What? Perception is what we call the generation of sensory experience. It is the primary mediation in question here.

A pigeon can make the same perceptual discrimination. Human perception is of course linguistically scaffolded... — apokrisis

Perception is our way of talking about... — apokrisis

Perception is what we call the generation of sensory experience. — apokrisis

Perception is... ...the mediation. — apokrisis

...perception is the primary mediating step... — apokrisis

Then secondary linguistic habits can mediate... experience. — apokrisis

I'm trying to make sense of all this...

Because perception mediates, whatever mediation is existentially contingent upon, so too is perception. Mediating requires metacognition. Thus, perception requires metacognition. Metacognition requires written language. Thus, perception requires written language. So, we arrive at the following conclusion:No creature without written language has perception. — creativesoul

Metacognition requires written language
— creativesoul

Citation? Explanation? — apokrisis

Metacognition is thinking about thought/belief. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be something to think about. Thought/belief is prior to metacognition. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be a means for doing so. Written language facilitates our ability to isolate our thought/belief and then talk about it by virtue of using the terms "thought" and "belief". The same is true of all mental ongoings and the terms and notions used to take account of those.

Yeah, I’m just not following your line of argument.

First up, the psychologists who talk about metacognition don’t really get the linguistic scaffolding approach. They are treating those human skills as if they were further genetic functions, not socially constructed and language based skills.

Then still, what has written language got to do with it? Just have a mind structured by oral speech is plenty. Kids don’t learn metacognitive type skills from a manual.

This is all getting a little too weird now.

My position ought be weird to you, if by 'weird' I mean unfamiliar. However, it is actually quite simple, based upon the fewest unprovable assumptions, has very little ontological commitment, sets out what everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written has in common, and as a result of that has(the potential for) tremendous explanatory power and the broadest possible scope of rightful application. That said...

Your position is suffering from equivocation. Two terms in particular. The first being perception and the second being mediate. Equivocation is the result of self-contradiction. You're putting forth an incoherent position, and have been from the start. That is a mountain-sized problem. The proof of that is easy enough to see by virtue of proof by substitution. Define both terms, and then review all your posts while substituting every use of each term with it's definition, and then watch what happens.

I do not expect you to take this seriously, but...

You need to sharpen your notion of perception, it is ill-conceived. Proper quantification is necessary and would be a good start. Not all perception requires language.

↪creativesoul Yeah, I’m just not following your line of argument. — apokrisis

And yet you do not offer valid criticism/counter-argument. It can easily be placed into simple form, and I have actually done so on several occasions throughout the years. Each time, rather than argue for why a premiss isn't true, or showing an invalid move, or showing some other inadequacy inherent to the position, you quote some premiss or some conclusion you disagree with, gratuitously assert that disagreement, and proceed to offer your own explanation on your own terms.

That's not how valid criticism works.

I think that a well-considered position must take account of the difference(s) that language makes with regard to perception. It must also take into account the limitations of physiological sensory perception. It seems that some want to note that we do not perceive everything that there is to perceive, that our physiological sensory perception is limited, and then conclude that our perception mediates as a result. Well, if by mediate we mean something like performing the function of a filter, it makes perfect sense. However, that does not lead to a conclusion that what's being filtered is not being directly filtered or that we are not directly perceiving what gets through the filter. It just means that our physiological sensory perception has limitations and as such doesn't perceive everything.

It just means that our physiological sensory perception has limitations and as such doesn't perceive everything. — creativesoul

But my argument has been that the limitation is fruitful, purposeful - the feature and not the bug. So the indirectness is critical to the design. It creates the epistemic cut by which the mind separates itself from the world so as then to be able to assert control over the world.

What you treat as an interruption to directness that doesn’t do too much damage, I am saying is the interruption that is foundationally necessary so that a self can be introduced into the equation. The world must be filtered in a way that represents already the self-interested self.

So you are motivated to argue for directness, despite the evidence, because you seek to defend a mistaken notion of processing.

Yours is essentially a representational ontology where the brain turns sensory input into a conscious state of experience - that some homuncular self then experiences. The usual confusion.

I’ve argued the embodied and Bayesian brain view where the brain instead does its best to predict its inputs. Success is defined in terms of how much the world can be afforded to be ignored. So the self interest exists from the get-go. And the epistemic cut is enforced by the mind only having to read reality in terms of its own privately constructed system of signs.

Not all perception requires language. — creativesoul

This is an example of your nonsensical replies. Where have I ever said all perception requires language?

Again, just answer a direct question. Why are you insisting on written language as necessary to metacognition?

Your refusal to answer on small but important details is a big problem. Why do you go out of your way to be opaque?

I've not only answered that question on more than one occasion, I offered an argument for it as well...

I've no idea how you arrive at such a (mis)understanding of what I've written. Well, let me take that back, I have a very good idea of how that happens; the misattribution of meaning.

The difference between our views is on a foundational level. I draw a clear and meaningful distinction between perception and thought/belief. You conflate the two. I draw a clear and meaningful distinction between thinking about thought/belief, thought/belief, and perception. You conflate all three.

What interests me most is that we are both focusing upon the same problems, I think. I mean, it seems that we both recognize the limitations of perception. We both seem to recognize that there are significant differences between different animals' perception. We both seem to recognize that language affects/effects human perception(although I think we differ as to what extent). We both want to grant perception to animals without language.

However, I find no clear and meaningful distinction on your view with regard to what exactly counts as perception in animals without language, in fact you've treated language as perception as far as claiming that they both mediate experience, as well as calling perception the ability to talk about stuff.

However, I find no clear and meaningful distinction on your view with regard to what exactly counts as perception in animals without language... — creativesoul

Here's something you've offered with regard to the above that we may be able to work from/with...

Animal perception is direct in the sense that they have no choice but to be plugged into the here and now. Their minds are run by their immediate environment and the circumstance it presents. The capacity to detach from that is very limited - even if chimps, dolphins and ravens can do some planning, some abstracting, some deeper level of analysis.

Then humans can completely detach from the world to have a socially-constructed inner world due to the semiotic mechanism of symbolising language. Language creates an epistemic cut. Mentality gets divided into linguistically scaffolded notions of self and world. Consciousness becomes a self-consciously regulated thing. Introspection adds a further internal dimension where a “self” resides.

So it is the epistemic cut, the semiotic machinery of a symbolic code, that makes human mentality and perception indirect compared to the “trapped in the moment” directness of the biological animal mind. — apokrisis

The above defines direct perception in terms of whether or not the perceiving agent has a choice to be plugged in to the here and now. Further claiming that their minds are run by their immediate environment and the circumstances it presents without the capacity to detach from all this("trapped in the moment"). Compare that to humans' ability to 'detach' from the world by virtue of basically becoming self-aware via language that divides mentality up into notions of self and world, and you have what indirect perception consists of.

Unless humans have always been linguistic creatures, it seems to me that there is a progression of complexity at work.

Utter bullshit. Where have you explained to me why writing is a necessary difference? Why isn’t speech itself already enough?

Metacognition is thinking about thought/belief. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be something to think about. Thought/belief is prior to metacognition. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be a means for doing so. Written language facilitates our ability to isolate our thought/belief and then talk about it by virtue of using the terms "thought" and "belief". The same is true of all mental ongoings and the terms and notions used to take account of those. — creativesoul

Written language allows us to think about our own thought/belief in a way that spoken language alone cannot. Metacognition requires written language. Written language is the means by which we isolate, set aside, and pay attention to our own thought/belief. — creativesoul

...athropologists study hunter-gatherer tribes that rely on oral memory to transmit metacognitive thought habits. There is simple proof your assertions are fallacious. — apokrisis

I've provided the argument. You denied the argument based upon evidence to the contrary.

Provide it.

Unless humans have always been linguistic creatures, it seems to me that there is a progression of complexity at work. — creativesoul

Strewth. Yes of course. Language had to evolve. And the modern symbolic human mind with it. That is what paleoanthropology studies. Go read a book about it.

Just repeating a failure to explain is not helpful.

Why writing as a necessary step? Why wasn’t speaking already enough?

Am I suppose to understand by “facilitate” that you mean only to say writing helped sharpen what speaking had already got started?

In that case, writing become a redundant issue. It is not a critical fact here.

Again you seem determined to put obstacles in the way of any discussion. You won’t reference, you won’t answer directly, you use weird terminology with meaningless redundancies, you make secret sauce claims of understanding a mystery that no one else gets.

Getting straight answers from you is like blood from a stone.

So now we can add the failure to draw and maintain the distinction between written and spoken language to the already long list of inadequacies inherent to your position...

Smelling like a rose.

Again you evade giving an answer. You won’t explain how your distinction between speech and writing is a difference that makes a difference in the context of any claims about metacognition.

That distinction is not one I’ve seen being held up as crucial in any metacognition texts. So you will have to be the one to justify it.

The fact that you will continue to try to worm your way out of doing so says everything that needs to be said.

Metacognition is thinking about thought/belief. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be something to think about. Thought/belief is prior to metacognition. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be a means for doing so. Written language facilitates our ability to isolate our thought/belief and then talk about it by virtue of using the terms "thought" and "belief". The same is true of all mental ongoings and the terms and notions used to take account of those. — creativesoul

Repetition is not answering, its evading.

Again, how do you define facilitate in the above context? Was my suggestion right or wrong?

Written language allows us to think about our own thought/belief in a way that spoken language alone cannot. Metacognition requires written language. Written language is the means by which we isolate, set aside, and pay attention to our own thought/belief.

If that isn't clear enough, then ask a better question.

Where is the evidence that spoken language isn’t enough?

I’m sure a good a case can be made for how the creation of texts was a big step up in terms of cultural semiosis. Having a sacred book that encodes the right way to think means civilisations of millions can become focused on the shared project of saving their eternal souls.

But equally, anthropologists study hunter-gatherer tribes that rely on oral memory to transmit metacognitive thought habits. There is simple proof your assertions are fallacious.

Are you saying hunter gatherers aren’t properly human?

, anthropologists study hunter-gatherer tribes that rely on oral memory to transmit metacognitive thought habits. There is simple proof your assertions are fallacious. — apokrisis

Show me...

What? Are you saying hunter gatherer tribes lack metacognition? Are you saying hunter gatherers tribes aren’t preliterate cultures?

So yes, I have no problem with the idea that literacy made another huge difference. That too is well studied - a routine anthropological fact, even if not a politically correct one.

But if you want to argue that preliterate hunter gatherers aren’t skilled at transmitting cultural metacognitive thinking via their oral skills, then you show me any such evidence.

Meanwhile, read up on how oral communication is employed - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5372815/

But if you want to argue that preliterate hunter gatherers aren’t skilled at transmitting cultural metacognitive thinking via their oral skills, then you show me any such evidence. — apokrisis

You claimed proof. Show me...

if you want to argue that preliterate hunter gatherers aren’t skilled at transmitting cultural metacognitive thinking via their oral skills, then you show me any such evidence. — apokrisis

:-}

I'd argue that weasels aren't either, for the exact same reason. There is no 'evidence' to be had to prove that. Rather, it stands on the merit of the argument and falls whenever evidence is presented that negates it. You've done neither, refuted the argument nor provided evidence to the contrary.

Keep trying though. My argument stands up to the same scrutiny that yours couldn't survive.

You have a certain aversion to bearing any burden. That fact doesn't bode well for you.