...it appears we are thinking about our own thinking, which is technically true, but in actuality, we are just thinking. Instead of some arbitrary object to think about, we’ve chosen ourselves as the object. We think about ourselves in exactly the same way we think about everything else. — Mww
We are not our thought/belief. Are you really attempting to deny that we think about our own thought/belief? — creativesoul
Aristotle did not draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. — creativesoul
Are you disagreeing that meaning is shared?
— creativesoul
I can only understand the word 'shared' in terms of division, or joint ownership, or maybe joint possession (as in some property is shared). I can only make sense of 'meaning' as in the use a word is put to, or maybe the responses it brings about when it's read or heard. — Isaac
You asked, what is it that is being shared between language users? As if there were a single thing that had some significance over others.
If 'shared' is to be used to indicate joint possession or membership, then we share the words themselves, we share a broad collection of the uses they're put to, we share some (but not all) of the responses they generate in our minds. But this is all trivially true. What's the point of the question? — Isaac
Common denominators are shared and undivided. The world is shared and undivided. All mammals share mammary glands. Commonalites are shared and undivided. — creativesoul
Some people convince others to take certain actions by virtue of making statements. The speaker does not believe what they say. The listeners are convinced that the speaker does.
Here, your position cannot adequately account for the meaning of the statements/language use. Their use is not equivalent to their meaning. — creativesoul
I personally prefer the Enlightenment era Continental Idealism, particularly the Kantian variety, even if I wouldn’t bet the family farm on it. But it doesn’t matter which speculative system one chooses, if he chooses at all, which ever way the brain works is how it works, and because there’s no peer-reviewed positive evidence of the fundamental aspects of brain mechanisms, we are free to be as purely logical as we please... — Mww
I don’t know what you mean by “thought/belief”. For me, a belief is a thought but a thought is not necessarily a belief, and if thinking is always and absolutely prevalent, believing is redundant. There is no epistemological or cognitive distinction between “I think.......” and “I believe.......”, and in a sufficient metaphysical reduction, the “I believe......” disappears anyway.
Still, I see you use that connectivity just about everywhere on here, so it must mean something to you. — Mww
Common denominators are shared and undivided. The world is shared and undivided. All mammals share mammary glands. Commonalites are shared and undivided.
— creativesoul
Yes, that's why I included those things in my list of thing I think "shared" could refer to.
Some people convince others to take certain actions by virtue of making statements. The speaker does not believe what they say. The listeners are convinced that the speaker does.
Here, your position cannot adequately account for the meaning of the statements/language use. Their use is not equivalent to their meaning.
— creativesoul
What? I really can't make any sense of that. — Isaac
We set up a computer system, including a camera/microphone and a robot arm, in a small room, so that there's also a tree, a totem poll and a bookcase in it.
We type or say or show a picture we drew of a tree. The computer responds by pointing the robot arm at the tree.
We type or say or show a picture we drew of a totem poll. The computer responds by pointing the robot arm at the totem poll.
Is the computer "doing meaning"? In other words, does "tree" mean something to the computer? — Terrapin Station
There are times when "We are under attack!!!" is known to be false by the speaker but deliberately used nonetheless to manufacture consent for war. The meaning is used to manufacture consent. Thus, the meaning of the statement and it's use are clearly not equivalent. — creativesoul
I do find much agreement as well. Do you agree? — creativesoul
All belief is thought, but not all thought is belief. The only difference between the two, it seems to me, are during times of contemplation, particularly when one is temporarily suspending one's judgment — creativesoul
the method arrives at the inability to draw a distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. — creativesoul
There are times when "We are under attack!!!" is known to be false by the speaker but deliberately used nonetheless to manufacture consent for war. The meaning is used to manufacture consent. Thus, the meaning of the statement and it's use are clearly not equivalent.
— creativesoul
It's used to get people to think they're under attack. That's the use of the word if they genuinely are, and that's its use if they aren't but the speaker wishes to deceive them. It's the same use. — Isaac
The expression "we're under attack" is used to engender the response of feeling under attack. The ultimate purpose of someone wishing to engender those feelings is neither here nor there, otherwise the question "what is x used for" becomes pointlessly unanswerable. — Isaac
There are times when "We are under attack!!!" is known to be false by the speaker but deliberately used nonetheless to manufacture consent for war. The meaning is used to manufacture consent. Thus, the meaning of the statement and it's use are clearly not equivalent.
— creativesoul
It's used to get people to think they're under attack. That's the use of the word if they genuinely are, and that's its use if they aren't but the speaker wishes to deceive them. It's the same use. — Isaac
The ultimate purpose is precisely what the meaning of the statement is being used for. — creativesoul
At conception, there is no thought/belief and yet at the end of some people's lives the sheer complexity of thought/belief that they have/hold and/or use is downright daunting. — creativesoul
to draw a distinction between empirical thought and pure reason is to show that one misunderstands how all thought/belief works. — creativesoul
All thought/belief - from the most rudimentary, simple, and/or basic ones through the most complex - consist of common basic elemental constituents, — creativesoul
There can be no pure reason without simple thought. — creativesoul
What is your idea of simple thought? — Mww
How does shared meaning require shared values and goals? — creativesoul
Red Herrings won't do here. — creativesoul
How does shared meaning require shared values and goals?
— creativesoul
I was thinking of this question with the relationship between Red (my dog) and myself in mind. I have many values and goals that Red doesn't, and vice-versa. His interest in sniffing the urine on tree trucks, for example, is of no interest to me. I have a vague notion of what that's about, a kind of canine communication about territory and perhaps other things. There's a sphere of canine meaning there that's entirely lost on me. Conversely, Red has no idea what I'm doing sitting in front of this computer typing away. The sphere of meaning that we share is entirely lost on him.
Red and I share meaning where our values and goals are congruent. For us, that centers around food and various activities, also security I suppose. We both value security and maintain a territory with the goal of security. I understand that's basically how ancient people and wolves were able to first come together. They were both social species and both valued the same kind of food and security. — praxis
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.