So, I'm curious...

How do you account for the belief of language less creatures? — creativesoul

I don't have some finished theory and doubt I ever will. I think that we humans have patterns in our marks and noises embedded within broader patterns. Our talk of belief is part of this. Our making sense of animal belief is part of this. It all functions as a whole, and we are trained into a kind of blind skill for acting within these conventions. For instance, what does it mean to 'account for'? Of course we have a rough sense. Roughly, accounting for something means making it familiar, more manageable, weaving it in to our larger stories.

I think we tend to project some trimmed-down version of our intra-human mentalistic langauge on animals. I'm not even against that. It's more about revealing this or that approach as optional, to some degree just for the intellectual pleasure.

Expectation is belief about what will take place, or in this case belief about what is about to happen. Her thinking about the sound is nothing more than drawing correlations between the same things... the sound and receiving treats.

Animals show belief by displaying expectation.

Pavlov's dog involuntarily slobbering after hearing the bell shows us, along with his path towards the food bowl, that he thinks, believes, and/or expects to be fed. All as a result of drawing correlations between the sound of the bell and eating food. We can change the sound of the bell, to any sound we arbitrarily choose so long as it is audible to the dog. The same results will happen because the same thing is happening... correlations are being drawn. — creativesoul

The so-called expectation just is the behavior. It is not implied or demonstrated by the behavior. Or rather it's not clear what talk of this implication adds. — path

I suggest stopping such talk. I've certainly not talked in terms of implication. What sense does it make for you to ask me that question? Perhaps you ought ask yourself what such talk has added...

When a cat stands in front of it's treat bowl immediately after hearing the sound of the plastic treat bag being opened, looks up and meows at the caretaker, you're claiming that that cat's behaviour is not putting it's own expectation/belief on display?

Really?

:brow:

I don't have some finished theory and doubt I ever will. — path

Do you agree that language less creatures form, have, and/or hold belief?

When a cat stands in front of it's treat bowl immediately after hearing the sound of the plastic treat bag being opened, looks up and meows at the caretaker, you're claiming that that cat's behaviour is not putting it's own expectation/belief on display?

Really? — creativesoul

No, I'm not claiming that at all. In ordinary terms it's the cat displaying its expectation, absolutely. So maybe it's a trivial point --- but one more time:

If expectation is referring to the cat's consciousness, it's plausible but a bit like a beetle in the box.I can't tell if expectation for you is in the 'mind' of the cat or only in its behavior. If it's not in the mind, then in what ways is expectation more than the visible behavior? Food open, looks up, meows.
To me that 'more than' is our human interpretation, which is fine. We could talk about that interpretation as human thoughts or be a behaviorist about them too. Food open, cat looks up, meows, human does a speech act involving 'expectation.'

Do you agree that language less creatures form, have, and/or hold belief? — creativesoul

Yes, especially in the context of our conversation, where I am trying to be a 'behaviorist' even about our human speech acts. If we think of human speech acts as 'not language' (put them on a plane with other bodily movements), then we too are languageless creatures that have 'beliefs'...which are correlations between our behavior and the environment (including the behavior of our fellow 'languageless' primates.). 'Beliefs' are something like predictable responses to stimuli, including the stimuli of words like 'expectation' and 'stimuli.' But also of course to the sound of food being opened or thunder. My dog hides in (goes to) the closet when it storms.

(I know that we have language, but I'm trying to treat our words as complicated meows.)

If expectation is referring to the cat's consciousness... — path

Why posit this?

I've explicitly said otherwise.

I was just trying to figure out how you were using 'expectation,' I guess. If we are ignoring the cat's consciousness, then what is given is just a reaction to food. Of course we can call that reaction 'expectation,' but to me this is just arguably talking about the observed behavior without adding anything.

I was just trying to figure out how you were using 'expectation,' I guess. — path

My guess is that that is not true, and you know it!

Earlier... not so long ago actually... I stated the following...

Expectation is belief about what will take place.

What are you trying to do here?

I've a ton of sympathy and appreciation for Heiddy... regarding his focus on language.

I think our views are pretty close. If I'm being eccentric, it's in good faith.

My guess is that that is not true, and you know it!

Earlier... not so long ago actually... I stated the following...

Expectation is belief about what will take place. — creativesoul

I really was just trying to get clear on what you meant.

I think I may have it.

You agree that beliefs require no consciousness or language. They can simply be enacted.

Expectation is simply an enacted belief about the future.

So expectation also requires no consciousness.

I enact my expectation that the floor will hold me as I walk across it.

I've a ton of sympathy and appreciation for Heiddy... regarding his focus on language. — creativesoul

I think the bot-stuff is connected to bedrock beliefs. We enact our expectations of being intelligible as we engage in various linguistic conventions. (I know I didn't avoid the mentalistic talk when I used intelligible, but I guess I thought I needed it to be intelligible.)

I really was just trying to get clear on what you meant.

I think I may have it. — path

Judging by what followed the above, I'm afraid there is still some remarkable and/or significant misunderstanding at work.

You agree that beliefs require no consciousness or language. — path

Not exactly.

There are two different ideas in the above report/account of my thought and/or belief(the position I'm advocating for, and/or argue from). They are:"Beliefs require no consciousness", and "beliefs require no language". Neither is one that I would advocate, without further qualification. The former is a claim that I would not make. "Consciousness" is a notion borne of gross misunderstanding of thought and belief. It's a chimera. All consciousness involves a thinking and/or believing creature.

There are no notions of consciousness that I am aware of that pick out that which existed in it's entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices. If the notion is going to do any real work, it needs to be able to properly account for such. In short, I reject talk of consciousness because it all too often results in saying shit that cannot be true. It's a money ticket item though... that's for sure!

That said...

What is the term "consciousness" doing here? I mean what is it accomplishing? What's it adding aside from an unnecessary multiplication of entities? There's no need to invoke it.

Going back to the second suggestion...

Some belief requires no language. <------------------That's 'where' both Witt and Heiddy fail.

Expectation is simply an enacted belief about the future.

That's more amenable.

What is the term "consciousness" doing here? I mean what is it accomplishing? What's it adding aside from an unnecessary multiplication of entities? There's no need to invoke it. — creativesoul

Wow, we are misunderstanding each other. I've been contorting myself to get away from 'consciousness' and 'the unnecessary multiplication of entities.'

Can opener sound. Tuna smell. Cat comes closer, meows, looks up.

This pattern is something that we can work into the complicated pattern of our meows and can-openings. All talk of 'expectation' and 'belief' and 'consciousness' is just part of that human meowing. As is what I'm meowing now.

Earlier you spoke of seeing a plie of snowballs either as a snowman, or as something else... They key there is what is required for seeing a snowman 'as a snowman'. That's the trick to untangling the knots that come as a result of talking like that.

Wow, we are misunderstanding each other. I've been contorting myself to get away from 'consciousness' and 'the unnecessary multiplication of entities.' — path

Ever heard of a performative contradiction?

I'm beginning to believe that you're either deliberately misrepresenting your own thought and belief, or you are enacting what's often called a performative contradiction. It's akin to eating a banana while claiming that one tries to avoid eating bananas.

Ya feel me?

Yes, I hear you. [Responding to the post before your last. ]This touches on intentionality. What interest me is that this is one more beetle in the box. People might say that AI can't have it, but how do we know that we have it? If we just use the word according to certain complex conventions, we 'have' it. It's supposed to refer to something that's not just language. It's the same with 'consciousness.'

You and I both understand, I trust, that we know what it is to take snowballs as a snowman. What this knowing is...is not so clear. It's at least participating in complicated social conventions.

I've been bringing up consciousness and mentalistic language in order to avoid it and take some distance from it. But it's hard to strip it entirely from our meta-language. We are just trained in to talking this way. We can only talk against this training by simultaneously employing it.

Yes, I hear you. This touches on intentionality. What interest me is that this is one more beetle in the box.. — path

I've been bringing up consciousness and mentalistic language in order to avoid it... — path

Good job on that.

My cat is capable of seeing a snowman. Snowmen are directly perceptible things, after-all. In fact, that snowman is capable of becoming a part of that cat's belief, by virtue of the cat drawing a correlation between it and something else.

However, that cat does not - cannot - see the snowman as a snowman, for that is to know what the snowman's name is.

I've been bringing up consciousness and mentalistic language in order to avoid it and take some distance from it. But it's hard to strip it entirely from our meta-language. We are just trained in to talking this way. We can only talk against this training by simultaneously employing it. — path

This might be a point worth unpacking.

We're involved in a metacognitive endeavor. That is, we are talking about our own thought and belief. We use language to do so. Language is required for thinking about our own thought and belief. I used to - mistakenly - assert that written language was required. However, it was brought to my attention that oral tradition is more than adequate for rudimentary versions. That said...

Prior to thinking/talking about something, there must be something to think/talk about. That is the target.

We clearly have thought and belief - of some rudimentary basic and/or simple variety prior to language; that is prior to any and all notions, definitions, and/or conceptions of "thought", "belief", "imagination", "mind"... prior to language creation/acquisition itself.

How do we account for such a thing, given we have to use language as a means for doing so? Perhaps that is a question that is of interest to you?

I posit that all thought and belief must be meaningful to the thinking/believing creature, and it must also somehow presuppose it's own correspondence to what's happened and/or is happening.

What does non linguistic and/or prelinguistic thought and belief consist of such that it can - over enough time and given the 'right' circumstances - evolve without hitch into the rich linguistically informed thought and belief that humans have today, as well as be meaningful and presuppose it's own correspondence?

Correlations.

We are just trained in to talking this way. We can only talk against this training by simultaneously employing it. — path

Of course. We must - at the very least - mention it's use. That's remarkably different than continuing it.

That is the target. We clearly have thought and belief prior to language. What does it consist of? — creativesoul

I'm tempted to think of organisms reacting to stimuli.

One can be

the kind of antiessentialist who, like Dewey, sees no breaks in the hierarchy of increasingly complex adjustments to novel stimulation—the hierarchy which has amoeba adjusting themselves to changed water temperature at the bottom, bees dancing and chess players check-mating in the middle, and people fomenting scientific, artistic, and political revolutions at the top. — Rorty

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

So we have non-human animals doing as they do, before the bald talky apes arrive. Then we come along with our highly complicated meows (language proper) and talk about it. Thought and belief prior to human language are shown or enacted nonlinguistically in patters of reaction and interaction.

That's my first guess. Much more can be said, as always.

I'm tempted to think of organisms reacting to stimuli. — path

There is a plurality of different things, but it is a far stretch to claim that there is a creature capable of drawing correlations between them. Not something I'd defend.

I'm not a Rorty fan, by the way... He mistakenly holds that truth is dependent upon language, which is prima facie evidence that he has no coherent conception of non linguistic thought or belief.

We clearly have thought and belief - of some rudimentary basic and/or simple variety prior to language; that is prior to any and all notions, definitions, and/or conceptions of "thought", "belief", "imagination", "mind"... prior to language creation/acquisition itself. — creativesoul

I guess I don't see a clean break where language begins. If animals coordinate their behavior with noises and scents, that's a kind of language. What if we humans are doing the same kind of thing at a higher level of complexity? Does that make sense?

I'm not a Rorty fan, by the way... He mistakenly holds that truth is dependent upon language, which is prima facie evidence that he has no coherent conception of non linguistic thought or belief. — creativesoul

Is there someone you can refer me to that's closer to your approach? Just to see it in another vocabulary? Or are you working on something fresh?

...

Language begins when one creature successfully refers to something by use of proxy of some sort, marks, sounds, gestures, etc. — creativesoul

Ah. For me the issue is maybe this referral. Do you mean that one thing represents another, or points to it in some sense?

Sorry, that answer was too quickly given. Language does much more than just reference. Habits die hard.

:joke:

...I guess I don't see a clean break where language begins. — path

Language use begins when a plurality of creatures draw the same correlations between different things. Reference is only one use. We also get others to do stuff with language use. We greet others, etc.

Do you mean that one thing represents another, or points to it in some sense? — path

I wouldn't say that a name represents it's referent. It refers to it. It picks it out of this world to the exclusion of all else.

In cases of successful reference, a plurality of people draw a correlation between the name and the referent; between "trees" and trees, for instance.

Language use begins when a plurality of creatures draw the same correlations between different things. Reference is only one use. We also get others to do stuff with language use. — creativesoul

What about when a dog pees where other dogs have peed? We can say that they are indicating their presence, maybe other things. But all we see is that the dog pees where other dogs have peed.

Or we can say that bee dancing points other bees to food, but all we see is the dance and that the bees go to where the first bee was.

Would you accept this as enacted correlation?