So...

Back to Jack. A different turn...

"Jack" is Jack's name.
"Jack" is not Banno's cat.
Jack is Banno's cat.
"Jack" is not Jack.

"Jack's belief" is... or is not... Jack's belief?

if what you say here is true, when one first learns that that is(called) a "tree", s/he does not believe - cannot possibly believe - that that is there(whatever and wherever that may be).
— creativesoul

Right... — Metaphysician Undercover

Let the record show that Meta is assenting to the belief that one can learn the names of things without believing that things are there. One can evidently, according to Meta, point towards a tree without believing that 1.)they are pointing to a tree, or that 2.)they see a tree, or that 3.)someone else is pointing to a tree, or that they are doing stuff with someone else, namely the teacher who's pointing to a tree whilst teaching the child how to use language in a meaningful way. Again, according to Meta, the student cannot possibly believe any of that.

And they can still yet learn how to use language?

I'd like to see the criterion that clearly sets out what language acquisition is existentially dependent upon.

When a child learns one's first words, "mommy" and "daddy", for example, I wouldn't say that the child believes these are things called "mommy" and "daddy". The child is just learning how to say things.

Let the record show that this has no bearing upon what I've been arguing. In a more sarcastic tone, it could be said that Meta is arguing with his own imagination. Straw men.

The child, if asked where mommy and daddy are, will show you. According to Meta, the child does not believe that those are mommy and daddy.

while you just insist that if something is thinking, it has beliefs. — Metaphysician Undercover

An impoverished recollection of this thread.

↪creativesoul

So, you reject the dictionary definition, then?

By my lights
— creativesoul

Not so bright! Turn up the wattage; you'll gain clarity... :-}
33 minutes ago ReplyShareFlag — Janus

Sigh...

No I do not reject the dictionary definition. I'm telling you that you cannot validly criticize another's argument by virtue of not granting what is an otherwise perfectly acceptable sense of a term. I'm telling you that your being a twit by thinking that you can.

Got an argument or valid criticism?

I was criticizing your argument by pointing out more and subtler distinctions you could make if your terms were more rigorously used, not being pedantic about your use of terms.

Thinking about Knowledge and Belief.

It seems to me that Knowledge without Belief is impossible and maybe at a certain level their distinction vanishes, but it is clearly not the other way round, Belief without Knowledge happens all the time.
Belief has an emotive quality, an intensity, perhaps this how we bring value to the epistemic. If belief is traceable back to feeling then language may not necessary for belief, but still some sort of semiotic connection. — Cavacava

Hey Cava...

Yup.

Belief is traceable back to emotional states. To attribute/recognize that touching fire hurts is to attribute the pain to the behaviour.

Learning that fire hurts doesn't require language, but most certainly requires believing that touching fire causes pain. All that takes is a capable agent making the connection between touching fire and the pain that follows...

Making the connection is thinking. The connection itself is a thought.

I was criticizing your argument by pointing out more and subtler distinctions you could make if your terms were more rigorously used, not being pedantic about your use of terms. — Janus

Funny. Point there again, I missed em. Where are those subtler distinctions?

Go read the recent posts. It always ends like this with you. :-}

Let the record show that Meta is assenting to the belief that one can learn the names of things without believing that something is there. — creativesoul

Correct, the certitude "that something is there" does not qualify as belief. As I explained earlier, this certitude exists in dreams, and in the subconscious levels, plants might even possess this certitude. That certitude "that something is there" does not qualify as "belief" because "belief" is restricted to being the property of a conscious mind. Therefore I do not consider the certitude "that something is there" to be belief. This is why the skeptic's doubt of "existence" is justified.

I'd like to see the criterion that clearly sets out what language acquisition is existentially dependent upon. — creativesoul

Language acquisition is dependent on the will and desire of the human being to learn language.

It always ends like this with you — Janus

Sigh...

And Meta...

Does he still beat his wife?

So, there's a boy named Josh who is almost 4. He has just begun schooling. His parents are teaching him to be an organized person by showing him how to put all his legos away. He's talking to me the day before yesterday and telling me that he may have too many legos.

According to Meta, Josh does not believe that he has legos, nor does he believe that he goes to school, or that it's time to go to school, or that school is almost over and it's almost time to go home when clean up time begins...

And yet he talks about this stuff all the time, but he doesn't ponder their truth. He presupposes it. All belief does. It is only after one becomes aware that some belief or other they have is false(after suffering the consequences) that one's attention can begin to consider whether or not something else they believe is true.

The will and desire to learn language...

X-)

...before being able to conceive of language.

At four years old, your friend Josh is well versed in language use, and clearly capable of holding beliefs.

The will and desire to learn language...

X-)

...before being able to conceive of "language". — creativesoul

Obviously. "Language" is not the first word learned, so the individual learns how to use language before conceiving of what "language" is.

Have you read any Plato? Socrates' most prominent enterprise was to demonstrate that people know how to do things without knowing what they are doing. This is what Socrates did. He went to all sorts of different people who claimed to have knowledge, and demonstrated that all they had was technique, method, without understanding what they were doing. They knew how to do things without knowing what they were doing. So he demonstrated that they really didn't have the knowledge they claimed to have. This is very evident with language use, children learn how to use language without knowing what they are doing.

WTH???

It's all sighs and irrelevancies with you! I wonder what rich trove of hard won/obsessively cobbled together insights/realisations you are desperately trying to protect/ hide behind. :P

Saying that one has the will and desire to learn language when s/he doesn't have a clue what language is is prima facie evidence of idiot speak.

Now Josh... who cannot write yet... is capable of belief when belief requires thinking about one's own thought...

Another example of idiot speak...

Thinking about one's own thought first requires a means to isolate and further contemplate one's own thought...

We use the term "thought" amongst many other terms...

Josh does not have that ability... yet.

You're boring me Meta.

People can make statements long before they can contemplate their own thought.

Statements are statements of belief. Truth is presupposed. That's how "is true" becomes redundant.

Josh makes all kinds of statements. He cannot yet write them. He believes them all.

Meta is lost.

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary...

And some talk of conviction being necessary for belief. I say that those who talk that way may be... just may be... projecting.

I wonder what rich trove of hard won/obsessively cobbled together insights/realisations you are desperately trying to protect/ hide behind. — Janus

Protect/hide?

Are you shitting me? :-}

I've been not only called "arrogant" more times than I can count, but also "honest to a fault", "too generous", "naive", and "clueless"...

The last two are typically regarding being too trustworthy of those who ought not be trusted in the eyes of the name-caller, or not picking up on unspoken 'social cues'...

I've set out the necessary and sufficient conditions for all meaning. As a result, I've a baseline from which to judge all kinds of claims about all kinds of things.

If all meaning consists of 'X', then everything ever spoken, written, thought, and/or believed is existentially dependent upon 'X'. Any and all claims that contradict this are wrong, no matter how long they've been believed.

So...

Back to Jack. A different turn...

"Jack" is Jack's name.
"Jack" is not Banno's cat.
Jack is Banno's cat.
"Jack" is not Jack.

"Jack's belief" is... or is not... Jack's belief?

I think the underwriting issue here is which belief(s) are not existentially dependent upon language and which are.

A non-linguistic agent cannot have belief that is itself existentially dependent upon language.

Our reports of such belief are dependent upon language.

The difficulty is parsing these things out...

'Drawing' connections, associations, or correlations does not require language. It does produce meaning. Language is existentially dependent upon meaning. Where there is no meaning, there can be no language. Not all meaning is existentially dependent upon language. Where there is no language, there can be meaning.

All cases of drawing connections, associations, and/or correlations are adequate for being rightfully called "thought" and/or "belief". There are no cases of either term - regardless of the sense - that do not consist entirely of correlations. All thought and belief consist entirely of correlations. All correlation is thought and belief. Not all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language.

Jack can draw associations, connections, and correlations between that which becomes symbol/sign and that which becomes symbolized/significant. Jack can form and hold belief that is meaningful to him. It's even possible for Jack's meaningful belief to be expressed. Banno may even share some meaning with Jack. That would be a rudimentary common language. Jack cannot think about his own thought, nor need he be able to.

Earlier I offered the example of my own cat and her thought and belief...

Meta is lost. — creativesoul

I agree. You write in incoherent fragments. I'm lost.

When a reader has the will and desire to understand an author, s/he must first grant the terms. If a reader refuses to do this, then s/he has no ground for charges of incoherency. Incoherency is neither equivalent to nor is it determined by a reader's comprehension problems unless those problems are a result of an author's self-contradiction, equivocation, and/or inconsistent terminological use...

Ahem...

Because that is what amounts to being incoherent.

You're lost because you refuse to acknowledge the issues I've been pointing out in both, the sense of "belief" that you're arguing for, and the invalid objections you've been levying...

It's all sighs and irrelevancies with you! — Janus

I know right?

I'm waiting for something other than irrelevant or invalid shit to be said. Make an argument. State your objection. Make sure it's valid(follows from what I've been arguing). If there's any question about what I mean, let me know and I'll set out the correlations for you, so that that meaning can be better understood/shared.

Show me where I'm conflating the abstract with the concrete, since that's a charge you've levied. Make the case. I mean, step it up...

Nah, you're not serious about being unprejudiced, and making a genuine effort to explain and critique your own positions, so it just aint worth the effort.

If a non-linguistic agent draws a meaningful correlation(the attribution/recognition of causality) between some event or other and what happens afterwards, it could very well be a fallacy of thought(post hoc ergo prompter hoc), but there's no justificatory ground for denying that the agent believed.

My cat, the sound of certain kinds of plastic, and her getting treats. My chickens, the sound of certain kinds of plastic, and their getting fed. My chickens, the sound of the slider doors out back, and their getting fed. One particular rooster, a particular motion that I make, and rocks suddenly coming towards him in the air. My cats, a certain rumbling noise outside, and another cat about to come through the kitty door in the window.

The cats believe that they're about to be fed, or that another cat is about to come through the kitty door. The chickens believe that they're about to be fed. The rooster believes that I'm throwing a rock towards him.

The behaviour verifies this. The issue, of course, to return to it... is that the only plausible explanation for their behaviour? Or better perhaps...

By what standard do we determine which report of non-linguistic belief is best?