We must understand how a term or symbol is being used in order to understand how it is being used to represent a state of affairs. The same term can be used in the representation of different states of affairs.

The proposition: 'it is raining' is not used only to convey meteorological information. It can be an expression of exasperation or pleasure or surprise. — Fooloso4

You missed my point which was that we use scribbles to convey information about states-of-affairs that are not just another use of scribbles, to others that are not aware of said states-of-affairs. Using scribbles to convey meteorological information or mental information is not useful if the other person is already aware of the meteorological or mental states. So it appears that while we use things, it doesn't necessarily mean that we accomplished our goal (that it was useful). We are simply wasting our time and energy using scribbles to inform others of what they already know.

You missed my point — Harry Hindu

I'm afraid that I still miss your point. On the one hand, I don't see how it relates to the discussion. On the other, telling someone that telling someone something they already know is a waste of time is itself wasting our time since this is already known.

You're not making sense Harry. To doubt a certainty is contradiction. The fact that you are doubting it means that it is not a certainty. To doubt is to be uncertain. To be certain of something is to be free of doubt concerning it. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know that you are doubting anything? Can you be certain that you are doubting? As I have said before certainty and doubt go hand-in-hand. It seems to me that you cannot doubt without the certainty that you are doubting. If you doubt that you are doubting, then you are doing something. What are you doing if not exhibiting a certainty of what you are doing whether it be doubting or not?

I don't see why you believe that it is required to have certainty prior to having uncertainty (doubt). Obviously human beings are evolving creatures, and human knowledge has come into existence as have human beings. Therefore, if certainty is knowledge, as you propose, uncertainty is prior to certainty, as the form of animalistic belief prior to knowledge. It makes no sense to say that uncertainty (doubt) requires an underlying certainty, or else knowledge would have to come into existence from some form of certainty which is prior to knowledge. But this undermines your proposition that knowledge and certainty are the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can see that we may be more likely to doubt knowledge coming from others than we are in doubting our own knowledge. This is why we have rules of logic about pleading to popularity and authority. In using these rules of logic, are we doubting the propositions of others or becoming more certain that what they are saying is wrong and you are right?

Sam's contention is that non-verbal beliefs are not propositional, on the assumption that propositions are are verbal statements, and so pre-verbal beliefs are not propositions. — Fooloso4

We must understand how a term or symbol is being used in order to understand how it is being used to represent a state of affairs. The same term can be used in the representation of different states of affairs. — Fooloso4

And a symbol can be a scribble, picture, or behavior to represent the belief of the one writing scribbles, drawing pictures and behaving in certain ways. Propositions are those effects (written scribbles, drawn pictures and behaviors) that we observe that we then use to get at the causes of these effects - which is the beliefs of the one causing the scribbles, pictures and their body to move in certain ways, which can include making sounds with your mouth.

Propositions are those effects (written scribbles, drawn pictures and behaviors) that we observe that we then use to get at the causes of these effects - which is the beliefs of the one causing the scribbles, pictures and their body to move in certain ways, which can include making sounds with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

As Wittgenstein uses the term 'proposition' it is not its expression. According to the Tractatus a thought with a sense is a proposition (4). It does not become a proposition when it is expressed. The belief is not the cause of a proposition. The belief or thought is the proposition, it is expressed in symbols or words or scribbles or pictures.

How do you know that you are doubting anything? Can you be certain that you are doubting? As I have said before certainty and doubt go hand-in-hand. It seems to me that you cannot doubt without the certainty that you are doubting. If you doubt that you are doubting, then you are doing something. What are you doing if not exhibiting a certainty of what you are doing whether it be doubting or not? — Harry Hindu

I really don't see your logic Harry. Why do you think that when a person is doing anything, doubting for example, the person must be certain of what oneself is doing? Do I need to be certain that I am running, in order for me to be running? The person who doesn't even know the word "running" would still run, and it would be impossible for that person to know oneself to be running. Likewise, the person who doesn't know the word "doubt" would be doubting without the possibility of being certain that they are doubting.

I can see that we may be more likely to doubt knowledge coming from others than we are in doubting our own knowledge. This is why we have rules of logic about pleading to popularity and authority. In using these rules of logic, are we doubting the propositions of others or becoming more certain that what they are saying is wrong and you are right? — Harry Hindu

I can't grasp your question here. When I ask someone to justify something, then, generally I am doubting that person. What this says about my own belief is that I believe that I ought to doubt others. It doesn't mean that I am certain that I ought to doubt others.

I really don't see your logic Harry. Why do you think that when a person is doing anything, doubting for example, the person must be certain of what oneself is doing? Do I need to be certain that I am running, in order for me to be running? The person who doesn't even know the word "running" would still run, and it would be impossible for that person to know oneself to be running. Likewise, the person who doesn't know the word "doubt" would be doubting without the possibility of being certain that they are doubting. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is ridiculous, Meta. A person or animal decides to doubt, to run, or whatever. How can an organism decide to do something without knowing it's doing it?? When you raise your arm you have to decide to do it prior to it raising. Doing so may be simple and effortless now,, but it required a lot of practice when you were an infant to control your limbs - to bend them to your will. A person doesn't need to know language to know it is running. Knowing how to use a language and knowing how to run are two different things.

I can't grasp your question here. When I ask someone to justify something, then, generally I am doubting that person. What this says about my own belief is that I believe that I ought to doubt others. It doesn't mean that I am certain that I ought to doubt others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily. You could be asking a question because you simply don't understand what they are saying. There is a lot of word salad on these forums. You can't doubt something you don't understand. In a sense you're not doubting what they said yet. You are doubting your own understanding of what they said.

When you were born and while you were an infant did you doubt anything your parents, or anyone in a position of authority, told you? Do you doubt everything everyone says, or are there some that you trust more than others, like your family and friends?

As Wittgenstein uses the term 'proposition' it is not its expression. According to the Tractatus a thought with a sense is a proposition (4). It does not become a proposition when it is expressed. The belief is not the cause of a proposition. The belief or thought is the proposition, it is expressed in symbols or words or scribbles or pictures. — Fooloso4

I really couldn't care what Wittgenstein says because it isn't useful. There is too much of a dependency on what dead philosophers have said with no regard to what we know now. Some people on this forum treat Witt like he was some kind of prophet.

I never said the belief is the scribble. I said it is the cause of the scribble. What form does your belief take if not visual imagery, sounds, feelings, etc.? How do you know that you are believing or knowing anything at any moment? What are you pointing at when you say that you believe, or know, such-and-such. You don't need to prove it to me. Prove it to yourself that you believe something, and tell me how you did it.

I can only speak for myself. I read and attempt to understand the philosophers whose work interests me because of what I can learn from them. Their work does not come with an expiration date. Unless you have some understanding of a philosopher you are not in a position to judge whether his work is useful.

What are you pointing at when you say that you believe, or know, such-and-such. — Harry Hindu

That depends on what it is I say I believe or know. The statement may be about me or what I say I believe or know or both.

Prove it to yourself that you believe something, and tell me how you did it. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you are getting at. Why would I prove to myself that the things I believe are things I believe? What role do you think proof plays here?

A person or animal decides to doubt.. — Harry Hindu

I don't think you know the meaning of "doubt", Harry. It signifies an uncertain state of mind. Therefore your assertion that a person must decide to doubt is directly contradict to the nature of "doubt", as deciding signifies a form of certainty.

How can an organism decide to do something without knowing it's doing it?? — Harry Hindu

Now you are misusing the word "decide". Many, in fact most, actions performed by living beings are not produced from a decision. Biologists don't really know the true impetus behind most living actions, but we can surely say that the majority of them are not derived from decisions. So your question here is derived from the false premise, that an act of an organism proceeds from a decision, when in reality most of these acts do not derive from decisions.

A person doesn't need to know language to know it is running. Knowing how to use a language and knowing how to run are two different things. — Harry Hindu

I agree, knowing how to use language is completely different from knowing how to run. But notice that the question here concerns knowing that oneself is running, which is completely different from knowing how to run. In order for a person to know that oneself is running, I think It's quite obvious that the person must know what "running" is. Otherwise it is more likely that the person would misjudge oneself as running, because the judgement would be nothing better than a guess, when the person doesn't know what "running" signifies.

When you were born and while you were an infant did you doubt anything your parents, or anyone in a position of authority, told you? — Harry Hindu

Of course. This is just more evidence that you do not understand the meaning of "doubt".

I don't think you know the meaning of "doubt", Harry. It signifies an uncertain state of mind. Therefore your assertion that a person must decide to doubt is directly contradict to the nature of "doubt", as deciding signifies a form of certainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

It just doesn't make any sense to assert that doubt is fundamental. If it were, then how could we ever store any information in our brain? How is it that we have memory? What is memory for if not to store valid and useful information that can be relied on for similar situations in the future?

Now you are misusing the word "decide". Many, in fact most, actions performed by living beings are not produced from a decision. Biologists don't really know the true impetus behind most living actions, but we can surely say that the majority of them are not derived from decisions. So your question here is derived from the false premise, that an act of an organism proceeds from a decision, when in reality most of these acts do not derive from decisions. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seemed to be berating scientism in the other thread, but here you are embracing it. All I know is that when I decide to do something I can often times take time to simulate different actions and predictions of their outcomes of those actions and then choose the one that has the best predicted outcome. It can also involve comparing what is presently observed and integrating it with a vision of how I would like things to be and applying the best action to achieve that goal. So the way I am using "decide" is such that computers can make decisions to. It's simply a matter of being able to process sensory information (input) and then producing actions (output) based on one's programming (instincts and learned behaviors).

I agree, knowing how to use language is completely different from knowing how to run. But notice that the question here concerns knowing that oneself is running, which is completely different from knowing how to run. In order for a person to know that oneself is running, I think It's quite obvious that the person must know what "running" is. Otherwise it is more likely that the person would misjudge oneself as running, because the judgement would be nothing better than a guess, when the person doesn't know what "running" signifies. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well yeah, running isn't the scribbles, "running". It is an observable action. You know you are running because 1) you decided to run and 2) you can observe yourself running. If you decided to run but you are not running, then there is something wrong with your muscles, nervous system, etc. You don't need language to know you or anyone else is running. You simply need eyes and a brain.

When you were born and while you were an infant did you doubt anything your parents, or anyone in a position of authority, told you?
— Harry Hindu

Of course. This is just more evidence that you do not understand the meaning of "doubt". — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems to me that you have a strange notion of "doubt" and "fundamental".

I can only speak for myself. I read and attempt to understand the philosophers whose work interests me because of what I can learn from them. Their work does not come with an expiration date. Unless you have some understanding of a philosopher you are not in a position to judge whether his work is useful. — Fooloso4

What information do others (philosophers or not) have that you don't when it comes to understanding the mind and it's relationship with the world? It seems to me that we are all stuck in the same predicament with no one having any special place in trying to explain it. I am more interested in what you have to say about your own perceptions of your own mind which includes its thought, beliefs and knowledge and the forms they take, without any influence from others.

What are you pointing at when you say that you believe, or know, such-and-such.
— Harry Hindu

That depends on what it is I say I believe or know. The statement may be about me or what I say I believe or know or both. — Fooloso4

Prove it to yourself that you believe something, and tell me how you did it.
— Harry Hindu

I don't know what you are getting at. Why would I prove to myself that the things I believe are things I believe? What role do you think proof plays here? — Fooloso4

Yes, but there must be some similarity between your various beliefs for you to identify them all as beliefs, no? What is the similarity that all your beliefs have that you point to when you say "I have a belief"? What form do beliefs take so that you can identify them as beliefs?

I am more interested in what you have to say about your own perceptions of your own mind which includes its thought, beliefs and knowledge and the forms they take, without any influence from others. — Harry Hindu

None of us are without influence. That influence extends to everything we think and believe and know ... or at least that is what my influences say.

What is the similarity that all your beliefs have that you point to when you say "I have a belief"? — Harry Hindu

Wittgenstein actually gives a very good and influential answer to that, but he's a dead philosopher.

It just doesn't make any sense to assert that doubt is fundamental. — Harry Hindu

Does it make sense to say that living beings were certain before they became uncertain? Is knowledge prior to a lack of knowledge. Of course not. Therefore it make sense to say that doubt (the mental state of uncertainty) is prior to, therefore more fundamental than certainty.

You seemed to be berating scientism in the other thread, but here you are embracing it. All I know is that when I decide to do something I can often times take time to simulate different actions and predictions of their outcomes of those actions and then choose the one that has the best predicted outcome. It can also involve comparing what is presently observed and integrating it with a vision of how I would like things to be and applying the best action to achieve that goal. So the way I am using "decide" is such that computers can make decisions to. It's simply a matter of being able to process sensory information (input) and then producing actions (output) based on one's programming (instincts and learned behaviors). — Harry Hindu

OK, so you do not even need to be certain in order to make a decision. How does this help your argument that certainty is more fundamental than doubt? It just shows how human acts, which are based in conscious decisions, do not even require certainty to be engaged into.

You don't need language to know you or anyone else is running. — Harry Hindu

Yes you do need language to decide whether something is running. I can't understand why you don't apprehend this. "Running" stands for a specific activity. If you do not know what "running" stands for (which would be the case if you had no language), it is impossible that you could judge whether something is running or not.