Would you like for that to be put into argumentative form?

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

Sorry, I should have realized that that was your example, my mistake. I did read this a while back.

So we have some prelinguistic human, or even an animal that touches a fire and feels discomfort, and you're saying that in virtue of this sensory experience "...they attribute causality by virtue of inferring..." - I follow the first part, but it's the latter that seems very problematic. It seems to me that you're giving these beings linguistic notions, viz., the concepts of causality and the ability to draw an inference. How do we know they're attributing causality and drawing an inference based on the discomfort they feel. For example, I can say that if a prelinguistic human roots around in the ground for grubs, that the prelinguistic human believes there are grubs in the ground. How do I know that this is the case? I know based on their actions. Apart from their actions I know nothing of what's going on in their minds.

Moreover, all I see are simple beliefs. 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. It's because the touching of the fire sent an uncomfortable signal to the brain, which caused a further belief, which is then seen in their actions, viz., staying further back from the fire. So we see the actions after the experience, which leads us to observe the further beliefs formed after the experience.

My conclusion is that these are nothing more than simple prelinguistic beliefs. I'm not sure why you want to add all this baggage, viz., that their attributing causality and inferring X.

I guess you are considering my questions to be baseless?

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?

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.

The thing is, did the artist's opinion that the sculpture exists exist prior to the sculpture? It could not have. The sculpture seems to be one with the artist's opinion that the sculpture exists (when the artist is the arbiter.)

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

Causality is not existentially dependent upon language. Drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things(not language constructs) is not either. Neither of these can be rightfully called a linguistic notion. Together, they are more than adequate for attributing causality, and in this case doing so correctly.

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

Are you claiming that the creature does not believe that touching fire caused the discomfort, or that such belief is not attributing causality?

↪creativesoul I guess you are considering my questions to be baseless? — Blue Lux

Which have went unanswered?

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.

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.

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.

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. There may be something to what you're claiming, and some of it may just be speculation. Whatever the case, keep thinking about it, but keep thinking about it with Wittgenstein in mind, because I think his thoughts on the subject are important.

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

And I am. I do not see how what you've provided serves as a counter-example and/or negation.

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

I understand that, and it follows Witt's line of thinking. The problems, however, are immanent. 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.

The interesting part of establishing what pre-linguistic belief consists of lies in the consequences that applying that bit of knowledge has. The sheer scope of rightful and appropriate application could not be any broader. It's downright daunting.

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

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.

Your second criticism is a point about interpretation, not the belief, i.e., the action reflects a belief independent of your interpretation of the belief. 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. You may infer other obvious and not so obvious beliefs, but that is separate from having the belief state.

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.

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

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.

My take is all thought and belief consists of drawing correlations between different things, visual memory could be one of those things...

My take is all thought and belief consists of drawing correlations between different things, visual memory could be one of those things... — creativesoul

Probably olfactory as well for many animals. Reading a little bit on how dog's experience the world of smell was rather mind blowing.

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

I tentatively agree. Observation alone is utterly inadequate. We must also have some standard, some criterion, some measure of what counts as belief.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not so much arguing against the idea that thought and belief has efficacy(influence subsequent behaviours). I argue for that. Rather, I'm pointing out the inherent weakness of the idea that behaviour shows belief. 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.

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.

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.

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

Most certainly...

Correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself.

Owls detect infrared.

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

Yes. The sculpture existed prior to the metal box.

Would the sculpture have seized to exist if the rotten box had collapsed?

The sculpture would've changed.

Someone might think of it still existing but in a collapsed form, but the artist might reject it and say that it stopped existing.

That's the artists' prerogative.

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?

This gets into the ambiguity of what counts as being the same over time/change. I'm reminded of Heraclitus' river. The artist can say whatever s/he wants. It's not the same sculpture. It has different structural integrity, different components, etc.

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.

Come now, let's not lose all sensibility.

All thought and belief about existence is existentially dependent upon language.

Existence is not.

The sculpture as it was prior to the box is not the same as it was after the box. It consists of different things.

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.

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.

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

It's only contentious because you're allowing a particular interpretation to take root. While it's true that actions reflect belief, it's not true that all actions reflect belief. Many living things act in some way, but that doesn't mean that every action/behavior reflects a belief. It's also true that some actions are more difficult to ascribe a belief to, but that doesn't mean that particular kinds of actions don't reflect beliefs. There are also involuntary and voluntary actions for example, certainly involuntary actions don't reflect belief.

I think for the most part we do know what a belief is, we use the word all the time in ways that show what a belief is. One use of the word belief in reference to actions is the following: There are many instances in courts of law where we can reasonably infer what someone actually believes by their actions even if they're lying. So if someone says, "No, I wasn't with my sister at 9 am on Sunday morning the 5th of August 2018," and there is a video showing him with his sister at that time, then we can reasonably infer that his actions tell another story. His actions reflect what he really believes. In some respects actions are a more reliable indicator of what someone believes.

It's the way you're using the word belief that's causing the confusion.

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

Again, not all behavior equates to a belief. I'm not sure why you would conclude this. I sure don't believe it, and I'm fairly certain Wittgenstein didn't believe it. It doesn't logically follow that because some actions or behaviors reflect beliefs, that all actions or behaviors reflect beliefs.

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

No need to apologize, it's easy to make mistakes, or to write something that we later see as an error, or even a typo.

In response to your last sentence - I think it's only incoherent based on your interpretation. Hopefully my writings directly above clear up some of this.

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

We definitely use visualizations, but I'm not sure animals do, maybe. I'd be interested in the evidence that suggests that animals use visualizations. The only reason I have to doubt this, is that our minds do much more than an animals, although they might do more basic kinds of visualizations.

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

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 ceases to exist due to one change seems absurd.

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

Come now, let's not lose all sensibility. — creativesoul

I agree.

the sculpture would be dependent on the metal box.

This is not proven, so it is ignorant to speak as if it is...

"Belief and thought about existence is dependent on language."

You cannot say you know enough about thought to say that.

Is a child's castration complex a belief dependent on language? Hell no. What about the beliefs of children? Are you ready to say that the LAD is the creator of belief and thought? This is preposterous.

Furthermore, what about neurotic beliefs?

I disagree. There is no criterion of belief. A belief is a belief regardless of if why or how. A belief is never justified as a belief. It is a belief. It is furthermore a belief that a belief is such and such. Beliefs permeate all psychic reality, and are not determined by anything other than the complexes of one's consciousness. Beliefs can be augmented, transformed, etc, but they are often sublimations and displacements of completely alogical foundations.

Take the compulsion neuroses that Freud speaks of in Totem and Taboo.
A woman believes that her husband's razors association with the sign of death near where the razors have been in proximity to, is a sign of immanent danger for her husband. This belief is a belief, and it is what Freud explains as 'The omnipotence of thought' of neuroses.

"similarity and contiguity are the two essential principles of the processes of association"
Freud

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 did not say that, nor does it follow from what I've written.

The claim in question is this...

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it.

The sculpture - prior to - the box cannot be existentially dependent upon the box. The sculpture - after the box - is not prior to the box.

Do you agree thus far?

:confused:

Surely you see the point here? I do recognize the difficulty you're presenting, so you know, and I appreciate it more than it may seem. You're showing me that there's a bit more sharpening to be done, so to speak.

I disagree. There is no criterion of belief — Blue Lux

Present an argument or a valid objection to my own. Not interested in anything else, especially gratuitous assertions.

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

We just disagree here Sam. Do you have any evidence from posthumous works that support the idea that Witt did not follow the conventional notion of JTB? It is my understanding that hinge propositions were meant to dissolve the issue of justificatory regress. It is also my understanding that Witt never found what he was looking for(a single hinge proposition). He called them "hinge propositions"... not hinge beliefs.

I think it may serve us well to take a moment and review all that we've agreed upon. I'm fairly confident that our disagreements aren't as important, particularly regarding the matter at hand - pre linguistic belief and all that that entails. I'm certain that it interests us both to a significant 'degree'...

This is not proven...

"Belief and thought about existence is dependent on language." — Blue Lux

What would count as proof to you?

:worry:

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

:blush:

That's quite clever. I laughed out loud! Thanks. It doesn't follow from the premiss in question, nor does it pose a problem for it.



Dennis prior to the heart transplant cannot be existentially dependent upon the heart transplant.

That is what follows from the claim...

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it.