...an individual or group can adopt an attitude towards a given proposition, such that they hold the proposition to be true. We call this belief.

It's from here that the discussion should proceed. — Banno

Proceed? That's been adequately exhausted more times than I care to remember. You really should pay a bit more attention. This isn't our first time going over this...

An attitude towards a given proposition is metacognition. Metacognition is thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Some thought and belief is prior to language. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Some thought and belief is not existentially dependent upon propositions or language.

It seems to me, and I have said it before, that Creative reifies thought and belief. I think that is an error; thought and belief are not things... — Banno

It seems to me that both words are nouns, and nouns are persons, places, or things. Thought and belief are not persons or places.

I've also asked several times for you to argue for this gratuitous assertion that I'm reifying thought and belief. I'm not conflating material things with abstract things. I'm not conflating concrete things with abstract things. I'm situating thought and belief where it belongs, based upon what all thought and belief have in common. The argument I offer has the strongest possible justificatory ground, and I would guess that you are well aware of this...

Talking about where to find thought and belief is nonsense.

Thought and belief are not the kind of things that have spatiotemporal location.

You tell me. It's your question. I'm not convinced beliefs are te sort of thing that has a discreet location.


Edit: I see creative agrees.

I did, several times, and decided not to respond.

this thread is nothing more than a discussion about how we use words like "proposition" — Banno

That's what the thread reduces to, even if it does not say that in the OP.

That's what the thread reduces to, even if it does not say that in the OP. — Banno

Don't tell me. Show me.

Experience exists prior to subsequent experience but is existentially dependent on subsequent experience. — Blue Lux

This is very poorly written.

Do you have a specific example?

↪creativesoul I did, several times, and decided not to respond.

this thread is nothing more than a discussion about how we use words like "proposition"
— Banno

That's what the thread reduces to, even if it does not say that in the OP. — Banno

How we use words like "proposition" counts as current language use. Current language use requires language.

Some thought and belief do not.

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it.

Some thought and belief are prior to language. Some thought and belief are prior to our use of "proposition". This thread covers both. Our use of "proposition" is not the only thing this thread is about.

Any reduction in scope that leads to a sole focus upon terminological use is inherently inadequate. Your suggestion is this.

Don't tell me. Show me. — creativesoul

Isn't that cartoon a parody of your position that beliefs and justification are shortcuts for actions?

So you want a grant?

I'm not following Banno. How does the cartoon show that the thread topic is reducible to how we use words?

Poorly written?

How is "Experience exists prior to subsequent experiences, and is existentially dependent on subsequent experience, namely existientiElly" poorly written?

Experience exists prior to subsequent experiences, 'thrownness', but is existentially dependent on this thrownness into the world, to be ones potential for being. Experience is existentially/existentielly (wherever you want to draw a line of demarcation is irrelevant) dependent on the experience it is not yet, and only in terms of this being not yet can experience be.

And so your contention that something prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent on it is false in terms of experience... Or... Existence...

↪creativesoul Poorly written? — Blue Lux

Yes. And that continues, I see.

Experience at t1 is prior to experience at t2. The former cannot be existentially dependent upon the latter.

The former would be throwness if the person has yet to have begun thinking about his/her own belief. The latter experience could be when one is beginning to question one's own belief.

...your contention that something prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent on it is false in terms of experience... — Blue Lux

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Ridiculous. All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, for if there were no more experience, then experience would no longer exist. So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. Im not talking about a specific experience incommensurate with the specificities of another experience. I am speaking of experience as such.

Just reiterating your completely unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it.

All you are doing is reiterating a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge

So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. — Blue Lux

What I'm arguing only requires one example to the contrary in order to negate it.

Ya got one or not?

Vague bald assertions won't do here.

All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, for if there were no more experience, then experience would no longer exist. So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. Im not talking about a specific experience incommensurate with the specificities of another experience. I am speaking of experience as such. — Blue Lux

Alright, let's fill this out a bit...

My mother gave birth to me. All my experience prior to this conversation cannot be existentially dependent upon this conversation. It didn't exist. My being born is not existentially dependent upon this conversation. This conversation is existentially dependent upon my birth.

That general idea holds good across the board.

Your claiming that something can be existentially dependent upon something else that doesn't even exist.

Just reiterating your completely unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it. — Blue Lux

What proves it is that there are no examples to the contrary. None. That's the strongest possible justificatory ground.

Again, for the third time, I am not speaking of a specific experience, defined to be such and such in contrast to and incommensurate with another specific experience defined to be something aside from the continuum of experiences, concatenated; life as opposed to death.

What you are saying is a strawman. And I have provided a contradictory example.

All my experience prior to this conversation cannot be existentially dependent upon this conversation. It didn't exist — creativesoul

The potentiality of it existed and according to the law that everything that CAN happen WILL happen... In a certain, very real sense, it did exist... But this is irrelevant, because my point still stands. All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, which may or may not be real yet. A psychic fact is a fact nonetheless.

You're making no sense.

Talking in terms of a continuum is not a problem for the outline. Evidently, you do not understand what a valid counterexample requires...

The irony.

So you are indeed operating within your own closed system.

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it... — creativesoul

There's the claim in question.

Fill it out with your counterexample. There are two variables. Given them value.

So you are indeed operating within your own closed system. — Blue Lux

Strictly speaking, we all are.

...the law that everything that CAN happen WILL happen... — Blue Lux

Making up your own laws?

Nice.

Does that make them true?

:lol:

All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, which may or may not be real yet — Blue Lux

Rubbish.

The discovery of carbon was an experience. The discovery of carbon is not, was not, and is/was in no way at all existentially dependent upon my birth. My birth was/is also an experience.

See?

That's how it's done. A valid counterexample, I mean.

Now you try.

I have provided a contradictory example... — Blue Lux

Oh, but you have not. You provided a contradictory claim. A gratuitous assertion, nonetheless, that has been subsequently, and quite validly, shown to be false(by reductio).

Unless, that is, you wish to claim that the discovery of carbon was existentially dependent upon my birth. Seeing how my birth happened about 5700 years after carbon was discovered, if that's the case you're making, I've nothing further.

My birth is/was not existentially dependent upon my death. My death is existentially dependent upon my birth.

The whole of my experience is all of it. The whole of my experience does not exist prior to any particular part of it. Thus, the whole of my experience is not a problem at all for the outline.

It's not that I'm denying such notions. It's rather, that such notions aren't a problem. This was already demonstrated earlier with Dennis...