I don't believe I am hungry. I am just hungry. — Banno

That's a contradiction right there. When you say "I'm hungry" with sincerity, belief is implied.

In the sandwich example above, it's not the hunger that is believed, it's the solution - John believes that eating the sandwich will fix his hunger. — Banno

And that's another contradiction. If John believes that eating the sandwich will fix his hunger, then the implication is that John believes that he is hungry, and that this is the very hunger - his hunger - being referred to, which the sandwich, so John believes, will fix. How can you believe in the solution if you don't believe in the problem? That is why he is seeking the solution in the first place.

You've got yourself into a right muddle here, it seems to me. What you're saying just doesn't make sense.

Is this Wittgenstein, with his bit about pain in Philosophical Investigations, that has got you thinking in this way?

So...

We come to talk about our beliefs by virtue of language acquisition and metacognition(introspection).

What if we've gotten things wrong? Not in the sense of misunderstanding our own mental ongoings and being corrected by another whose framework is found to be more acceptable to us, but rather...

Since it is the case that thinking about thought and belief requires pre-existing thought and belief and language, certainly non linguistic thought and belief already existed in it's entirety(in and of itself) prior to our becoming aware of it, prior to our naming it.

Is that not precisely what is required for getting things wrong?

Your approach here leaves me little reason to continue with you Sap. — creativesoul

That's entirely fine with me. This is deja vu, and not the good kind.

Sapientia is evidently hung up on the idea that he can think about his own thought, belief, and 'feelings' when no one else is around, and dubiously concludes that others aren't required for introspection.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that the only reason that he can do that is because he already speaks language. That is... because of others. — creativesoul

That's true Sapientia.

That was the explanation you offered for saying that "introspection requires others" is 'demonstrably false'.

Well, you demonstrated no such thing. I've offered adequate argument for my position. Denials that amount to nothing more than "nuh uh!" aren't acceptable. I'm confident that you'll think about what I've said in the quote above, and your understanding will grow as a result. I'm not looking to convince you. The success of the argument I've provided doesn't require such a thing. Your belief is unnecessary.

I still love ya!

Oh my goodness. How many more times? The whole problem has been the ambiguity of "introspection requires others". Requires others for what? In what way does it require others? In what sense? The presence of others? The existence of others? Where? Doing what? It is entirely possible that it's false on one interpretation and true on another. I hope you at least understand the problem, then my efforts wouldn't have been an entire waste of time.

I don't believe I am hungry. I am just hungry. — Banno


That's a contradiction right there. When you say "I'm hungry" with sincerity, belief is implied. — Sapientia

Yes, but being hungry and saying you are hungry are not the same. And even when you say you are hungry, the introduction of the notion of belief is a redundant elaboration. It's similar to the kind of unnecessary elaboration involved in the difference between saying 'It's raining" and "I believe it's raining". The same thing happens with the notion of truth; 'it's raining' and 'it's true that it's raining'. Belief and truth in these kinds of elaboration, can get reified as substantive states.

Existential dependency Sapientia...

Yes, but being hungry and saying you are hungry are not the same. — Janus

Well, yes, obviously. Why are you saying that? Did you think I thought otherwise?

And even when you say you are hungry, the introduction of the notion of belief is a redundant elaboration. It's similar to the kind of unnecessary elaboration involved in the difference between saying 'It's raining" and "I believe it's raining". The same thing happens with the notion of truth; 'it's raining' and 'it's true that it's raining'. Belief and truth in these kinds of elaboration, can get reified as substantive states. — Janus

Yes, but I haven't denied any of that. I don't know why you're bringing this up. It's just preaching to the choir. The only bit you've lost me on is that last sentence. It isn't entirely clear to me what you mean by that, but whatever.

Are you saying this because you think that that's what Banno was getting at? If so, it was worded poorly. He could have spoken in terms of what we do or do not need to say, but he didn't. He could have spoken of redundancy, but he didn't. Instead he just seemingly contradicted himself.

@Banno

Actions speak louder than words, yes?

So what do my actions say? What do they tell you? What I value, what matters to me, that sort of thing, but also what I believe. My preferences and my expectations are two different things, and people will infer both from my actions.

If someone observes my behavior and says, "Pat seems to think that ..." I don't see how they could mean something like, "Pat is behaving like he's behaving that way." Not much of an inference, that. So what do people mean when they say, "You seem to believe X"? What do you seem like when you seem to believe something?

Well, yes, obviously. Why are you saying that? Did you think I thought otherwise? — Sapientia

Because @Banno spoke about the difference between being hungry and believing you are hungry, and you responded by stating that saying you are hungry implies believing you are hungry; and that was obviously irrelevant to what he had said, and which made it look like you had thought he was talking about saying he was hungry.

I made the point about the redundancy of the notion of belief, because you emphasized that belief is implied in statements, which made to look as though you thought that was an important thing to point out. If you "don't deny" anything I said, then it leaves me wondering why you thought it was important to point out that belief is implied in statements.

The only bit you've lost me on is that last sentence. I'm not entirely sure what you mean that, but whatever. — Sapientia

I mean that when such notions get reified, people then start asking silly questions like "what is belief" as though it were some substantive thing that could be investigated to determine what it is.

So then you should have said that introspection requires the existence of others. And then we might have avoided all of this.

Although, it doesn't anyway. Unless, again, you're just not being clear enough in expressing yourself and I've misunderstood. But a logical consequences of that would be that if everyone else were to suddenly cease to exist, then I wouldn't be able to introspect from that point onwards. But, again, that seems obviously wrong. Why on earth would that not be possible?

I still don't think that you've done a proper job of explaining yourself on this point.

I replied to this hours ago, but it apparently dissipated into the ether.

Laters.

Because Banno spoke about the difference between being hungry and believing you are hungry, and you responded by stating that saying you are hungry implies believing you are hungry; and that was obviously irrelevant to what he had said, and which made it look like you had thought he was talking about saying he was hungry. — Janus

Well yes, I thought that because he said that he was hungry. It's not such an obvious misunderstanding, but I can see how I could have misunderstood what he said now. This is a conversation after all, and if someone had said that to you in conversation, "I don't believe that I'm hungry. I'm just hungry", then it would probably sound like they had just quite plainly contradicted themselves.

Forget it. (Although, in future, it would probably be clearer to talk about this kind of thing in third person, rather than first person, as in, "Someone can be hungry, yet not believe that they're hungry").

To come back to the now canonical example, searching the kitchen for my keys only makes sense if I both want to find them and think they might be there.

Maybe that should be "if and only if".

AND

There's a common asymmetry here: I don't want specifically to find my keys in the kitchen, just to find them; but my (partial) belief about their location has to be more specific to explain the specific action I take. Looking for my keys anywhere and everywhere isn't much of an option.

...you're just not being clear enough in expressing yourself and I've misunderstood. — Sapientia

No.

The explanation is as clear as a bell and you've still misunderstood.

But a logical consequences of that would be that if everyone else were to suddenly cease to exist, then I wouldn't be able to introspect from that point onwards.

No.

Introspection is existentially dependent upon language. Language upon others. Thus, it is one's ability to think about their own thought and belief that owes it's very existence to others, even if others somehow ceased to exist after one has acquired the ability.

What happens to others after the ability is acquired has no bearing upon what the ability itself is existentially dependent upon...

No.

You're just really bad at expressing yourself clearly. Or confused. You're either contradicting yourself, or you don't mean what you say. Apparently, you don't understand what existential dependency is, and you confuse it with a dependence relationship of origin. Existential dependence means that the existence of X depends on the existence of Y, and from that it obviously follows that if Y ceased to exist, then X would also cease to exist. So, if introspection is existentionally dependent on others, and others cease to exist, then introspection would also cease to exist. But that is false. If I was the last being in existence, I would still retain my ability to introspect, and could exercise it at will. And it is likewise false that language is existentially dependent on others, as demonstrated by the last being in existence thought experiment. I wouldn't suddenly lose my ability to speak English or to read English. There would obviously still be language, despite there being no others. So others are not required, contrary to your claims that they are.

It seems you mean instead that X couldn't have existed without the existence of Y. That is past-tense. You should be speaking in past-tense, not present-tense. It's about origins. Not the same thing. Use another term for that.

Alternatively, it's possible that you do understand what existential dependency is, but you're denying the logical consequences.

Existential dependence means that the existence of X depends on the existence of Y, and from that it obviously follows that if Y ceased to exist, then X would also cease to exist. — Sapientia

I am existentially dependent upon my mother, regardless of what happens after I come into the world through her womb. My existence yesterday, today, and/or tomorrow was not, is not, and would not be possible without my mother.

The same is true with introspection and others.

Your notion of existential dependency is found wanting. Fill it in and see for yourself. Show it to me and others here if you'd like. Give me a list of things that fit your criterion. I'll give you a list of things that do not, and yet we would be talking nonsense if we said that they were not. My example above is a good start. That's a reductio... do you see it?

According to your criterion for what counts as A being existentially dependent upon B, whenever B ceases to exist, so too does A.

Let A be me, and let B be my mother. According to your notion, I am not existentially dependent upon my mother, even though my life is impossible without her.

o come back to the now canonical example, searching the kitchen for my keys only makes sense if I both want to find them and think they might be there. — Srap Tasmaner

Or acting under duress...

All else being equal. It is, as I keep saying, a question of our norms of rationality. In my first presentation of the lost keys, I put a man with a knife in my kitchen. Then it's rational not to look for my keys just then.

Aren't you shifting the focus from what counts as belief to what counts as acting rationally?

We can look for keys in the kitchen even when it is not the case that we believe that they are in the kitchen. However, this doesn't negate the idea that all action is belief-based. That was my point earlier. One's actions do not always show the underlying operative thought and belief that are causing the actions...

Aren't you shifting the focus from what counts as belief to what counts as acting rationally? — creativesoul

I'm insisting on another aspect of the connection between beliefs and actions. Banno has talked about our use of "belief" in giving post facto explanations of our behavior.

I'm just pointing out that we also say, if you want to find your keys and you think they're in the kitchen, you should want to look for your keys in the kitchen, and anyone who didn't must either have some good reason not to or they just don't think the way we do.

I don't see anything on offer that can take up the role of belief (or expectation, or something else in this neighborhood) in such judgments.

That's what I thought: you don't understand what existential dependency means, and you're using the term to mean something different. You should use another term for what you mean, such as "dependence of origin", and you should use past-tense. But I don't expect you will, because you're too stubborn. You're not existentially dependent (present-tense) on your mother, you just depended (past-tense) on her for your existence. You no longer do. Again, that's about your origin.

In the debate on metaphysical realism, idealists talk about an existential dependency between mind and other stuff. They're not just saying that other stuff originates in mind, and that other stuff depended (past-tense) on mind for existence. They're saying that, at any point in time, if no mind, then no other stuff.

According to your notion, I am not existentially dependent upon my mother, even though my life is impossible without her. — creativesoul

That's just another example of your failure to use the right grammatical tense, which contributes towards your lack of clarity and liability of being misunderstood. Of course you're not existentially dependent on your mother! Your existence does not depend on the existence of your mother. Unless you're not telling me something. Is there some kind of lethal device strapped to the both of you, like something out of Saw, such that if she were to die, then that would immediately trigger the device, killing you at the same time? It is true that your life would have been impossible had your mother not have given birth to you. You were dependent on her for that. But that doesn't mean a thing, given a proper understanding of what the term "existential dependency" means.

I'm insisting on another aspect of the connection between beliefs and actions. Banno has talked about our use of "belief" in giving post facto explanations of our behavior.

I'm just pointing out that we also say, if you want to find your keys and you think they're in the kitchen, you should want to look for your keys in the kitchen, and anyone who didn't must either have some good reason not to or they just don't think the way we do.

I don't see anything on offer that can take up the role of belief (or expectation, or something else in this neighborhood) in such judgments. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. I'm in agreement with using the term "belief" within an after the fact explanation for why one acted as they did.

I admire your tenacity Sapientia. It could use a little better baseline for judgment.

Here's what's happening...

I've used a phrase in a way unfamiliar to you. You objected to the phrase based upon another sense of that phrase which is familiar to you. I've explained to you what I meant. You now better understand what I meant, but yet continue to insist that my language use is wrong. You make that determination based upon a different sense of the phrase, namely the one that was already familiar to you, the classical idealist sense - I suppose - according to what you've said.

Do you not understand that that approach is invalid?

The first step of a valid critique is to take the argument/position on it's own terms.

This is just plain common sense, my friend. If your logic or terminological use leads you to a place where you cannot admit that your existence is dependent upon your mother, it's wrong...

If my mother had not given birth to me, I would not be here right now, in this moment. This conversation could not be happening if my mother had never given birth to me.

If that doesn't stop you in your tracks Sapientia, then nothing else I can think of will.

Why would that stop me in my tracks? It's something that I have never denied, and it's irrelevant to what I've said. Anyway, you're free to use the term that way if that's what you want to do - although I would suggest you use a different term - just make sure you let people know that you're using it differently to what one would expect.

If my mother had not given birth to me, I would not be here right now, in this moment. This conversation could not be happening if my mother had never given birth to me.

If that doesn't stop you in your tracks Sapientia, then nothing else I can think of will. — creativesoul

Why would that stop me in my tracks? It's something that I have never denied, and it's irrelevant to what I've said... — Sapientia

It's not at all irrelevant, my friend. Oblige me...

So...

This conversation could not be happening if my mother had not given birth to me. You agree with that much.

Do you disagree that this conversation is existentially dependent upon my mother?

It's not at all irrelevant, my friend. Oblige me...

So...

This conversation could not be happening if my mother had not given birth to me. You agree with that much.

Do you disagree that this conversation is existentially dependent upon my mother? — creativesoul

I've already said enough for you to know that I disagree and why I disagree, so what's the point of this? Do you want us to talk past each other? You can either address the answers that I've given or not, but I won't oblige you if you're just going to needlessly drag this out, step-by-step, and make me repeat myself.

Going by my interpretation of existential dependency - the standard, or more standard, interpretation - it makes perfect sense to deny that this conversation is existentially dependent on my mother, given that this conversation does not depend on the present existence of my mother, nor did it depend on much of her past existence, and nor would it depend on her continued or future existence. To deny that would lead to absurdity.

I do not accept your interpretation of existential dependency - the nonstandard, or less standard, interpretation - and I have no interest in temporarily adopting your understanding, for sake of argument, so that you may drag me along with you and your process of reasoning.

If you retrace our discussion, I hope that you'll at least recognise that your incomplete sentences have been problematic.

Interesting...

Some will hold to archaic convention even when it has been proven to be very problematic. The notion of belief suffers much the same fate, epistemologically speaking that is...



Banno, I'll redirect back to where we were in my next post, unless you beat me to it.