Where have I attributed existence as a predicate to anything? Things exist, that is basic; but their existence is not a predicate like other predicates, their existence is more like an activity that will cease someday. If something does not exist then no predicates can be attributed to it. If something has fictional existence then fictional predicates will apply to it. If something has possible existence then possible predicates will apply to it and so on.

Animals can entertain thoughts that they cannot hold.
— creativesoul

It is very reasonable to say that an animal could have a transient thought which might compel it to act... — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not what was said.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that non linguistic animals can entertain thought/belief that they cannot have. Entertaining thought/belief is thinking about it. Thinking about it requires being able to talk about it.

If you cannot have a thought whenever you wish then you cannot hold that thought. I understand holding a thought to consist in stabilising it, 'fixing it in place' such that it could, but need not, be examined, analyzed or criticised.

Where have I attributed existence as a predicate to anything? Things exist, that is basic; but their existence is not a predicate like other predicates, their existence is more like an activity that will cease someday. If something does not exist then no predicates can be attributed to it. If something has fictional existence... — Janus

Do you really not understand the problem here?

Compare the first question to the last phrase...

I regret using the term "entertain". What I meant is that thought passes through while constantly moving, the animal mind, but that the thought does not consist in determinate or determinable thoughts. So, I meant that the animal mind is constantly entertaining thought (and it would have been better to just say "constantly thinking") but no thoughts are ever held.

Do you really not understand the problem here?

Compare the first question to the last phrase... — creativesoul

Saying that something has existence is not attributing a predicate; it is simply saying that something exists. It is perfectly reasonable to say that something has existence for as long as it exists. This is similar to the difference between different sense of "is". A thing is, but this "is" not the 'is' of predication.

I don't think it is in these kinds of considerations that important philosophy lives. — Janus

All philosophy consists of thought/belief. Seems to me that getting that right is imperative.

Saying that something has existence is not attributing a predicate; it is simply saying that something exists. — Janus

"Something has existence" is not "Something exists".

The former uses the term "existence" as a predicate. The latter does not.

Kant argues against the former, and Quine... both.

No, it just looks like that because the form of the former sentence is similar to sentences that do attribute predicates. The semantic contnet is really the same, just different ways of saying the same thing.

For example "creativesoul has a big head" is equivalent to "creativesoul is big-headed". English in particular is a somewhat ad hoc language with a lot of inconsistencies, but we generally are able to get the logic nonetheless

All philosophy consists of thought/belief. Seems to me that getting that right is imperative. — creativesoul

To me that just seems like stating the obvious, stating what we always already knew. There may be some value in that if someone has forgotten to take it into account to the degree that they may be proposing something which unknowingly contradicts what is self-evident.

"Something has existence" is not "Something exists".

The former uses the term "existence" as a predicate. The latter does not. — creativesoul

No... — Janus

:brow:

Yeah. I'm done here.

...

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that non linguistic animals can entertain thought/belief that they cannot have. Entertaining thought/belief is thinking about it. Thinking about it requires being able to talk about it. — creativesoul

Could you clarify this? Maybe rephrase it?

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that non linguistic animals can entertain thought/belief that they cannot have. Entertaining thought/belief is thinking about it. Thinking about it requires being able to talk about it.
— creativesoul

Could you clarify this? Maybe rephrase it? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll add a bit. Perhaps it will help.

Non linguistic animals cannot talk about thought/belief. Thus, they cannot think about thought/belief. Since entertaining a thought is to think about it, it makes no sense to say that a creature without the capability to think about thought/belief can entertain thought/belief.

If only some of you guys had read Maturana, who deflates 'thinking' as an epihenomenon of 'languaging' which is a behavior applicable to some animals, I'm sure that much of the above diecussion would have been avoidable !
Don't get me wrong...there is much to swallow in Maturana's views, like the idea that 'predators chasing prey' is merely an anthropomorhism which humans use to describe ('structurally couple' with other humans) an automatic structural coupling in other species. This is a 'systems view' of 'life' per se as 'cognition'.
IMO, Maturana attempts an interesting biological backcloth aginst which iconoclastic attacks on analytic philosophical can be viewed.
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

Non linguistic animals cannot talk about thought/belief. Thus, they cannot think about thought/belief. Since entertaining a thought is to think about it, it makes no sense to say that a creature without the capability to think about thought/belief can entertain thought/belief. — creativesoul

Thanks bud.

This makes sense.

My question is, how can we say the prelinguistic creature cannot think of "existence" as it does a "tree"? After all, the tree is not a "tree" in prelinguistic thought, it only factors as something distinct that correlates to something else distinct. So, it is very possible that "existence", like the "tree", can be thought by the nonlinguistic creature.

Yet, I find a problem here, it seems to be beyond the scope of linguistic thought, to speculate whether or not "existence", like the "tree", can factor as something distinct, with some correlation to something else distinct, in prelinguistic thought. As it stands, it is impossible for the linguistic thinker to enter into the mind of the nonlinguistic thinker without going silent...from our perspective, we can only understand the "tree", "existence", or the nonlinguistic thinker through language.

...slightly more digestible...
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/3192504/thesis.pdf

This makes sense. — Merkwurdichliebe

Does it?

What about telepaths and mutes?

What about telepaths and mutes? — Shamshir

They are anomalies. Nevertheless, capable of linguistic thought, simply through their natural capacity for conceptual abstraction.

What about Helen Keller?

I suggest you investigate that word 'understand'.
also
There is no logical restriction on 'words' being confined to a phonetic or graphemic domain.

There is no logical restriction on 'words' being confined to a phonetic or graphemic domain. — fresco

Interesting, please elaborate.

This would mean the existence can be thought of independent of language.

What about Helen Keller? — Merkwurdichliebe

Record player.

What about jellyfish?

Nevertheless, capable of linguistic thought, simply through their natural capacity for conceptual abstraction. — Merkwurdichliebe

Tell me what you mean by linguistic thought, as I find no grounds for it in the above.

linguistic thought — Shamshir

Thought predicated on language use.

Let me add...

Language is the expression of concept. Language use is dependent upon language aquisition, which is dependent on conceptual abstraction. Most humans, including the mute and telepathic, have the capacity for conceptual abstraction, and therefore language acquistion, despite the ability to use it.

Then I repeat there's no grounds for linguistic thought, but merely making references which holds the possibility of communication but does not instigate it.

That is the essential difference to me. Linguistic thought has the potential to be communicated. Nonlinguistic thought does not.


And, my personal opinion is that nonlinguistic thought is more closely related to actual existence than linguistic thought.

'Words' can be thought of as any repetitive behavioral gesture used to facilitate 'structural coupling' between individuals, or to internally resolve behavioral uncertainties within individuale. Those 'gestures' could manifest at any level, from the neural to the muscular.
The word 'existence' is merely one such gesture whose import is specifically context bound (hence 'relative').

The difference is the oft repeated wedge 'about'.

Remove it - non linguistic.
Add it - linguistic.

Remove it - non linguistic.
Add it - linguistic. — Shamshir

Come again?

Thinking about blue as opposed to thinking blue.

See the difference?