That's the first step. Set out as many of the adopted belief within your own worldview that you can.
— creativesoul

Too fucking many, creative! — Shawn

As I said... it ain't easy. It has to be done though. Not all adopted belief need to be tossed.

can you actually deprogram and then reprogram, your-self? — Shawn

Not completely... nor is it needed. Not completely by yourself, it takes others.

What's the relevance of such a name/label when regarding how to go about identifying the beliefs that you adopted while learning language?

That's the first step. Set out as many of the adopted belief within your own worldview that you can.

I want to entirely deprogram myself. — Shawn

With this, I can relate Shawn. There is no easy way to go about doing that though. It is a very very taxing ongoing everyday situation, and requires a good bit of understanding not only about what exactly needs 'reprogrammed' and/or changed, but also how to go about effecting/affecting such change. It also requires good judgment because in order to change one's initial mostly adopted worldview, one must seek out other world-views about the same things. Given the sheer propensity for unreliable information, one must somehow be able to separate trustworthy information from untrustworthy information...

Assuming of course that by reprogramming one wishes to avoid having and/or holding false belief. I would hope that that is a part of your own goal(s).

Put as simply as possible...

A reprogramming is a change in one's worldview, in how one thinks about the world and/or themselves. World-views consist of thought and belief. Thus, a change in programming is a change in worldview which is a change in one's own belief-system about the world and/or oneself.

Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true... — Possibility

That's not a given. There is all sorts of stuff that we can be certain is true. The term "absolutely" doesn't add anything here either. Drop it altogether.

Are you certain that what you say is true... that we cannot be certain that anything is true?

In order to know whether or not there are any new thoughts, we must first ascertain what counts as a thought to begin with, and then perform some sort of comparison/contrast between different ones, while paying particular attention to a timeline. All thought consists of mental correlations drawn between different things.

As Mww noted earlier...

If every thought is singular and successive, then every thought is new with respect to its time, but not necessarily new with respect to its content. — Mww

Here, the content would be the different things within the correlation. Novel correlations drawn between different things would count as new thought(in terms of content) to the thinking creature despite whether or not someone else had already drawn correlations between those things. Novel correlations drawn between different things that no creature had drawn before would count as "new thought" across the board. New in content not only to that creature, but new in content to any and all creatures.

The invention of anything and everything includes novel thought. That's not put strongly enough. The invention of anything and everything IS existentially dependent upon and also consists - in part at least - of novel thought.

New thought IS completely new correlations being drawn between different things. Whether or not those things already existed in their entirety prior to the correlation does not matter a bit. If that thing is being correlated to anything else by a capable creature, and it is the very first time such a connection has even been drawn, it is a new thought.

Period.

The notions of quale, qualitative experience, and phenomenology in general are, as I see it anyway, self-perpetuating problems in and of themselves. Amidst the problems of separating something from itself, they also work from the basic presupposition that we cannot directly perceive anything or sometimes a conflation between 'perception'(including thought and belief) and reality. The notion of "perception" in such a framework tends to be a catch-all phrase referring to all sorts of starkly different thought and belief, ranging from highly complex linguistically informed thought and belief through the most simple. In doing so, the distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief is lost in the process, and thus such a framework has an inherent inability to address the question in the OP, as I've explained in the first few posts here.

You're more than welcome, although I'm not sure how I helped or in what way.

:smile:

I would begin by dropping the excessive language.

How do you causally relate the plurality of mental correlation to the perceptual manifold? — Enrique

I do not. The notion of "perceptual manifold" is not something that I find appealing. I prefer the simplest possible adequate explanation, and find no need for such language use.

What is "the perceptual manifold" on your view?

Nice article.

It commands one person to do to another what that one person would have done unto themselves. Not everyone would do the same thing to themselves. So, in cases where the one is doing to the other what they would have done unto themselves, they could be doing something that the other would not be doing to anyone... including themselves.

Thus...

It is merely a nicer way of rationalizing pushing one's own beliefs about how people ought be treated onto others.

Yes, yes, and yes!

Yes.

The Golden Rule mistakenly assumes that everyone likes being treated the same way.

So I gather that you mean a cognitive process of making correlations is interposed between perception and language, with varying degrees of generality, and some kinds of correlations can be made without language while some cannot. — Enrique

That's better, but I hesitate to frame the discussion in terms of "without language", for it allows segue into a conflation between being unspoken and being existentially independent of language. One could say that unspoken thought and belief does not require language or that unspoken thought and belief is an example of thought or belief 'without' language.

If my interpretation is accurate, what does this correlative activity consist of? How would you characterize its composition?

The "correlative activity"(your term, not mine) is thought and belief. It requires(is existentially dependent upon) a plurality of things and a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. It consists of mental correlations.

All metacognition is linguistically informed, for example.
— creativesoul

Can you provide a specific instance of this? I'm not sure I've accurately grasped what you have in mind. — Enrique

This very conversation is perhaps a perfect example of this.

To what extent is the logicality or associational structure of language itself a constituent component of the thought itself? Does this vary by conceptual context and nonnegligibly between different minds? — Enrique

I think I've just answered this bit.

That's what I'm getting at with the idea of structure: does language use pattern language-acquired thought such that the thought cannot even occur without language use, or is language more superficial? — Enrique

I would be very hesitant to talk in terms of structure here...

Some belief requires language. It's rather simple really. All belief consist of correlations drawn between different things. When language use is one of those things, that particular belief is existentially dependent upon language use. Language use is a necessary elemental constituent thereof. Such thought or belief cannot exist without language in much the same way that an apple pie cannot exist without apples.

It has nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with necessary elemental constituency and existential dependency.

Think I agree with the way you partitioned the concepts. A distinction certainly exists between perception/belief as somehow etched in cognition, language as a mechanism for expressing /interpreting these perceptions/beliefs, and the kind of perception/belief acquisition that only occurs in conjunction with language use. — Enrique

That's not how I 'partitioned the concepts'(whatever that's supposed to mean). Nor would I even agree with such a parsing for reasons that need not be gotten into at this time. You've misunderstood something somewhere along the line, I'm sorry to say. Although, there could be much agreement. I mean, the above report may not be too far off to be of good use.

Perhaps this will help to clarify my position and thus whether or not it's true that you do agree with the position I'm advocating for/from...

All concepts consist of language use. Thus, they are existentially dependent upon language. Some conceptions pick something out of this world that exists in it's entirety prior to being noticed, and others do not.

Belief, perception, and language exist in their entirety prior to our taking note of them. If one's conception of any of the three cannot take this into proper account, then they've gotten something wrong somewhere along the line about them.

Perception is the simplest of the three, with belief being the second, and language beng the most complex. Language is existentially dependent upon(requires) both belief and perception. When and where there has never been belief, there could never be language. When and where there has never been perception there could never be belief.

I would not say that language effects one's perception. Whereas it certainly effects one's beliefs, emotions, and 'states' of mind.

Metacognition is thinking about thought and belief. The second question does not make much sense to me. Cognition and language both consist of correlations, but talking in terms of relationship between structure is fraught.

Centrality of linguistic evolution to the hominin and human mind might explain why we spend so much time insulting each other... — Enrique

Deliberately insulting another is quite a different matter than merely being insulted by another's words.

Along more philosophical lines, what is the relationship between language and logical thinking? — Enrique

That all depends upon what counts as language and what counts as logical thinking.

Language less creatures can correctly attribute/recognize causality. If that counts as logical thinking, then language has no relationship with logical thinking in this example.

If logical thinking requires deliberately attempting to follow the 'rules of correct inference', then language is of course required for logical thinking, or the rules do not require language. The latter seems untenable.

Belief exists in it's entirety long before language acquisition. Perception does as well.

Until those two things are rightly understood in terms of what they consist of, then there can be no hope in possibly understanding how language begins to affect/effect them.

Language effects belief and perception when language use is a part of them(although I reject it's being a part of physiological sensory perception). Language can begin to effect an otherwise language less creature's subsequent belief by virtue of becoming a part thereof. Let me briefly explain... if I may...

All belief consists of mental correlations drawn between different things. Sometimes one of those things is language use itself. When this happens, the language begins to effect/affect the creature(I suppose we can say) as a direct result of 'causing' it to draw correlations between the language use and something else(or other things).

The language is sometimes said to 'inform' the thought or belief. Linguistically informed belief is belief that is existentially dependent upon language in a very specific way... that an integral part of that particular belief is language use.

All metacognition is linguistically informed, for example.

However, prior to being able to think about one's own thought and belief, one must have something to think about as well as the ability and/or means for picking it out to the exclusion of all else and subsequently considering it as a subject matter in and of itself. Language affords one such a 'luxury'. Nothing else suffices. Naming and descriptive practices are required to pick out one's own mental ongoings, of which perception and belief are most certainly included.

They key take-away here is that we can be wrong about belief and perception, and are if we do not drawn and maintain the key distinction between basic rudimentary basic belief and belief that consists of and/or is existentially dependent upon language by virtue of language use being one of the necessary elemental constituents therein.

If we are mistaken about belief regarding what it consists of, at a bare minimum, then we are sure to be mistaken about any particular effects/affects that language may or may not have upon it, simply because we do not know what is being affected/effected. No way to know how belief is effected/affected if we do not first know what it is that's being effected/effected. Knowing what to look for precedes the looking.

When is a deliberate suspension of one's judgment regarding the mental ability and/or personality of the individual listener the best choice, if ever?

The effects of language on belief and perception assumes a causal connection between language acquisition/use and the subsequent belief and perception of the user.

Perception and belief prior to language, and perception and belief afterwards, and the remarkable differences between them as well as any direct causal connection.

What counts as perception prior to language? Or belief prior to the same, for that matter?

Whatever it is, it does not include language. Thus, however language effects it, that effect will not include any change whatsoever in the elemental constituency of either. Furthermore, whatever effect happens it is an effect including that same elemental constituency, whatever it may include.

Introducing language to a language less creature does not effect/affect what that creature's pre-existing belief consisted of. Rather, it is supposed that the introduction effects/affects the subsequent belief or perception.

Pouring milk upon dry cereal does not effect/affect what the cereal was made of prior to the introduction event.

That's perhaps the best analogy for supporting all my suggestions regarding how we ought approach this topic.

The OP speaks in terms of the effects of language on perception and belief.

Knowledge of that includes knowledge of language, perception, and belief in addition to any and all relevant causal relationships/connections/associations one may draw between the three. That's quite a mountain to climb. Climbing it requires prep work. I want to start with some common sense stuff, then return to the notion in the OP.

Perception does not require language. Belief does not either. However, belief does require perception, as does language. As a result, we know that some of the most basic rudimentary thought and belief exist in their entirety prior to language. We know that language cannot effect what the most basic of beliefs consist in/of. Language does not effect what basic belief is existentially dependent upon.

All language is belief based, whereas not all belief is language based. So...

The effects that language acquisition and use has upon belief and perception is only understood in terms of being but one necessary elemental constituent therein. Remember, not all belief consists of and/or or is existentially dependent upon language use.

Language cannot effect what non-linguistic belief and perception consist of.

When you say 'I know', in response to, 'what do we do?', saying I know is just a word. — ztaziz

When one says "I know" in response to, "What do we do?", saying "I know" is not 'just a word'.

Again, we seem to disagree.

I don't think language channels our focus. — ztaziz

What are you talking about again? Tell me all about it... focus my attention... without using language.

I think we disagree on that.

The relationship/contrast/comparison between language and concepts is fruitless without also drawing and maintaining the distinction between that which exists in it's entirety prior to our knowledge of it, and that which did not.

Concepts are names of things. What's being named though? What are we picking out of this world to the exclusion of all else? Does it exist in it's entirety prior to our doing so?

These are the important aspects to consider when talking about 'concepts'.

They are nothing more than linguistic constructs. "Truth" the term, is the name. What's being named is the referent. The concept of "truth" consists of and/or includes both.

Correspondence with what's happened and/or is happening requires neither being named "truth" or being further talked about.

The term, the concept, of "truth" requires language. Correspondence does not. It exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it. So, when the term "truth" is used as a name to talk about correspondence, it is referring to that which existed in it's entirety prior to language use itself.

When the term "truth" is used to pick out a valid inference from a logical argument, it is not pointing to something which existed in it's entirety prior to language use.

Not all concepts are on equal footing.

Does language channel our focus in such a way that it affects what we observe even at the level of basic percepts? — Enrique

No way. No how.

Language does channel our focus. That focus has no affect upon what we're observing.

Trees are not at all affected by the fact that we call them "trees". If language channeled our focus in such a way that language affects what we observe then it would certainly affect trees. It doesn't.

Two key points, according to the article.

1. The rejection of the view of language as names and relations, in favour of language as use

2. The rejection of the private mind, hidden from public view. — Banno

Is it wrong for me to think that the term "meaning" better fits in the first? I do draw a distinction between language and meaning and I think Witt recognized this as well.

I mean, "language as use" seems to draw a false equivalence between the two, or at least suggests for one to view the former in light of the latter. Do not look for what a word means. Rather, look to how it's being used in all the common situations in which it is. Five red apples. It is in such a context that we can glean knowledge upon meaning. Also...

The tone and volume used by the speaker of a word will show us what it means. "Slab". "SLAB!". "Shut the door." "SHUT THE DOOR!"

So, I think it's safe to say that Witt knew that naming practices do not exhaust all of the ways we sensibly use language. Who ever thought or suggested that language could be properly understood solely in terms of 'names and relations'?

The private language 'argument' is convincing.

Unfortunately Witt also worked from the notion that all belief has propositional content. Hence, he struggled with all his concerted attempts to come to acceptable terms with "hinge propositions", because he was searching for rudimentary belief. He was looking to figure out how to go about determining the most basic of beliefs, the indubitable. He thought that such beliefs(hinge propositions) would somehow lie beyond the rightful applicable scope of justification. He's right about that, but it's only because that such beliefs do not have propositional content. Thus "hinge proposition" starts off on the wrong foot to begin with. As mentioned before, he followed convention on this matter, much to his own harm.

Flies in bottles is the most apt characterization that that guy penned. Shame he found himself in one with "hinge propositions".

Cambridge Letters

Has anyone here been fortunate enough to read through this?

:brow:

What we have currently is a horribly financially corrupt majority of elected officials.

Thats a really attractive slogan. What of the protection of minorities? What you have there is the tyranny of the majority, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or rampant populism. — unenlightened

Oppression of minorities and spreading racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not in the best interest of the overwhelming majority.

Back to trust as it pertains to the American government...

There is a commonly held belief that the United States government consists of elected officials that make certain promises that they never intend to keep; that it consists of people who say whatever it takes to get elected. These statements are all true on their face, for the government does indeed include precisely such people. However, this vein of thought requires a bit of refinement and/or nuance. It is far too short-sighted as it is. With just a small amount of additional rhetoric, this line of thought could be used to convince one to generally believe that there are no honest politicians in American government. In fact, there are many Americans who would readily agree with such a statement, although that is not true. Nevertheless, the majority of Americans believe otherwise, and they also believe that there is not anything that can be done about it; that that's just the way it is and it is not going to change anytime in the foreseeable future.

Dishonesty has become accepted as a normal thing. It's easy to do when the overwhelming majority has a general distrust in elected officials that often manifests into repeating statements like "They all...(pick your reason for distrust)". The examples of this are far too many to hold any well grounded doubt about it. That is the way it is.



So, here's the problem...

There is an irrevocable and indubitable need for Americans to be able trust elected officials to act only as a means for somehow, and in some way increasing the overall well-being of American lives and/or livelihoods. That is the only criterion needing to be satisfied by a representative republic with strong democratic traditions such as the United States of America purports itself to be. This is the primary responsibility of American government and elected officials. That ought be the highest priority and/or guiding principle influencing the everyday thought, belief, and actions of any and all elected American officials.



What's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of all Americans ought be the framework in which all governmental actions are considered in terms of. It's not. The results speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not recipients of the effects/affects of government policy which has improved their quality of life... their overall well-being. That's just not the case. It ought be, and would if everyone in the American government followed the aforementioned principles/priorities.

In order for elected officials to successfully do their job, in order for them to actually take action which results in increasing the quality of life for of all it's citizens each and every time it acts, it must act each and every time with exactly these things in mind. When this is done, there are other considerations that arise. Particularly, how to go about actually doing what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and/or how to best judge when there are conflicting opinions on the matter at hand(whatever it may be).

So, there will be disputes. What grounds each side? What are those suggestions for action based upon? Clearly, the official believes certain actions ought be taken. What are the expectations of the actions? Do they expect that it will benefit the overwhelming majority? Will the results provide a better quality of American life to the overwhelming majority of Americans? These reasons are often sold to the American public as a means for preparation and/or 'manufacturing' consent.

Far too often, the legislation/policies resulted in exactly the opposite. This repetitive failure has resulted in permanent demonstrable financial harm to a very large swathe of the American population. This grounds many people's general distrust in government. The failure to ever correct the direct harm further bolsters it.

In order to increase the quality of life, in order to increase the overall wellbeing of Americans, one must act in ways that do so. When there is a conflict of interest between the many and few, it is always best to err on the side of many, aside from racism, sexism, and what have you(when the majority are sexist, racist, etc). When there is a conflict of interest between the least privileged and the most privileged, any government purporting to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people"(a representative form of government) ought always err on the side of least. This has quite simply not taken place nearly as often as it ought. Distrust ensues.

So...

...when and if enough people hold firmly to the belief that all politicians are untrustworthy, there can be and will be no further discrimination between those who are trustworthy and those who are not. The process is itself muddled with distraction and irrelevance and thus gets neglected. Dishonesty becomes the expectation.

We are there.

Calling yourself a democracy or a republic or a representative form of government carries the burden of doing what's best for the overwhelming majority. It also demands an immediate redress and subsequent correction when it doesn't.

The evidence is overwhelming. When pieces of legislation result in demonstrable financial harm to tremendous swathes of the population, that does not count as evidence that the government is working. Rather, it counts as relevant adequate and more than sufficient evidence that it's not.

That's not philosophy. That's plain 'ole common sense. That's what makes a democracy what it is, or a republic, or a representative form of government... but only when when it lives up to the name.

How to best govern a nation consisting of a variety of different sorts of people is philosophy.

Whew!

Sorry Un...

... jumps off bandwagon and exits stage left.

Shameful that the federal government has leaders that refuse to do what is expected of every American in order to stop the spread of covid19. Who on earth could still trust the American government when it consists of members who openly thumb their nose at such expert advice on this matter of human lives?

Not all members are guilty. Now is the time to separate them and respond appropriately to their demonstrable lack of caring about public health overall.

'My' shops frequented are chock full of people who are taking the actions necessary to best protect everyone around them including, but certainly not limited to, themselves. Smiling eyes escape the confines of the masks. Those people have earned my trust that they are willingly to do something that is otherwise uncomfortable and inconvenient as a means for improving the overall common good of everyone else. It's little price to pay for the safety and well-being of everyone.

:gasp:

Mr. President, Mr. Vice president...

Take fucking notes.

The administrative medical staff recently visited by Mike Pence has legitimate grounds for suit based upon the facts showing him knowingly and voluntarily placing their lives at unnecessary risk at his own whim, and against the advice given by the foremost knowledgable experts on the matter regarding everyone's new behavioural guidelines.

It's fucking despicable. What a fucking dangerous aire of superiority based in sheer ignorance, myth, and otherwise false belief...