Straight lines on spheres? That's interesting too.

:yum:

Hence fdrake's pointing out the inadequacy of @Leontiskos' definition.

A great circle is the longest possible straight line on a sphere. No midpoint and diameter in that definition. — Banno

Ah. Understood. I need to read more carefully. Thanks. I appreciatcha!

You won't know what goes in mine except I tell you truthfully — Janus

That's not at all true either Janus. I know beyond all doubt that you're drawing correlations between the words we use and all sorts of other things, including how the activity itself is affecting you.

It's a matter of precision you're after, I suspect. In that case, I still disagree. I've been involved in conversation with someone embroiled in unsettled emotional turmoil who really believed that they were not.

The 'great circle' looks elliptical to me. "Circle" is being used in the same argument in two different senses.

Some people say that they think in images. That would be independent of language.
— Ludwig V
I very much wish I knew one of these people, so I could talk with them and ask many questions. — Patterner

Ask away!

:wink:

...we have no way of knowing what goes in animal's heads apart from observing their behavior and body language... — Janus

That's not true. We can know quite a bit about how biological minds work. It dovetails with knowledge about how all things become meaningful. How statements become true/false. How we can preserve truth with timestamping, etc. I wouldn't talk about thought, belief, and/or meaningful experience in terms of "what goes on in the head". It works from emaciated notions of all three.

Yes, rationality includes more than differentiating between accurate/inaccurate information. I was making that case.
— creativesoul
Yes. But it does include differentiating between accurate and inaccurate information, doesn't it? — Ludwig V

I'm not fond of "information". It smuggles meaning.

There are all sorts of language less creatures(creatures devoid of naming and description practices) capable of differentiating between distal objects. Again, I'm not fond of invoking some notion of "information". That's adding complexity. I'd rather excise the unnecessary and unhelpful approaches to the topic.

Not all differentiation between accurate and inaccurate information requires articulated reason/thought.

Yes. I was just expanding the scope of what counts as being rational to include more than just the ability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.
— creativesoul
Yes, I would agree there's more to it than that. It is not rational to drop many different pairs of different objects from many different heights, and come out of it thinking heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That would be an inability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.. — Patterner

Whether or not it is rational to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones depends upon the individual's preexisting worldview.

Feathers. Bowling balls. Snowflakes. Leaves. Limbs. Trees. We can watch many different things fall through space. Watching many different things fall through space leads one to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Watching heavier objects traverse the same distance in less time than lighter ones is something that can be fully experienced by any creature capable of judging the travel speed(fall rate) variety of external objects relative to each other, a fixed object, from the creature's own vantage point.

One can only formulate beliefs about beliefs (recursion or meta-beliefs) in language. Though I would distinguish between formulating beliefs about one's own beliefs and formulating beliefs about other people's beliefs. The former seems to me problematic, because the recursion seems infinite and, in the end, empty, whereas the latter seems an everyday occurrence. (There's research in psychology about how and when small children become aware of other people's state of mind - empathy).
— Ludwig V

There's a big difference between formulating beliefs about beliefs and thinking about beliefs. Small children do not formulate beliefs about beliefs. — creativesoul

I agree with both sentences. — Ludwig V

Formulating beliefs requires language. Acquiring them does not always. I do not find the invocation and use of the term "formulating" helpful. "Forming" snuggles the world. Formulating and articulating one's own thought and belief presupposes language use. Prior to formulation and articulation comes what both of those concepts presuppose. Something to formulate. Something to articulate.

Pre-existing meaningful experience consisting of thought and belief about the world and oneself.

Human thought, belief, and experience existed in its entirety prior to our talking about it.



One can believe that touching fire hurts long before ever being able to articulate that. We're looking for some basic set of common denominators/elements shared between all cases of language less thought and/or belief. That basic foundation must also be shared by ourselves. Tacit reasoning spans the bridge between language less thought and belief and linguistically informed and/or articulated thought and belief. That's an interesting avenue.

Tacit and articulate reasoning overlap one another. Articulate reasoning consists - in very large part - of language use. Language less creatures have none. Language less creatures cannot form, have, and/or hold articulate reasoning. Yet they can learn that touching fire hurts by recognizing/attributing causality. They can learn to use a stick to eat ants/termites. They can watch and learn how lifting the handle opens the gate. They can learn to greet by partaking in such practices(by doing it). One greeting another often and regularly enough amounts to ritual. Clearly, there is no language necessary for basic notions of rational thinking. Or... learning how to open a gate by observation and practice does not count as rational thinking.

That sort of understanding becomes tacit to us. We do not express our wanting to use the gate hardly ever after learning how to use it. I'm not sure how the notions of "tacit" and "articulate" are adequate tools for acquiring knowledge of that which existed in its entirety prior to our knowledge of it.

We are in dire need of a criterion.

The great circle is the circle I've highlighted on the surface of the sphere. Since the circle is confined to the surface of the sphere, and the surface of the sphere is not a plane, it is not a plane figure. — fdrake

If all circles are plane figures, then the great circle is not a circle.

Hueston, we have a problem.

The standard objection to JTB — AmadeusD

Uses the exact same mistaken notion of belief as JTB. I reject both for using that notion of belief.

:wink:

Another topic. I'll say nothing more here.

Yes, rationality includes more than differentiating between accurate/inaccurate information. I was making that case.

I get worried about how to establish that a candidate is insincere. If one thinks about it from the perspective that you don't know whether a candidate is sincere or not, my remark
If they were the benchmark (the standard), first person reports of beliefs would be irrefutable and irreplaceable. But they are neither, though they are relevant and important.
— Ludwig V
may seem less absurd, though it still seems bad-tempered and unhelpful. — Ludwig V

I would not say that. You would know your own temper better than I.

You're quite right to point out the difficulty of establishing whether or not a candidate is sincere.

There would be no sense of importance.
— creativesoul
That is puzzling. Animals have wants and desires, and I would have thought that implies a sense of importance. — Ludwig V

I meant, and I thought the notion was of self-importance.

Removing metacognition belief content to directly perceptible things.
— creativesoul
While a creature that lacked language but has perception can know and believe various things, it cannot know or believe anything about things that cannot be directly perceived, so cannot formulate beliefs about abstract objects, such as beliefs.
That seems reasonable.

We would lose all aspects of our sense of Self that emerge via language use.
— creativesoul
Yes, of course. But I don't see why that conclusion requires the premiss about metacognition. — Ludwig V

I'm sorry. That post was not reviewed prior to posting. There were half edits going on. As it stood, on my view it was nonsense. :blush: From my own poorly attended post nonetheless.

One can only formulate beliefs about beliefs (recursion or meta-beliefs) in language. Though I would distinguish between formulating beliefs about one's own beliefs and formulating beliefs about other people's beliefs. The former seems to me problematic, because the recursion seems infinite and, in the end, empty, whereas the latter seems an everyday occurrence. (There's research in psychology about how and when small children become aware of other people's state of mind - empathy). — Ludwig V

There's a big difference between formulating beliefs about beliefs and thinking about beliefs. Small children do not formulate beliefs about beliefs.

Yes. I was just expanding the scope of what counts as being rational to include more than just the ability to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.

One must be able to differentiate between inaccurate and accurate information then? Basically, rationality boils down to that capability? — creativesoul

I don't know what else it could mean. — Patterner

Going to a train station at a certain time every day for ten years, expecting to see a certain man get off the train, even though that man has not gotten off the train once in the 3,650 days you were there in the last ten years, is not rational. — Patterner

For a dog that begins going to the train station at 5 o'clock on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for all sorts of reasons, including meeting a human, it would be rational for that dog to occasionally hold such expectation. They very well could have passing memories of the human after death.

The train station is part of a lifelong routine. The train station is connected to the human by the dog. That's what makes them both meaningful to the dog. The train station can also be connected to feeling good.

All meaningful experience begins with connections being drawn between different things. The world becomes more meaningful as a direct result. That's early rational thought.

That's what else it means.

You said they could have been rational all along, but not if knowing the difference between accurate and inaccurate information is the only measure of rationality.

Words don't play games.
— creativesoul
Not sure what you are getting at here. If you think I'm just playing games here, better tell me. — Ludwig V

That was a reference to "chess", "checkers, "draughts" language. Words don't play games. You made remarks about playing games. You were not talking about the words. You were talking about me, personally.

That's all I was getting at.

↪creativesoul
Can you think of a scenario with a rational thinker who doesn't know about gravity? — Patterner

I cannot, however, I'm not sure that being able to differentiate between accurate information and inaccurate information is the measure for rationality. Isn't that much the same as being able to tell the difference between what's true and what's not?

I don't know what else it could mean. Walking off a cliff because you don't think gravity will affect you isn't rational. — Patterner

What if you don't know about gravity and have no idea of the life threatening situation?

I don't know what else it could mean. Walking off a cliff because you don't think gravity will affect you isn't rational. Going to a train station at a certain time every day for ten years, expecting to see a certain man get off the train, even though that man has not gotten off the train once in the 3,650 days you were there in the last ten years, is not rational. — Patterner

I'm not sure that I disagree.

What if we did not have a system for numbering things and a system for telling time? What if our experience of life were the same as other animals without our thinking systems? How would that affect our sense of reality and our sense of importance in the scheme of things? — Athena

Our experience is the same on a basic level. All experience consists of correlations drawn between different things. All thought follows that same process/system. The exact things matter, as does the ability/inability to perceive them prior to/while drawing correlations.

Removing naming and descriptive practices would remove metacognition. Removing metacognition belief content to directly perceptible things. We would lose all aspects of our sense of Self that emerge via language use. There would be no sense of importance. There would be no schemes.

One must be able to differentiate between inaccurate and accurate information then? Basically, rationality boils down to that capability?

A creature that can't test things might still be able to notice things. Like a dog can notice X happens every single day at a certain time, and base its actions on that fact. But if it doesn't notice that X no longer happens every day at thatvcertain time, and has not happened once in several times as long as it originally happened, then I don't see evidence of rational thinking. — Patterner

At that time then, right?

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Rather, I'm just trying to understand the sense of "rational" you're practicing.

Let's say that we're reporting upon our neighbor's belief to our significant other. Let us also say that we're aiming at accuracy. We want our report to match their belief. Assuming sincerity and typical neurological function of the neighbor, the actual words that the believer would use to describe their own belief are not only relevant. They are the benchmark. They are the standard. — creativesoul

If they were the benchmark (the standard), first person reports of beliefs would be irrefutable and irreplaceable. But they are neither, though they are relevant and important. — Ludwig V

:yikes:

A sincere typical neurologically functioning person who tells you what they believe cannot be wrong about what they believe. Their words are the standard. Now, when talking about an insincere candidate, it's another matter altogether. Luckily, there is no such thing as an insincere language less creature. I do not see the relevance/benefit of invoking first, second, and third-person accounting practices

I think you can think rationally despite having wrong information. But, depending on the situation, you might run into problems. If you do, then rational thinking will force you to reevaluate. People were told heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. Someone could rationally come up with a plan to do something or other, maybe make some invention, based on that "fact." But then they try to test the invention, and it fails. Rational thinking would lead them to examine the whole thing, and the actual fact about falling bodies would be discovered. Rational thinking would see them embracing the newly discovered fact. — Patterner

Hmmm. That's a fairly tall order to fill. It seems to require a creature capable of testing/comparing the world to it's own beliefs about the world, and excludes all creatures incapable of metacognition.

Are you claiming that beliefs are not real or that beliefs do not effect/affect/influence?
— creativesoul
Of course not. — Ludwig V

That's not making sense. You charged me with reifying belief.

Another difference is that reasons play a part in teleological explanations, while causes do not. — Ludwig V

Which would explain why I don't employ "reason" voluntarily.

:wink:

Yes. If it was originally showing up for a rational reason, and it was showing up for the same reason years later, the reason was no longer rational. The dog's thinking was not rational. If that's the case, then I would suggest it wasn't thinking rationally in the first place. There was a different reason it was showing up.

If the reasons changed, and the dog was showing up years later for different reasons, then it may have been thinking rationally at all points. — Patterner

Can I take this as evidence that your criterion for what counts as "rational" includes something like based upon fact/events/what's happened and/or is happening?

Well-grounded? Warranted?

The glaring falsehood though, is the very last claim. As if a dog is capable of thinking about your beliefs about him.
— creativesoul
That's just dogmatic. — Ludwig V

No... it's not.

I've painstakingly explained, on more than one occasion throughout this thread, how thinking about belief is a metacognitive endeavor which requires language/proxy use; naming and descriptive practices. The dog has none. Since metacognition is existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices, and the dog has none, then the dog is incapable of metacognition. Hence, not dogmatic.

it may have a simplistic sense of what it's allowed to do and what it's not allowed to do(acceptable/unacceptable behavior).
— creativesoul
But if the dog understands what it is allowed to do and what it is not allowed to do, how is that not a simplistic moral sense? — Ludwig V

It is.

The dog's behavior all those years after Ueno died is obviously not the result of rational thinking. Why not? If it has the ability to think rationally, why isn't it doing so for a stretch of many years? — Patterner

Well.

The dog's behavior could be the result of rational thinking that belongs to a creature incapable of adjusting its belief based upon facts, or the motivations are no longer include the human's arrival... as you've been saying. Started going for all sorts of 'reasons', including the human's arrival, and continued going for all sorts of the same reasons aside from the human's arrival, in addition to new ones, also not the arrival of the human.

Oh, dear. I'm sorry. We are getting a bit heated. I'll sign off and go away and cool down. — Ludwig V

Oh no. I'm not heated. Thank you for the considerate apology. No need though. I just don't enjoy personal slights, and you've begun them. I'm just warning you that I'm quite capable of cutting deeply with words. I avoid doing as much as possible nowadays. However, I will not take too many jabs before parrying and countering with an overhand left.

:wink:

I'm good. Just trying to end any possible increase in personal rhetorical slights.

This is about the words/positions/linguistic frameworks... not the authors.

Words don't play games.

I'll do better to depersonalize my replies.

Why will we not say that the dog is hoping to meet Ueno? — Ludwig V

Because the dog is not expecting Ueno to arrive while knowing he may not. Expectation is shown. Hope is articulated in the face of knowing that what one expects to happen may very well in fact... not.

The child named the balloon.
— creativesoul
Exactly. It was the balloon that he named - our description, our concept, not his. — Ludwig V

He did not name your description. He named the balloon. The balloon consists of rubber. It was flying away. Your descriptions... your concepts... they do not fly away, nor do they consist of rubber.

Sigh.

Draughts indeed. Ludwig...

...I've enjoyed our discussions over the past couple years. I would suggest toning down the passive aggressive personal pokes and jabs. I'm very slow to anger... as they say. You will be biting off more than your position can even get in its mouth, let alone chew.

Does the dog believe the train arrives at 5 o'clock?
— creativesoul
Does the dog believe that no train arrives at 5 o'clock?

"5 o'clock" is an abstract entity. Abstract things are not directly perceptible. All things meaningful to the dog are directly perceptible. Abstract things are utterly meaningless to dogs. 5 o'clock is utterly meaningless to the dog.

That looks like a conflation between beliefs and behaviors. In your own framework, it amounts to a conflation between cause and effect.
— creativesoul
Now you are reifying beliefs and conflating explanations by reasons and explanations by causes. You are trying to play chess with draughts (checkers). — Ludwig V

There's a whole lot of presupposition packed up in very few words.

Evidently, I've misunderstood your position.

You claimed in past, on more than one occasion, that beliefs are reasons for action. Now, I think that may be better put as "belief" is a term you use to explain behavior/action.



Regarding my own, and the reification charge...

Are you claiming that beliefs are not real or that beliefs do not effect/affect/influence?

(There is no description of a belief except by means of a "that..." clause - indirect speech, as it's called. Except, of course, when we believe in someone or something.)
— Ludwig V

That's not true.

All belief consists of correlations drawn between different things by a creature so capable. <--------that's not a that clause. It is a description of all belief, from the very simplest to the most complex abstract ones we can articulate. — creativesoul

I didn't say anything about what belief consists of. I only said something about how we describe belief. — Ludwig V

Yes, and what you said has just been falsified.

...what would you make of this thought-experiment. Suppose we had some tea and sandwiches one day, and carelessly left the last one on the table and left the room. The cat was sleeping peacefully on a chair. When we got back, the cat had eaten it - or at least the tuna that was in it. The cat was again sleeping peacefully on the chair. The dog was quivering with what looked like guilt. The dog believed that we would think that the dog had pinched the sandwich. — Ludwig V

Guilt is what one experiences when they know they have done something that they believe they should not have done. The dog does not believe that he ate the tuna out of the sandwich. He knows he did not.

So, attributing guilt to the dog is a mistake. The dog doesn't feel guilty even though it may be perfectly capable of it.

Feeling guilty requires belief about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behavior(moral belief). The dog, if it has lived long enough to attribute causality to its own behavior and what happens afterwards(praise/condemnation/punishment/etc.) then it may have a simplistic sense of what it's allowed to do and what it's not allowed to do(acceptable/unacceptable behavior). We could call this rule following. It acquires this groundwork for rule following by drawing correlations between its own actions and the praise/condemnation that follows.

The dog cannot feel guilty. It did not eat the tuna. It may be fearful. Especially if it has been falsely accused in past or punished for something that it does not understand for a lack of recognizing the causal relationship.

The glaring falsehood though, is the very last claim. As if a dog is capable of thinking about your beliefs about him.

Does the dog believe and/or know that the train arrives at five o'clock? It seems absurd to even hint at an affirmative answer.
— creativesoul
One day, we (2 parents and 2 very young children) were driving along a country road. We came round a corner and saw the common of the next village. At that moment, a hot-air balloon was taking off, majestically sailing along and up. We were very close. We all watched in silence for a moment and then my son cried out "Bye, Bye, One". He had never seen or heard of a balloon before. He was too young to understand about such things. He knew it was leaving. "It" refers to the balloon. Why should I deny that he knew the balloon was leaving, even though he had no concept of a balloon? I am not saying it for his benefit, but for yours. — Ludwig V

A child learns to utter "Bye, Bye" in certain situations. The balloon was leaving, and I say that for your benefit, not mine. The child knew it was time to utter "Bye, Bye." in situations where things were leaving. The "one" qualification is interesting. The child named the balloon. That is... he picked that balloon out of the world to the exclusion of all else. He isolated the balloon.

Does the dog believe the train arrives at 5 o'clock?

My guess is it was conditioned — Patterner

Succinct.

Yup.

Those feelings would continue to result from being a part of the routine if they are the result of not only the expectation of the human, but also all of the other correlations drawn by the dog between other elements within the experience, including between the state of its own brain/body chemistry(its 'state of mind'), the walking, and other surroundings along the way.
— creativesoul
Yes, you do need to look more widely... — Ludwig V

Indeed. It's the approach that matters.

The correlations drawn by the dog between all the different sights, sounds, smells, etc., exhaust the dog's experience.

Let's say that there is a cat and that the cat has chased a mouse into hiding. The cat will wait and watch the entry point. Say it's a small opening under a cabinet. We could talk about the cat's thought and/or belief by saying the cat believes that the mouse is under the cabinet. I would have no issue with that. The reason why is because we all know that "the mouse is under the cabinet" is meaningless to the cat. However, the cabinet, the mouse, the smell, the taste, and the spatiotemporal relations are not meaningless at all in such circumstances. These elemental constituents of the cat's belief are the content. The content of a language less animal's belief are directly perceptible to them. The cat is biologically capable of perceiving and drawing correlations between those things. Those things are part of the cat's experience and are meaningful to them as a result.