All communication IS language.

WTF??? — creativesoul

Try expressing this to all the research that goes into non-verbal communication, ya know, facial expressions and the like. Whistling down the wind.

A belief is knowable only via behavior and is therefore subject to interpretation.

Yes, the utterance is but a very small percentage of the information conveyed. The distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior is arbitrary as all behavior is communicative whether it be orated by Winston Churchill or my dog scratching at the door.

So it doesn't go unexpressed, :up:

Not following. The belief isn't the behavior.

Not following. The belief isn't the behavior. — Hanover

What's that got to do with all behavior being communicative to any other being that has a even a remote similarity of behaviors?

All communication IS language.

WTF???
— creativesoul

Try expressing this to all the research that goes into non-verbal communication, ya know, facial expressions and the like. Whistling down the wind. — javra

Since when is language limited to only verbal?

Whistle a true tune...

Since when is language limited to only verbal? — creativesoul

So a person's smile, a dog's growl, and a snakes rattle are all linguistic? Some might disagree, such as those who uphold that language is properly speaking the conveyance of words, be these auditory, tactile, written, or via sign-language ... So next question: what is language?

You know any being's belief by its behavior...
— Hanover



All external behavior offers an incomplete report of the internal belief, which could result in alternative explanations...
— Hanover


Care to reconcile this? — creativesoul

↪creativesoul A belief is knowable only via behavior and is therefore subject to interpretation. — Hanover

Knowing is not equivalent to interpreting.

I just didn't follow your comment that "it doesn't go unexpressed." Was "it" the belief? You could have an unexpressed belief.

Knowing requires a justification which is a subjective interpretation.

I was being humorous, in my way at least. I agreed with the contents of your post and communicated/expressed my agreement with you're post's contents without using words/language.

Missed the sarcasm. Needed a :wink:

Missed the sarcasm. Needed a :wink: — Hanover

(palm to the face emoticon) Got it. Wasn't being sarcastic, though. I really did like the post's contents; "thumbs up". :smile:

... I'm off the the night.

But I did not say that. And I failed to follow your comments about the moon. — Banno

You agree that understanding a concept is not what we mean by "concept." I misunderstood then.

In regard to beliefs, think of the statement: The slug believes it's better to be in the shade.

I think most people wouldn't take this statement seriously. If you agree we should stick to ordinary language use, how do you handle this statement?

I'm asking about how you distinguish a conscious being capable of belief from one that doesn't have that capacity.

You agree that understanding a concept is not what we mean by "concept." — frank

Forget about meaning and look to use. Understanding a concept is being able to use it.

I'm asking about how you distinguish a conscious being capable of belief from one that doesn't have that capacity. — frank

I've said all I thing is interesting here - a thermostat does not have beliefs, an adult does; there is a gradation of cases in which we would attribute belief. Slugs are up to you.

We do not need to have a clear cut off; a gradation will suffice.

What one ought believe — Banno

At the least, we ought strive for consistency. One's beliefs ought not be contradictory.

For me it's simple, and not as complicated as most people are making it. We see the actions of animals and humans, and based on these actions we can reasonably infer that they have beliefs apart from statements/propositions. When we communicate these beliefs with one another we use language, but beliefs aren't necessarily dependent on language. Beliefs are only dependent upon language if we want to communicate that belief.

Another way to put it is the following: Pain behavior is not dependent on language, but our talk of pain behavior is. Pain can be observed apart from language, and so can beliefs, both are shown in the acts of both humans and animals.

So to answer your question, "How can I claim to know...?" - I can claim to know based on observation. I don't need to know every aspect of what a belief consists of to draw this conclusion. If you want to be more precise about it that's fine, but just remember that it's not necessary to have a precise definition to be able to talk about these concepts, we do it all the time. The word belief spans a wide array of language-games, so precision, although important, may escape you. — Sam26

I completely agree with this.

Forget about meaning and look to use. Understanding a concept is being able to use it. — Banno

We weren't talking about meaning. Note:

No, Banno - there is in addition an irreducible, invisible thing-in-the-mind had by those who understand 'heavy' - the concept of heavy."

And when you and I both understand "heavy", we have the same concept in our minds? Is there one concept, shared, or is there one concept each?

And if there is one concept that we all share, what sort of thing could it be?

But if we have one concept each, how can it be the same concept? How is "heavy" for me the same as "heavy" for you? — Banno

This is ontological talk. Then you go on to lay out the issue Frege addressed. Why not accept his approach?

We do not need to have a clear cut off; a gradation will suffice. — Banno

Gradation would conflict with ordinary language use, wouldn't it? Who speaks of slight belief or mostly but not completely? I think it's either/or. Am I right in thinking you're leaving it up to ordinary language use to sort out this fairly significant question regarding belief? And if so, how far does that go? Are you willing to diverge from ordinary use in any way?

At the least, we ought strive for consistency. One's beliefs ought not be contradictory. — Banno

If contradictory belief gets you a million bucks, you should definitely embrace it whole-heartedly.

Sam, I do think I take the beetle argument further than you do. Exactly where and how remains unclear.

No, it would imply that it's likely we both are referencing a similar subjective impression of a beetle when we said "beetle," but we couldn't be sure.

I can't be sure your utterance of "beetle" is heard the same for me as you. It too is a beetle. Language is only assumed public. — Hanover

I gather that you, Sam, would agree with me that this is at best muddled. If we followed Hanover here and agreed that the meaning of our words is a subjective item of some sort, we would have no basis for claiming that you, I and Hanover meant the same thing, as Hanover says. But if we reject private meanings - that's what subjective referents would be - then there is no problem in seeing that the use of a word is fluid, and depends on what we are doing with that word.

Hanover might see beliefs as things in the head that we can reference. But you and I see them as tools used in producing explanations, and various other activities.

How is that?

I'm lost. You are all over the shop.

OVer here is not over there. But we do not need a sharp line drawn at an exact point in order to know this.

It's more likely that contradictory statements would get you a million bucks.

I'm lost. You are all over the shop. — Banno

We should look to use when we're talking about the meaning of speech or writing (although it's easy to show that there can be meaning without any actual use). What does that have to do with the ontology of concepts (which is the issue you raised)? If you're not interested in pursuing that, that's fine.

It's more likely that contradictory statements would get you a million bucks. — Banno

It is?

although it's easy to show that there can be meaning without any actual use — frank

How?

Computer generated poems. :)

And?


This is like pulling teeth.

You're complaining? You have dodged every question I've asked! :D

I have no clear notion of where you want to go. Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing? How? About what?