Even if you're not thinking about those reasons? And is holding a belief the same as having reasons for holding it? Are you still talking about the belief existing in different senses, some phenomenal some not? — Srap Tasmaner

If I never had the present moment phenomenal state (State 1), then I could never be said to have believed that I lived in Georgia. It is required that at some point I have held the belief to say that I currently hold the belief. To say I have the belief now even when not thinking about it is simply to claim I previously held the belief and haven't changed my mind. And it's doubtful I'll change my mind if I have no basis.

SO you accept a reality external to your phenomenal experience. Not all hope is lost, then. — Banno

I've not argued idealism. I've just insisted there are phenomenal states, a claim you seem to deny.

I have other things to compare the paint to. You have nothing with which to compare your private mental furniture, except more private mental furniture. — Banno

Sure, you can go back and compare your current house to some old paint samples you kept in your basement to see if it faded, unless of course the samples faded too, much like my memory might have faded. We should have kept better care of our measuring sticks I suppose, but I very well might be convinced that all our measuring sticks had been altered if they were inconsistent with how I remembered them to be.

It drops out of the discussion; and in so doing, drops out of any rational discourse. It is irrelevant. — Banno

What drops out and what's irrelevant?

I'm not following this at all. — Srap Tasmaner

Ok, I'll try again.

I'm currently thinking about my belief that I live in the state of Georgia. We'll call this Phenomenal State 1.

I'm sitting around eating popcorn and watching cartoons, not thinking about where I live. We'll call this Phenomenal State 2.

Do I believe that I live in Georgia while in State 2? Sure, I guess, only because I have the same reasons to believe it when I'm thinking about it even when I'm not, but State 1 is different from State 2.

That's introspection, surely. Doesn't your belief that you live in the great state of Georgia persist when you happen not to be thinking about it? — Srap Tasmaner

It exists in a different sense when I am thinking about than when I'm not, but to the extent the same data and rationality exists over time that causes me to believe I live in Georgia, I continue to have that same belief in some sense even when I'm not actually presently experiencing that belief.

Is the phenomenal state the belief itself? When you see the beetle scuttle under the porch, is your belief that he's there identical to your phenomenal state of imagining the beetle there in the dark? — Srap Tasmaner

My belief is a phenomenal state I suppose. Believing there's a beetle under the porch differs from seeing the beetle.

Funny thing is, ofttimes when we both look at the same thing, we agree as to the details.

It's the privacy of your imagined "phenomenal states" that leads you astray here. — Banno

It shouldn't be funny that two genetically similar beings arive at the same phenomenal states in response to the same external stimuli. That is assumed, of course, but I don't know that a bat would see the world as I do.

Suppose that your belief changes over time, but that you do not notice.

It what sense can your belief be said to be the very same, over time? It ceases to have any individuality. — Banno

Suppose the paint on your house fades over time yet you do not notice? In what sense can the paint be said to be the very same over time?

I learn pain behavior by using it correctly within a linguistic setting. I don't learn pain behavior from my own pains, — Sam26

And suppose this empirical declaration is wrong? This really isn't philosophy anymore. It's just a strange claim about how people learn. I do in fact know that you're in pain when your behavior is consistent with my own, and it all happens outside a linguistic setting.

We both see the beetle.

We do not both see your mental furniture. — Banno

We both have phenomenal states. I experience mine, you yours. How the beetle looks without reference to how it looks to someone is incoherent.

If we followed Hanover here and agreed that the meaning of our words is a subjective item of some sort, we would have no basis for claiming that you, I and Hanover meant the same thing, as Hanover says. — Banno

Of course we'd have a basis for claiming that we were using the words to refer to the same things. I'd see that when I saw a beetle run by, you would say, "hey, there goes a beetle." I would infer that your phenomenal impression was just as mine was based upon your behavior. And you needn't say "hey, there goes a beetle." Maybe you'd scream, flinch, or whatever. I would draw a conclusion as to what your internal mental impression was based upon your behavior, linguistic or otherwise. As to the question of whether my phenomenal impression of the beetle was similar to yours, I could not know that for sure, but that is simply the inherent limitation of a first person account - it can't be placed into the second person. My guess is that you see beetle as I do, simply because we're all humans of similar structure and we seem to similar reactions to the beetle.

Hanover might see beliefs as things in the head that we can reference. But you and I see them as tools used in producing explanations, and various other activities. — Banno

I see a belief as a thing in my head I can reference, yet you see it as a tool that you can use. So, that thing you call a belief you reference is a tool. I presume you acknowledge the belief is in your head. It's not on the table, right? So, this means that you see a belief as a thing in your head that you can reference and you call this thing a tool. I'm not sure what the distinction is you wish to make, except you wish to call beliefs tools.

I use DOS 1.3

Maybe you now spell all words correctly. Have you recently been hit on the head?

I actually get spell check on my home and work computers, but not my phone. Not sure why.

Your web designer, your lawyer, they just want to do what's required to not get fired, they're not interested in doing a good job, and why should they be? — Pseudonym

This is amatuer psychoanlysis. People have all sorts of motivations, despite your view that everyone chases dollars and strikes at shiny objects like a fish. I care only about quality.

Missed the sarcasm. Needed a :wink:

Knowing requires a justification which is a subjective interpretation.

I just didn't follow your comment that "it doesn't go unexpressed." Was "it" the belief? You could have an unexpressed belief.

Not following. The belief isn't the behavior.

Yes, the utterance is but a very small percentage of the information conveyed. The distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior is arbitrary as all behavior is communicative whether it be orated by Winston Churchill or my dog scratching at the door.

A belief is knowable only via behavior and is therefore subject to interpretation.

One problem I see, and I'm sure I'm not alone, is how we can know what the non-linguistic creature's belief is. I mean, one could come up with a variety of different explanations for the same set of behaviours — creativesoul

You know any being's belief by its behavior whether it's by their gestures, movements, or utterances. Language is behavior just like your cat looking for its bowl. All external behavior offers an incomplete report of the internal belief, which could result in alternative explanations, just like you remain uncertain of Banno's beliefs in this thread despite his explicit linguistic behavior attempting to explain himself.

The meaning of a word - so far as there can be such a thing - cannot be its "subjective referent" - whatever that might be - because you and I can mean the very same thing with the same word; that would imply that the subjective referent in your head was the very same subjective referent as in my head, thus contradicting the very idea of it being subjective. — Banno

No, it would imply that it's likely we both are referencing a similar subjective impression of a beetle when we said "beetle," but we couldn't be sure.

I can't be sure your utterance of "beetle" is heard the same for me as you. It too is a beetle. Language is only assumed public.

Fine, here's a pic of me.

https://media.giphy.com/media/YI0HM7ix6pFbW/giphy.mp4

Aww Hanover, that is simply adorable. You named a fine lady after a gourd we carve, to scare people as we jack them for free candy, when the sun goes down on all Hallows Eve. Brilliant! :roll: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Don't be jelly Sweet Petunia.

Sorry, you can't be Punkin cuz Punkin said so. You're now Luscious.

Carry on.

Not sure who is hipper and cooler, the young flopping Travolta with the goofy grin or the serious and aloof gum chewer in the spaghetti strap cut off.

What currently makes you feel confident and empowered to be your most authentic self? — GBaxter

The sound of Baden crying.

Also, keep in mind that you fail the Hannah test. You must be at least 20 years older than my daughter in order for me to have any interest in a romantic relationship. Also, I'd have to ask my wife and she is unlikely to approve. I hope you're not too disappointed. — T Clark

I pass the Hannah test and your wife just told me you could join in.

Don't be jelly. You can be Punkin too.

I wish to thank Tiff for pointing out that I have become the topic of discussion of yet another thread. I'd also like to thank Timeline (aka Punkin) for having created a word describing all that is me.

Carry on.

If you look at the child actually, you will see just how intensely he is playing, how immersed he is into it - he does it with his entire being, it is not a half-hearted effort at all. — Agustino

Being childlike is endearing. Childish, not so much.

Silly games and silly rules is all in fun, and everyone wants to play with the fun kid, but the kid who whines, mopes, and complains at the unfairness of it all is the one no one wants to play with. I didn't at least.

One must take their life seriously. One must care about it. Even when one is joking, playing, etc. You must play seriously. — Agustino

What you take seriously is often what reveals your character, which is why the person who berates the waitress for his cold soup receives little respect from the person who knows the meaning of true loss. Of course you should be serious when it's a life or death issue or it's something that can avoid true suffering, but we rarely encounter that in the routine of our day, and if you find yourself being overly serious about the mundane issues of life, you're probably lacking some degree of perspective.

And that means should I realize that you are taking things too seriously, I should simply appreciate that and not provoke you by minimizing what you hold to be serious, even though I don't think it's serious at all. One who lacks the ability to self-deprecate due to his taking life too seriously will often mistake good natured ribbing as malicious ridicule.

I'm not sure is any kind of painting is really risky since there are not really any adverse consequences to painting a bad picture. — charleton

Like if you paint a penis on Kim Jung Un's face, that would be risky. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one came to mind.

I have been for the most part of my life risk averse, but life changes regardless of the security you try to create for yourself, and then you realize that some of the changes foisted upon you result in needed growth. It's actually liberating to have your life dismantled to a degree because it makes you realize that clinging to the way things are is a self-imposed prison often motivated by fear. This isn't a suggestion that you should be impulsive or self-destructively free spirited, but it is to suggest you push yourself out of your comfort zone because that really is where life is most worth living.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2SfmcNg8js

Concepts are linguistic. — creativesoul

I'm telling you that I comprehend concepts nonlinguistically, so it's sort of silly for you to tell me I'm not, don't you think?

If I told you there were no computers, should it matter to me that you report to me you're using a computer?

You're the common denominator in all of these troublesome business dealings.

Perhaps use the deft people skills you have displayed on this board to generate the same good will among your vendors as you have here.

Or more kindly, I'd suggest that even if you are right in each instance and they are wrong, it's still you who is damaged, which means it's as much a part of being a successful business person that you extract good work out of your people as it is that you personally are competent. Being a good producer doesn't always translate into being a good manager and it sounds like you have vendors running amok.

I can only say that when I read these posts that language necessarily precedes concepts, I wonder how it is that I reject those arguments fully understanding the basis of my rejection well before I've articulated that basis linguistically. You guys might be describing the way your mind works, or maybe you wish simply to deny something that challenges your worldview, but I find the discussion just so clearly inconsistent with experience. I conceptualize nonlinguistically and find myself searching for words to express those concepts. If you don't, good for you, but I know no other way to do it.

My point is that they have no concepts because concepts are a necessary feature of language. What is a concept apart from language? I have no idea what that would be. — Sam26

What is a concept other than an abstract idea? I can only speak for myself, but I do arrive at concepts prior to articulating them into language. Couldn't I know nothing of baseball, but be able to derive the concepts of the game from the behavior even though I at no time create an inner dialog explaining to myself those concepts?

I'm making a distinction between concepts and beliefs, in the sense that beliefs can be shown in our actions apart from language, but concepts not. — Sam26

I guess I don't fully follow the distinction. The pre-lingual man leaves food for his prey to entice him near his arrow. Is that not an understanding of the concept of hunger?

Firstly, it does not follow from the fact that we use a given word, that there is a something to which the word refers. For example, "red". — Banno

Not every word has an objective referent, but every meaningful word has a subjective referent, namely its subjective meaning. The subjective referent oftentimes preexists the word, and I'd suppose often occurs without a word ever being designated to attach to that referent.

My point of view is that capitalism works by outsourcing exploitation, just like life works by decreasing its own internal entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment (by more than it decreases its own). So for capitalism to work, there must be an "out there" that we don't care about - the Chinese, the Africans, etc. - let them produce everything for us cheaply, we don't care how they live so long as we have what we need back home. — Agustino

There are capitalists who produce by their own labor and who offer generous income and benefits to their labor force. You're just describing a particular type of industry and type of capitalist where production requires little skill and the owner is trying to maximize his own profits at the expense of his employees being provided very little.

If I own a clothing business, maybe it would be cheaper to outsource to China where the workers will make very little. If I'm starting a plumbing business, it might behoove me to treat my best plumbers very well. In a capitalist system, the worker is a commodity, so the greater his skills and talents, the better he will be treated, which is why you should stay in school, be hardworking, and make yourself valuable.