I think that's it's less a misunderstanding on my part of your position than it is a knowing rejection of it. That is to say, I could argue your side if I wanted to, meaning I get it, I just reject it. — Hanover
That is to say, we have 3 options:
1. Phenomenal state --> Behavior ---> Language
2. Behavior --> Language
3. Phenomenal state --> Language/behavior
I take it that you accept #2, where behavior alone is what yields language (begging the question of what yielded the behavior). — Hanover
No, I'm not saying that behavior alone is what yields language. — Sam26
This just makes no sense at all. It's not the concept of pain that gets its meaning from pain behavior, it's the word "pain" that gets its meaning from that. But if you're asking what pain is, it's the hurt I feel. But to the extent you're just saying that I can't know what a dog is without someone saying "dog" and pointing at a dog, I disagree. I simply wouldn't know that you called dogs that until that was somehow communicated to me.In particular, the concept pain gets its meaning from pain behavior, otherwise there would be nothing for the word pain to latch on to, in terms of sharing what we mean by pain. How would we know if someone was using the word correctly? — Sam26
Like I said, I get the conclusions that follow from the denial of the private language. I just don't accept there are no private languages. I fully understand that my private language might be irrelevant to the public, but I'll never follow you guys equating irrelevant with non-existent.What is denied is that meaning is dependent upon this internal self, and since one cannot have a private language, one cannot have private meaning. — Sam26
These generalities drive me crazy. Meaning of what? If you want to say the meaning of the word "dog" is developed among people trying to communicate, that's pragmatically true, and should I develop a word I use privately, it would be odd and an irrelevant practice. But if you're saying that meaning generally cannot occur outside the public, as if Robison Crusoe could not derive the meaning of any of the events unfolding upon him because he lacked anyone to share any of the new events around him, I have no earthly idea what you mean by "meaning."Meaning is developed amongst people, i.e., two or more people working together to share concepts. It's an agreement to go on in a certain way, to proceed based on rules of use. — Sam26
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
Perfect Banno. The difference between our accounts is clear.
That doesn't follow, but I suspect you know that already. — creativesoul
Are you saying that the concept of belief serves no purpose beyond explaining acting on error? — frank
It's interesting to ponder the relationship between belief and action. Suppose a person lacks the courage of their conviction. Maybe their belief is a sham. — frank
If all our belief were true, there would be no need to discriminate between true/false belief. But... not all our belief is true.
— creativesoul
Yes.
Creatures with the ability to think about their own thought and belief - and those without - are capable of having true and false belief. Only the former can become aware of it.
— creativesoul
Hence belief and language go together.
— Banno
Perfect Banno. The difference between our accounts is clear.
That doesn't follow, but I suspect you know that already. — creativesoul
To believe something is to act as if it is true. This includes making appropriate use of language.
By introducing belief, we can make sense of folk who act erroneously. They act as if such-and-such is true, but such-and-such is actually false.
Consider the difference between "the world is flat" and "Mad Mike Hughes believes the world is flat".
Belief is a grammatical construction (a language game, if you prefer) that allows us to entertain error in our conversations... — Banno
A corollary of the error theory I propose is that we can explain actions - although not all that well.
So to explain why he launched himself in a self-built rocket, buggering his back, we say "Mad Mike Hughes believes the world is flat, and he wanted to prove it by flying in a rocket".
What this means is that Mad Mike acts as if the world is flat. What this does not mean is that there is a thing in Mad Mike's head that is a belief that the world is flat.
We can apply this to Jack, my cat, too. Jack acts as if there is no food in the bowl. That does not mean that Jack has a no-food-in-bowl thing in his mind. The whole conversation about animal belief is based on a misunderstanding of the grammar of belief. — Banno
To believe something is to act as if it is true. This includes making appropriate use of language. — Banno
This is an empirical statement, not a philosophical one, and not one that is logically deducible. It is a statement about the world, and I suppose you know it by introspection. It must be, as you've certainly not looked in my head or my thoughts and know how I form beliefs. I'm telling you, whether you wish to believe me or not, that I have beliefs with no language at all. — Hanover
The child is not making a knowledge claim. The child is not stating his/her belief. — creativesoul
This "phenomenal state"...
I find myself wondering what it consists of. That's what I cannot seem to get a straight answer to. — creativesoul
My objection has been all along that what you've been saying simply does not comport to my reality, and I just couldn't accept it, regardless of the pragmatic import of your position. That is, I'm constantly being told under your account that I can't intuit things, that I can't know something without first articulating it linguistically, and that I cannot really understand something prior to my village of idiots weighing in on it. It was an odd theory, suggesting that language was this necessary thing that was required for all sorts of ideas and beliefs. It also seemed that language had a brittle definition, requiring it be some complex system of symbols like English or French, but it could not be a dog barking at the mailman. It was so odd, I felt it unworthy really of consideration, yet it seemed to be taken seriously by many of you, and so I was left with the irony of there being this ineffable theory that could not be conveyed by you to me that denied ineffability. — Hanover
The child is not making a knowledge claim. The child is not stating his/her belief.
— creativesoul
I deny this. Unless you define "statement" as an utterance in a formal language, I fail to see why crying doesn't count as a symbolic representation of pain, but an utterance of "ouch" does. These theories of language must define language. — Hanover
This "phenomenal state"...
I find myself wondering what it consists of. That's what I cannot seem to get a straight answer to.
— creativesoul
You're asking what the "mind" substance is? — Hanover
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.