Again, note the if: IF the phenomenal experience is ineffable, then it is irrelevant to the discussion. — Banno
I don't know if you can have a phenomenal state of a ball. Is the ball your phenomenal state? What's the difference between the ball and your phenomenal state? — creativesoul
I don't know if you can have a phenomenal state of a ball. Is the ball your phenomenal state? What's the difference between the ball and your phenomenal state?
— creativesoul
To deny the distinction is idealism. Is that where you are on this? — Hanover
That's why beliefs are propositional attitudes - they have to be about stuff.
That's why they involve an individual - they have to be about what an agent does. — Banno
Frank, do you think that being conscious and having 'phenomenal states" are the same? — Banno
Nope. We can't talk about the music; then you share your headphones with me, and show it to me. Our world now includes the tune. We can talk about the syncopation, the melody, and so on. Or, that bit after she stops singing, if you want something simpler. — Banno
I am at a place where I would like for you to clearly set out the distinction, particularly seeing how it is your expression that has lead us to where we are in the discussion. It's an odd expression. I deny the game altogether, but was curious to see if you could make more sense of it than what I've seen. — creativesoul
Well, it's an interesting question. I'd say the ball is an external object knowable as your phenomenal state. I don't deny external reality and consider a dream state of a ball distinct from an awake state, not in terms simply of clarity, but in terms of the former being of an objective thing externally. — Hanover
Why is it so controversial to admit that language offers only a limited glimpse into one's phenomenal state? Language is a camera of limited resolution and while you can snap photos of whatever you'd like, it's inherently limited. It will never fully reflect the original. You say just keep moving the camera around, get more shots, different angles. I say it'll never happen. — Hanover
I can see my beetle. You can't. The incoherence arises when we attempt to describe the beetle without reference to it's non-subjective appearance — Hanover
A distinction could be made between phenomenal experiences obtained via the physiological senses and those phenomenal experiences obtained via the imagination. “(Phenomenal) experiences obtained via the physiological senses”, or something shorter to the same effect, would rule out dream states, I'm thinking. — javra
Back to error.
Truth results from falsehood. If every statement were true we would have no need to note that they were true. It is because some statements are false that we need to distinguish them from the ones that are true.
We need belief because we sometimes give assent to and act on statements that are false. There is a mismatch between what we do or say and what is the case. We can deal with this by using belief.
Hence belief becomes and explanation for our actions, such that when we act erroneously, we might explain it by noting that we held a false belief. — Banno
We need belief because we sometimes give assent to and act on statements that are false. There is a mismatch between what we do or say and what is the case. We can deal with this by using belief. — Banno
Hence belief becomes and explanation for our actions, such that when we act erroneously, we might explain it by noting that we held a false belief. — Banno
Hence belief becomes and explanation for our actions, such that when we act erroneously, we might explain it by noting that we held a false belief. — Banno
"F" the ineffable. I've set out why I choose not to consider phenomenal states — Banno
Our belief explains all of our intentional conduct regardless of whether we achieved a desired or undesired result. We don't need any statements to have beliefs and we don't need any truth values to have beliefs. We can have beliefs without language. Beliefs are internal states worthy of discussing and some internal states are ineffable. — Hanover
Our belief explains all of our intentional conduct regardless of whether we achieved a desired or undesired result...
We don't need any statements to have beliefs...
We don't need any truth values to have beliefs...
We can have beliefs without language...
I would agree that some belief is ineffable, but only in the sense that sometimes creatures cannot talk about their own mental ongoings. — creativesoul
This is just incorrect, yet it keeps getting reasserted. It is entirely logical to say that my belief in freedom is ineffable, it evoking a feeling in me I can't describe. Just because I can name it hardly means I can describe it. I can also say that I have a phenomenal state that I can tell you about, but only to an extent, the rest being ineffable. I can sketch you how my father looked, but I cannot present to you all the details. I just lack the language or art skills (and they are one in the same) to show you exactly.No examples of ineffable belief can be spoken of any further, lest it would cease being ineffable. — creativesoul
The language you're using is Kant's. However, you're not using it in the same sense that he did. If you were, your notion of belief would be parallel to his notion of Noumena, and our talk of belief would be parallel to phenomena. As a result, your notion of "belief" would fall by the wayside... that which cannot be talked about... isn't. — creativesoul
This is just wrong. The noumenal realm is unknowable period. I cannot speak of the rock outside of my experience of the rock because it is incoherent to reference a rock with none of the subjectively imposed properties of a rock. No matter how I look at the rock, it will be from my perspective, and since there is no such thing as a perspectiveless perspective (the noumenal realm), I can't know the rock.
On the other hand, my phenomenal state of the rock is knowable to me. I can speak of it. You can't. You can't speak of it because you can't see inside my head and see and feel my thoughts. The noumenal perspective is God's perspective, which no one can have. The phenomenal view is my personal view, which only I can have.
I can see my own beetle. You can't. No one can see the beetle as what it is as the thing in itself. — Hanover
This is not to deny that there are subjective experiences, but it denies that subjective experiences give meaning to words or concepts. — Sam26
You also said, "my phenomenal state of the rock is knowable to me," but this is also an incorrect use of what it means to know. Knowing is not a completely private matter. It would not make sense to answer the question of how you know, by pointing to some internal state, or noumenal experience. The term or concept know would lose all its meaning, again it would be senseless. One can see this is so by looking at what follows from such a statement. — Sam26
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.