Half complete novels exist in their entirety. — creativesoul
What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.
— creativesoul
Why does it matter? — jamalrob
What does the thought/belief of a creature that has never spoken about it consist of? — creativesoul
He's been the captain ever since Melville made him so. — creativesoul
I’m going with “understanding”. Just a guess.
I’d rather be informed of what it consists of, to tell the truth. — Mww
All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things. — creativesoul
With a non linguistic creature all of those things are directly perceptible. — creativesoul
Imagine a language-less creature that has just touched fire for the first time. (...) All that is needed is a creature capable of drawing correlations between their own behaviour(the touching) and the pain that immediately ensued.
— creativesoul
For the language-less creature, it is sufficient to say his correlations are given from instinct. — Mww
Is it not an error of equivocation, to suggest that just because a language-less creature, e.g., preserves his well-being instinctively, he is drawing correlations? — Mww
Isn’t it rather the case we think he must be making correlations because correlation is the only way humans can think anything at all? Including, what it’s like to be a language-less creature merely from his observable reactions. — Mww
What we're reporting upon(the thought/belief of a language-less creature) is not existentially dependent upon language. Our report most certainly is.
— creativesoul
Any report of ours is existentially dependent on language. That does not grant us authority to report on the thought/belief of language-less creatures... — Mww
All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things.
— creativesoul
Ok, but.....what things? — Mww
With a non linguistic creature all of those things are directly perceptible.
— creativesoul
So “what things”... — Mww
Does that mean non-linguistic creatures can’t remember things?
Point:
There are no false statements in a sound syllogism. It is impossible to falsify a true statement.
— creativesoul
Counterpoint:
Except when the statement was never true in the first place, re: in the case of the time-evolved knowledge that conditions the premises. — Mww
Falsification of valid syllogisms is possible merely by not holding with the conditions in the premises, yes. — Mww
It's usually not a good sign..... — creativesoul
...immediately refuses to accept the terms..... — creativesoul
I reject the proposition/statement:"Language-less creatures draw correlations that are given from instinct" on the following grounds...
You:
1. Being given presupposes a giver. Unnecessarily multiplying entities is unacceptable on my view.
2. Correlations are not given to the non linguistic thinking/believing creature..... — creativesoul
Is it not an error of equivocation, to suggest that just because a language-less creature, e.g., preserves his well-being instinctively, he is drawing correlations?
— Mww
What difference does that make? It would not be an error I've made.......
All I’m saying is that it would be an error of equivocation, if instinct is entirely sufficient to explain our observations of action/reaction in language-less creatures. It would not be such an error, if the theory of thought/belief in language-less creatures is demonstrated as being predicated necessarily on correlations they actually make, and make in some manner that cannot at all be mere instinct.
................Drawing correlations between different things begins happening long before the creature becomes aware of their own mental ongoings. — creativesoul
I would not dare claim to know what it's like to be a language less creature. (...) I can clearly set out the basic elemental constituents of both language-less thought/belief and apple pie nonetheless. — creativesoul
On your view, what constitutes sufficient/adequate ground for us to acquire knowledge regarding the thought/belief content of language-less creatures? — creativesoul
That's not an exception. It was never a sound syllogism in the first place. — creativesoul
All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them. — creativesoul
↪fishfry I would disagree and say that any fiction is a compilation of prior reality, mixed up into something which only appears novel. — Razorback kitten
...original thought are illusions. — Razorback kitten
I say Captain Ahab was already there before he was thought into existence. For the same reason I can invent a random word at will, like fragalagadingdong and although it's never been heard in its entirety before, all the component parts were there, which I jumbled up together. The first words spoken by humans were a bridge between sounds they could already make and some action or object of reference.
Free will or original thought are illusions. I feel like I have free will but logically I know that cannot be. If I invent something new, which looks and seems new to everyone, it is only as a response to the need for said things invention to begin with. — Razorback kitten
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.