Jack cat is behaving as if there is a mouse under the bed.
Jack thinks there is a mouse under the bed.
For Jack, there is a mouse under the bed.
For Jack, it is true that there is a mouse under the bed.
Jack believes there is a mouse under the bed.
— Banno
Here we need to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between our talking about Jack's belief and Jack's belief. The two are not one in the same thing. So...
Agree? — creativesoul
Yes, it is possible to break rules. I don't see the problem. One can hold in one's mind a rule to follow, yet still not follow it. — Metaphysician Undercover
The words in my mind are not identical to the words I speak. The words I speak have a physical presence, as sound, and are public. The words in my mind have no such physical presence, and are private. There is only equivocation if we say that our use of "words" to refer to these two distinct types of words, is the same usage of "words".. That's why I am trying to differentiate these distinct usages, such that we do not equivocate. — Metaphysician Undercover
The "rules" in my mind are not really the same as the "rules" on the paper. The word "rules" refers to two distinct things here, regardless of the fact that we call them the same rules. This must be the case to account for the fact that I might interpret the rules in a way slightly different from you. — Metaphysician Undercover
When someone is using the same word in two distinct ways, and clearly indicates these two distinct ways (as I indicate with 'private' rules), yet the reader fails to acknowledge these two distinct ways, then the reader equivocates. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, you have made a mention of "actual rules" in the last post, and I asked you in one post to clarify what you mean by this. — Metaphysician Undercover
I would say that this symbol represents the number two, and the actual number two is the interpretation of that symbol which exists in my mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is were we differ. Is it that, too? Is there something in the mind that is the belief, apart from the behaviour? Wouldn't that be a beetle? — Banno
You're conflating the written rules with your interpretation of the rules again. Just answer me this: are the written rules the rules, or not? Or do they not become rules until you have interpreted them? — Luke
If it's the latter, then how can you break a rule? Because then it seems that each of us can only act contrary to our individual interpretation of the rule [rather than contrary to the rule itself], and nobody can ever be certain of what the rule actually is, or whether we each have the correct interpretation of it. Who the hell knows what "checkmate" really means, right? — Luke
No, you equivocate. How are 'private' rules different from written rules? That you have interpreted the former? Then they are not rules, but an interpretation of them. — Luke
Stop pussyfooting around and just admit you think that the written rules are not rules, just some uninterpreted symbols and God knows what they really mean. — Luke
I'll make it simple: the actual rules are the rules (that have been written down or agreed upon or whatever). The rules are not some individual's private interpretation of the rules. — Luke
Is there any difference between them (besides that fact that one's a number and the other's your so-called interpretation of it)? Well, is there? — Luke
I think the issue is thinking that the belief is either... — creativesoul
One being that belief is nothing more than behaviour, the other that belief is a description of behaviour. — Metaphysician Undercover
But that's why I gave up; there is no point in entering into a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what has been said. — Banno
Or does that belief amount to nothing more than the collection of tomato-related behaviours? — Banno
My argument is that beliefs are explanations for behaviour, such that they set out what would be true in order for the behaviour to make sense. — Banno
There is a distinction between 'belief' that is pre-linguistic and belief that is linguistically mediated.
Then there is a distinction between thinking about pre-linguistic 'belief' and thinking about linguistically mediated belief. There is a tendency to impute the characteristics of the latter; propositionality, the ability to be "held" or "had" , and so on, to the former.
These are the relevant distinctions as I see it; and not the distinction between belief and thinking about belief, per se. This is because linguistically mediated beliefs may be either implicit or explicit, that is more or less conscious, all without actually being thought about. — Janus
If one claims 'X', then one believes that 'X' is true, assuming a sincere speaker. 'X' here is held as the belief itself. Let 'X' be a statement. A belief statement, as it were. Stating 'X' is to state that one believes 'X'. In light of all this, Banno's definition of "belief" as an explanation makes perfect sense. — creativesoul
As we see when someone is on trial, one's explanations for one's actions are not necessarily one's beliefs — Metaphysician Undercover
What's 'wrong' with saying that non-linguistic creatures form and hold belief? — creativesoul
Because "forming" and "holding" are hallmarks of propositionality. — Janus
I told you, we can use "rules" to refer to the written rules. I have no problem with that. And, they do not need to be interpreted by me to become rules, because they were written as rules. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well yes, assuming sincerity... — creativesoul
This person does have beliefs however... despite his/her deliberately misrepresenting them. — creativesoul
If belief is an explanation, and one offers an explanation that they do not believe, then not all explanations are belief.
There is no issue. — creativesoul
Banno explains Jack's behaviour. This is Banno's belief. Not Jacks.
That's the issue. — creativesoul
As I said, numerous times, I use "rules" in different ways — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice, that in your quoted passages, I am referring to "following rules". In order for a person to follow a rule, one must hold a principle within one mind, which is adhered to. So, when I follow a rule, I am following this principle which I hold in my mind. This is despite the fact, that there may be a written rule, and I might call this written rule, the rule which I am following. In this case, "rule" refers to two distinct things. The writing on the paper is called the rule, and the principle in my mind which is my interpretation of what's on the paper, is also called the rule which I am following. We could say that this is "the same rule". — Metaphysician Undercover
If belief is an explanation, and one offers an explanation that they do not believe, then not all explanations are belief.
There is no issue.
— creativesoul
You can't really say that there is no issue, because you've just used "believe" in the common way. Rather than maintaining consistency with "belief" as an explanation, you go and use "believe" the old way.
If you maintain consistency with Banno's definition, then what the explanation describes, what it refers to, cannot be a belief, it must be something else. — Metaphysician Undercover
Consider that the explanation is a description, and the thing being described is what you would normally call the belief. Instead, the explanation itself is the belief. If there is not correspondence between the thing being described, and the explanation, then the explanation is false, a false belief. A true belief therefore requires the two components, the explanation, and the thing being described, with correspondence. If there is no correspondence, then there is no truth, and therefore no real belief. A false belief cannot be called a real belief. Likewise, the content without the explanation cannot be called a belief either.
Banno explains Jack's behaviour. This is Banno's belief. Not Jacks.
That's the issue.
— creativesoul
I think, that if the explanation is accurate, then it is supposed to be an objective statement, which is a true belief, regardless of who may have made the statement. The explanation, why jack behaved in this way, corresponds with the reality, so it represents the content of no particular individual's mind, it just represents the truth. And if it doesn't represent the content of any particular person's mind, yet it is true, then it is simply a true belief. — Metaphysician Undercover
To form a belief as I would use the phrase (and which I think is in keeping with common usage) is to undergo a process of deliberation that is linguistically mediated. I would say that animals may habitually expect, but that they do not form beliefs. To hold a belief is to insist that some proposition is true; I don't think animals hold their beliefs; if anything they are held by them (by their expectations). You can use terminology however you like; I am just expressing my opinion about your usage; which does not seem sensible to me. — Janus
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.