A language-less creature can touch fire. Touching fire causes discomfort. Some language-less creatures can touch fire, feel discomfort, and attribute causality by virtue of inferring that touching fire caused the discomfort. All attribution of causality is thought and belief. That creature thinks, believes, and otherwise infers that touching fire caused the discomfort. That creature's belief is true. That creature's belief is well-grounded. That creature's belief cannot consist of language. That creature's belief cannot consist of propositions. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon justification. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon language. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon justification. — creativesoul
It seems to me that you're giving these beings linguistic notions, viz., the concepts of causality and the ability to draw an inference. — Sam26
The prelinguistic human touched the fire and felt discomfort, and as a result, formed a further belief based on these sensory experiences. I do believe there is a causal connection between the touching of the fire and the belief, but it's not because they attributed causality or even inferred this. The causal connection is independent of what they think. — Sam26
↪creativesoul I guess you are considering my questions to be baseless? — Blue Lux
Take the example of a modern art sculpture made out of trash. The sculpture is a tower, and near its base is a supportive rotten box of wood that is threatening to collapse.
The sculpture collapses if the box collapses. However, with the help of hydraulic equipment, the tower can be saved by being temporarily suspended as its rotten box gets replaced by a metal box that was fabricated later than the tower was built. Wouldn't you say that the metal box did not exist until it had been fabricated, so it did not exist before the sculpture? — HuggetZukker
The sculpture existed prior to the metal box. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it. The sculpture is not existentially dependent upon the metal box. — creativesoul
Are there examples that clearly negate any of the five 'rules'? — creativesoul
The sculpture existed prior to the metal box. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it. The sculpture is not existentially dependent upon the metal box.
— creativesoul
And yet from this quote...
Are there examples that clearly negate any of the five 'rules'?
— creativesoul
...it would appear that you were interested in having it explored whether or not P1 could be right. — HuggetZukker
My epistemological theory Creative only requires that there be prelinguistic beliefs of a certain kind, and what gives life to these belief are our actions. The actions show the belief. — Sam26
First actions are not reliable indicators of belief. Second, several different beliefs could be reported as an explanation for most actions. Thirdly, several different beliefs could cause the same behaviour. Lastly, on my view, positing pre-linguistic belief without getting into what belief consists of is to gratuitously assert a pre-linguistic belief. — creativesoul
To be honest, I really don't know what's going on in the mind of a prelinguistic person or animal. My intuition and my metaphysics says there is much more going on than we realize. What that is, again, I don't know. You're going beyond my claims, and my claims are going beyond what Wittgenstein would say. — Sam26
My take is all thought and belief consists of drawing correlations between different things, visual memory could be one of those things... — creativesoul
When talking about prelinguistic beliefs actions are the only indicators of a belief. There is no other way to say that a human or animal has a belief other than by observing their behavior. — Sam26
If a prelinguistic human is using their hands to root around in the soil, then one can say with absolute certainty that the human believes that it has hands.
The rooting around in the soil does reflect more than one belief, that's for sure, but that doesn't count against the idea that the actions reflect the beliefs. In fact, it supports the idea.
My view does tell you what the belief consists of, viz., the actions of the person or animal in question. It's not at all gratuitous. We do this all the time, linguistic beliefs or not.
Probably olfactory as well for many animals. Reading a little bit on how dog's experience the world of smell was rather mind blowing. — Marchesk
Take the example of a modern art sculpture made out of trash. The sculpture is a tower, and near its base is a supportive rotten box of wood that is threatening to collapse.
The sculpture collapses if the box collapses. However, with the help of hydraulic equipment, the tower can be saved by being temporarily suspended as its rotten box gets replaced by a metal box that was fabricated later than the tower was built. Wouldn't you say that the metal box did not exist until it had been fabricated, so it did not exist before the sculpture? — HuggetZukker
Would the sculpture have seized to exist if the rotten box had collapsed?
Someone might think of it still existing but in a collapsed form, but the artist might reject it and say that it stopped existing.
If we say it would have seized to exist, after its fix up, is it the same sculpture? What if the artist insists that it is?
However, if any person, such as the artist, is taken to be the arbiter of the sculpture's existence then the person's opinion of its existence is its only direct existential dependency, and any other factors are just a temporary indirect dependencies.
Witt worked from the conventional notion that all thought and belief is propositional in content. It is my strong opinion that that served to stifle his genius on this matter of belief. — creativesoul
You see Sam, this is actually quite contentious. Following the same logic, my chickens believe that they have beaks.
This harks back to the issue I'm raising. We must first have some notion regarding what a belief actually is, and more importantly what belief is existentially dependent upon and/or what belief consists of, prior to our being able to observe and correctly attribute belief to another. — creativesoul
Behaviour alone is inadequate justificatory ground for positing any particular belief. There are also clear actual examples that serve to falsify that claim, placing it into the "some" behaviour shows belief category... clearly not all. — creativesoul
You're right to say that positing pre-linguistic belief is not gratuitous. I'm mistaken to say that, now that I actually think about it. My apologies. However, to say that belief consists of actions while also asserting that action shows belief renders the language use incoherent. — creativesoul
Temple Grandin was of the opinion that animals thought in pictures instead of words, and that a lot of people have a hard time with this because they're thinking is so dominated by language. But she calls herself a visual thinker who has to translate pictures to words in order to communicate with others, being that she's a high functioning autist. — Marchesk
The sculpture with the box did not exist prior to the box. The sculpture with the box is existentially dependent upon the box. The sculpture prior to the box is not. They are not the same sculpture. — creativesoul
Here lies Dennis who got a heart transplant
2010 - 2018
RIP
Come now, let's not lose all sensibility. — creativesoul
In my opinion, the old sculpture and the new sculpture are sub-existences of a whole time sculpture. To say that the whole time sculpture seizes to exist due to one change seems absurd. — HuggetZukker
I disagree. There is no criterion of belief — Blue Lux
Witt worked from the conventional notion that all thought and belief is propositional in content. It is my strong opinion that that served to stifle his genius on this matter of belief.
— creativesoul
This just isn't true. In fact, there is much in Wittgenstein's thinking that is just unconventional. Hinge-propositions are not propositions in the conventional sense. In a sense they're not propositions at all. — Sam26
This is not proven...
"Belief and thought about existence is dependent on language." — Blue Lux
With your approach, it seems impossible to conceive of the existence of Dennis 1967 - 2018.
In year 1967, Dennis was born.
In year 2010, Dennis' heart failed, but luckily he survived thanks to receiving a heart transplant. Thus concluded the existence of Dennis born in 1967 as began the existence of Dennis who got a heart transplant in 2010.
In year 2018, Dennis who got a heart transplant in 2010 swallowed nine lithium batteries on purpose to die and succeeded. On his tombstone it said,
Here lies Dennis who got a heart transplant
2010 - 2018
RIP — HuggetZukker
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.