Because you perhaps believe that I am in Australia, and hence that I am on Earth, and hence that I am not in orbit around Jupiter. Or are we not to make such deductions? — Banno

Entailment has issues. See my recent stuff on Gettier.

creativesoul What? — Banno

Sorry about that... accidental post. Corrected now.

All beliefs can be put into the form "M believes that p". — Banno

Sure, we can say stuff about other creatures' belief(s) using that form. Not so much the grammar of belief, but rather the grammar of our report.

We can believe that a broken clock is working. No one believes that "a broken clock is working" is true.

If at time t1 someone believes that a particular broken clock is working, they would not say so.

All of these things point out problems with belief as propositional attitude as well as the common malpractice of treating all belief as equivalent to statements and/or propositions.

When an infant goes in search of its pacifier, he/she/they already believe that there is one to be found. That's an implicit belief that is not always made explicit. Note the infant has no language. So, not all belief is equivalent to belief statements, nor propositional attitudes.

I've tried here to defend a view of belief roughly in line with mainstream analytic thinking, and you've been helpful in challenging that. It might be that I need to adjust my view somewhat. The view I was defending is that not all our beliefs are explicit. I find it puzzling, given our previous interaction, that you choose this with which to disagree. — Banno

I agree that "Not all our beliefs are explicit". I disagree with your example which was basically a report of all readers' belief. At time t1, you claimed we already believed a statement made by you at time t1. I didn't then, and I don't now.

At time t1, you misattributed belief to me.

Ok, cut off the conversation even as it begins. — Banno

Not my intention...

That is, you are not supposing... ..."Banno is floating in space in the orbit of Jupiter" was not false before being written in that post, nor was it true, and nor was it some other, third truth option, but that it didn't exist at all, and therefore was ineligible for any truth value? — Banno

I'm saying that it was never a belief of mine to begin with.

I place considerable value on bivalence. I'm not claiming "belief statements are not bivalent."

I can't make sense of your use of the term belief.

Your statement at time t1 is not equivalent to my belief at time t2 after agreeing with it. <-----that's the gist of it.

One of the thought-experiments I sometimes consider it, imagine having the perspective of a mountain (were a mountain to have senses). As the lifespan of a mountain is hundreds of millions of years, you wouldn't even notice humans and animals, as their appearances and dissappearances would be so ephemeral so as to be beneath your threshold of awareness. Rivers, you'd notice, because they'd stay around long enough to actually carve into you. But people and animals would be ephemera. — Wayfarer

Anthropomorphism.

the mind tends to ignore the reality. — NOS4A2

Much of it anyway...

that is my point. By this means I am making clear the sense in which perspective is essential for any judgement about what exists — even if what we’re discussing is understood to exist in the absence of an observer, be that an alpine meadow, or the Universe prior to the evolution of h. sapiens. The mind brings an order to any such imaginary scene, even while you attempt to describe it or picture it as it appears to exist independently of the observer. — Wayfarer

Sure... judgment about what exists always comes via perspective. It does not follow from that that everything that ever existed does as well.

Some parts of reality... sure.

What preceded us... never. Impossible.

This is a bit tricky. I would want to say that it is something I do not believe, but not something I do believe. Or rather, it was. Now that you have brought it to my attention I have assented to it and I believe it. That I believe you are sitting at a computer on Earth explains why I would assent to any entailed propositions that are brought to my attention, or which become generally relevant. — Leontiskos

I find timestamps clear up a few things... no need to rely on the 'rules of logical entailment'(scarequotes intentional)
.

So your idea is that the proposition does not exist at all until voiced? — Banno

With enough specificity, even you'll agree.

Call me whatever you'd like.

...not all our beliefs are explicit. You believe, arguably, that I am not writing this while floating in space in the orbit of Jupiter, yet until now that belief had not been explicated. — Banno

That's supposed to be a belief we already had that was not yet explicated

We could neither assent nor agree with Banno's report until he penned the words. We could not have possibly believed anything at all regarding his whereabouts while he writing his report until we were aware that he had written one. His claim is that we had unexplicated belief regarding his whereabouts while he was writing despite the fact that none of us, aside from him, had any idea that he was writing such a report, and thus no one could possibly have any belief at all regarding his whereabouts while he was writing.

He claimed we had belief that had not been explicated, then explicated what we did not believe.

:meh:

We cannot believe Banno's report of what we did not believe at time t1 is true until we read it. He says we did not believe he was in Jupiter's orbit at time t1. He's right. We didn't. So...

Where is the belief that had not been explicated? He offered up something we did not believe.

His claim is that we had belief at time t1 about his whereabouts at time t1 that had not been explicated, but he then sets out what we did not believe about his whereabouts at time t1.

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

When someone's worldview is not possible until some particular state of affairs happens, that particular sequence of events is necessary for that worldview to emerge. That worldview is existentially dependent upon those events. Someone cannot believe that what so and so says at time t1 is true until it is first written by the author and then read by the reader/potential believer...

Here we may have a proposition that acts like a hinge... opening the door of possibility to subsequent beliefs about the proposition... namely, whether or not it is true.

The puzzles occur as a result of an analysis of knowledge it terms of an analysis of propositions: — Fooloso4

I do not think that this can be overstated. Although setting it out requires time - that I do not currently have - and would be a distraction from the thread topic and turn into a critique of Witt's approach. Coincidentally, the same critique would apply to academic philosophy in general from the Enlightenment through mid 20th century. For example, the same critique can render Gettier toothless, for it is in treating beliefs as equivalent to propositions that gives rise to Gettier.

It is impossible to exaggerate the damage done to philosophy and cognitive science by the mistaken view that "believe" and other intentional verbs name relations between believers and propositions. — Searle, my bolding

You believe, arguably, that I am not writing this while floating in space in the orbit of Jupiter, yet until now that belief had not been explicated. — Banno

:brow:

Do you think that the entire world is mind-dependent, or just certain of its features?
— charles ferraro

Where would the line be drawn? — Quixodian

That which is existentially dependent upon minds and that which is not.

It's the knowledge regarding that distinction which is difficult to acquire. It's all about method.

If any instance of God talk resulted in doing good, and all God talk is a waste of time, then God talk that resulted in doing good is a waste of time.

The OP mistakenly presupposes that there has never been a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

The only way all questions of God and all God talk could be a waste of time is if there were never a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

There have been goals reached by virtue of God talk.

Therefore, not all God talk is a waste of time.

There's a dying man, who talks of God. The discussions help mend long held grudges and unsettled feelings. The man dies with a peace and contentment that came as a result of the God talk.

Waste of time?

These scenarios are endless. No one knows exactly why people talk about such things. No one knows the causal affects/effects of all such practices.

p1. In order to know that doing X is a waste of time for others, one must know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

p2. It's impossible to know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

C. It's impossible to know that doing X is a waste of time for others.


Let X be talking about God.

:kiss: As you wish...

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.
— creativesoul

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP. — Mikie

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you?
— creativesoul

Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear. — Mikie

What's clear is that you neglected to address the argument that shows the problem in your own worldview.

What kind of person you are is none of my business. I do think you might consider whether your behavior here is good for the forum -- that's the extent of my interest here, so that's all I'll say. You can put me on the "sanctimonious" list if you like, I won't mind. — Srap Tasmaner

Yup.

Interesting... as much as we differ in our philosophical positions, we're in complete agreement regarding whether or not the behavior of this individual is acceptable or not.

:wink:

This is a great forum. There are all kinds of different people here and there. Don't judge the site by that thread. I've been here for a while, and I share your repulsion... moreso because it's coming from a position of power, and such people should set the best example/standard.

Recent history shows what happens when leaders and people in power act in otherwise immoral and unacceptable ways.

My work here is done...

So, let me get this straight...

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? That it's not a waste of time for anyone else?

Really now.

Sigh.

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. — Mikie

You did not say it. True. It's exactly what you did though.

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.

The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent.
— creativesoul

A computer can act forever, as a stand alone device. A human brain can also function as a completely stand alone device (hermitical human). You can connect computers together in a network by wired or wireless means and allow them to communicate, via language/code. Human brains can also network via language/code, yes. But, networking is optional, and is not evidence that refutes the existence of 'I.' — universeness

False analogy. Irrelevant.

Humans are not computers. Boolean logic is not equivalent to native tongues/common languages. Common language acquisition is not optional. So, the comparison is a false analogy on its face. That's enough, really, to dismiss the counter you offered.

There is no "I" without common language. There is no common language without shared meaning. There is no shared meaning without a plurality of language users. There is no plurality of users without others. Hence, there is no "I" without others. There is no "I" without a belief system replete with self-identification stemming from common language use.

None of this refutes the existence of "I", nor was I trying to(hence, I prefixed the original objection by saying it was completely beside the point of the ongoing quibble it was dissected from). Rather, this is only meant to help you recognize that the statement "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is false on its face. It doesn't. It cannot. It's impossible, because you cannot unlearn common language while continually using it. You cannot 'disconnect' all of the meaningful correlations that you've long since drawn between language use and other things, including the use of "I" and yourself.

All this only to say that our brains do not function separately/independently from each other. Language bridges the spatiotemporal gap with shared meaning, shared belief, shared thought, shared understanding. If your brain functioned separately and independently of every other brain, you would not even have the capability to say so.

Right. Although, for me it was far more than just that! The way I stood, talked, expressed myself, played, etc... eventually I ended up with a persona to satisfy them. It wasn't really me, but it worked. Then I had to go through the struggle of shedding the skin later, when it was no longer necessary, and I actually realized that that had happened.

That's uh... very very difficult to do. Well, for me anyway... it was.

And now... very few of them even know me at all. They refused to accept me then... as a youth. I refuse to accept them now... as an adult.

I can very much relate to the idea of parents comparing their son to girls as a means to dissuade certain behaviors. My family did that to me all the time.

:roll:

Each person walks their own path for their own reasons. Everyone adopts their 'original' worldview/belief system. This is true of each and every language user regardless of familial, cultural, and societal particulars. All belief systems evolve over time and influence. This is also true of everyone.

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time is an expression stemming from combined ignorance, unjustified certainty, blatant inconsideration for others(immoral behaviour if there is such a thing),and spiteful arrogance.

Pathetic.

My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness

Well... this is besides the bickering between the two of you, but...

The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent.

Sweet!

Funny. I lasted smoked a month ago... Congrats. I agree with the habits of mind bit... very much so. The power of thought and words is like magic.

Ah. All good. You'll have that! Well, if you're not a fan, then you probably would not want to watch that then! It was quite interesting to me, probably as a direct result of my strong methodological naturalist bent!

:wink:

I am also doing well.

the belief that some philosophers (and others) who deny consciousness or deny our subjective experiences as an illusion. I think this is a grave error. — Sam26

I think that Dennett has a very particular target that he's denying and calling an "illusion". For whatever that's worth.

He has a youtube video on the evolution of purpose(well, it's more like a video of his lecture)... Very interesting. I recommend watching it several times. It's about an hour long.

Edited to correct the title of Dennett's lecture...
Hi Sam! Hope you're well.

Seems like there's a presupposition at work here. Some seem to have presupposed that humans have transitioned from reproduction as an innate biological drive to something that is not... something called "cultural" or some such.

Well, seems perfectly clear to me that human reproduction has evolved over time, and that in doing so has been influenced by social, familial, and cultural mores. It's still innate and biological. It's not like there's a problem of mutual exclusivity here... is there?

What am I missing?

Since when is perfection and omniscience necessary for knowledge???

:worry:

At 7:53 PM EST on July 24 2023, the person with the avatar name "creativesoul" posted on a philosophy forum.