution; More
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Sigh...

    Got an argument or valid criticism/refutation?
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Step one...

    Grant the terms.
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    I suggest that you refine your use of the term "term"...
  • creativesoul
    11.4k
    Sigh...

    Got an argument or valid criticism/refutation?
    creativesoul
  • Janus
    15.4k


    So, you reject the dictionary definition, then?

    By my lightscreativesoul

    Not so bright! Turn up the wattage; you'll gain clarity... :-}
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    What I'm telling you is that in order to fulfill the criterion for your notion of "belief", one must think about one's own thought. Doing that requires complex(written) language use. Thus, according to your criterion for "belief", one cannot have belief until and unless one is already fairly affluent in language use.creativesoul

    Right, that's exactly what I am arguing.

    As a matter of fact, if what you say here is true, when one first learns that that is(called) a "tree", s/he does not believe - cannot possibly believe - that that is there(whatever and wherever that may be).creativesoul

    Right, I would not call that a belief. When a child learns one's first words, "mommy" and "daddy", for example, I wouldn't say that the child believes these are things called "mommy" and "daddy". The child is just learning how to say things.

    For fuck's sake, if what you say is true, then one cannot even believe that they have things called "thought" until they've already begun thinking about their thoughts...creativesoul

    Correct. Why is this a problem for you? It's nonsense to say that a person would believe oneself to have something called "thought" unless one was already thinking about thought. Would you say that a person could believe that there's something called a "tree" without having thought about a tree?

    Seems to me that you've no idea what you're talking about. The notion of "belief" your working from is found lacking, wanting, and basically begging for truth. Everyday fact contradicts your notion, and yours isn't the only one...

    Misuse of a term is neither determined by nor equivalent to being different from your use. I've just shown some of the issues with yours. All you've done is hand wave... Gratuitous assertions won't do Meta. It does not follow from the fact that you work from a different notion of "belief" that I am misusing the term. Take the semantic quibbling elsewhere...
    creativesoul

    As I said, you describe "belief" in your way, I describe it in my way. I think mine looks toward what "belief" really is, and yours just looks at common usage of "belief', which is varied and ambiguous. That's why I think mine is better, it provides a clear indication of what a belief is, while you just insist that if something is thinking, it has beliefs.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment