Eh, to an extent.

They are just different kinds of existence as generally conceived is all. — Janus

So, the only commonality between different kinds of existence is the term "existence"?

he'd then be right that they can't hold thoughts, but clearly can have thoughts, — Shamshir

Well. To be clear, he denied having thoughts too....

The only way I can understand having or holding a thought or belief is that we do it by deliberately formulating thoughts and beliefs into determinate conceptual structures, and this requires language. Neuroscience tells us that there are neural connections constantly being made and forming complex networks which persist in brains provided they are fulfilling some function.

I have no doubt animal brains form such persistent neural structures, which enables them to recognize entities and features of their environments, but I don't see animals as experiencing themselves holding specific thoughts or beliefs. We don't really know since we are not non-linguistic animals, so we only say what seems most plausible.

Depends on what you mean by "having thoughts". I haven't denied that they think. If by 'having thoughts" you just mean that they think, then I have no problem with that, but if you mean that they hold specific thoughts in mind, then no.

He's not allowed to, after going on parole from the thought police.

I told him not to take the animals' thoughts away, but he didn't listen.

We cannot say what existence or being is in some more fundamental terms, but it is an indispensable idea. We can conceive of different kinds of existence, what more are you looking for?

You can't dispense with the idea of existence, because you use it in your term "existential dependency" to distinguish the idea that something is dependent on something else for its very existence, from other forms of mere functional dependency. If you use some alternative term it can only be an analogue of 'existence', otherwise it won't perform the conceptual job you want it to.

The only way I can understand having or holding a thought or belief is that we do it by deliberately formulating thoughts and beliefs into determinate conceptual structures, and this requires language. Neuroscience tells us that there are neural connections constantly being made and forming complex networks which persist in brains provided they are fulfilling some function.

I have no doubt animal brains form such persistent neural structures, which enables them to recognize entities and features of their environments, but I don't see animals as experiencing themselves holding specific thoughts or beliefs. We don't really know since we are not non-linguistic animals, so we only say what seems most plausible — Janus

This bears witness to major differences between our frameworks; our criteria for what counts as thought/belief seem to be directly at odds.

You've said something here that caught my eye regarding yours.

It seems that your criterion for having and/or holding thought/belief includes the creature being able to experience themselves holding specific thoughts or beliefs. That's a confusing way to talk, but I think you're referring to a kind of experience that requires using language to talk about one's own thought/belief.

I also do not see animals having such experiences, but those kinds of experience are not necessary for thought/belief formation. No matter how fleeting, if a creature forms thought/belief, it holds and/or has it.... even if only for a moment.

If by 'having thoughts" you just mean that they think, then I have no problem with that, but if you mean that they hold specific thoughts in mind, then no. — Janus

They do have/hold specific thoughts. That is not to say that they have specific thoughts in mind. Having specific thoughts in mind is to think about thought/belief, and doing so requires common language use. Non linguistic creatures have none. Therefore they cannot have specific thoughts and beliefs in mind.

They can and do form, have, and hold specific thought/belief nonetheless.

No matter how fleeting, if a creature forms thought/belief, it holds and/or has it.... even if only for a moment. — creativesoul

Yes, but my point was that the thoughts animals may momentarily entertain cannot be held or had in the sense that they cannot deliberately bring it back to mind whenever they wish. To do this would seem to require language, and all humans can do it; but it would not seem to require self-reflective awareness that one is doing it; that would be a further step again; which even many humans probably do not take.The problem with this whole subject is that we can only speculate about it; I can't think of any way it could be rigorously tested.

Having specific thoughts in mind is to think about thought/belief, — creativesoul

No, it's not. You can have a specific thought in mind without thinking about thought at all.

We cannot say what existence or being is in some more fundamental terms, but it is an indispensable idea. We can conceive of different kinds of existence, what more do you want?

You can't dispense with the idea of existence, because you use it in your term "existential dependency" to distinguish the idea that something is dependent on something else for its very existence, from other forms of mere functional dependency. If you use some alternative term it can only be an analogue of 'existence', otherwise it won't perform the conceptual job you want it to. — Janus

To a very large extent, what you say here is undeniable given my own work.

Having specific thoughts in mind is to think about thought/belief,
— creativesoul

No, it's not. You can have a specific thought in mind without thinking about thought at all. — Janus

Alright...

What's the difference between having specific thoughts and having specific thoughts in mind?

You can't dispense with the idea of existence, because you use it in your term "existential dependency" to distinguish the idea that something is dependent on something else for its very existence, from other forms of mere functional dependency. If you use some alternative term it can only be an analogue of 'existence', otherwise it won't perform the conceptual job you want it to. — Janus

I think I can dispense with the practice of using it as a predicate as well as talking in terms of kinds of existence.

The only way to show that you are having a specific thought is to to be able to repeat it; to be able to have it in mind again and again at will. That is what I would call holding a thought.

Perhaps you can, depending on what you mean by "predicate' but I don't believe you can dispense with the category. When Kant said that existence is not a predicate, what he meant is that existence is not a property that things can either possess or fail to possess.

That is along the lines of what I meant when I said that there is nothing (excluding logical contradictions like "round triangles" which are merely words incoherently strung together) that doesn't exist or hasn't existed in some way or other.

Having specific thoughts in mind is to think about thought/belief,
— creativesoul

No, it's not. You can have a specific thought in mind without thinking about thought at all.
— Janus

Alright...

What's the difference between having specific thoughts and having specific thoughts in mind? — creativesoul

The only way to show that you are having a specific thought is to to be able to repeat it; to be able to have it in mind again and again at will. That is what I would call holding a thought. — Janus

So you're saying that there's no difference between having a specific thought and having specific thought in mind.

To me, having a specific thought in mind is to be thinking about that specific thought, whereas having a specific thought is drawing correlations between specific things.

Terminological differences then I guess.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding how someone can bring past thought/belief back in mind - whenever they wish - without thinking about past thought/belief.

Terminological differences then I guess. — Janus

And more...

What counts as thought/belief on your view?

The only way to show that you are having a specific thought is to to be able to repeat it; to be able to have it in mind again and again at will. That is what I would call holding a thought. — Janus

Actually, there is another way. We show a "holding onto thought" whenever we sustain a line of reason.

the thoughts animals may momentarily entertain cannot be held... — Janus

And this...

What am I to make of it?

Animals can entertain thoughts that they cannot hold.

:yikes:

I'll stick with what I've got. Although, your criticisms have helped me many times over.

When Kant said that existence is not a predicate, what he meant is that existence is not a property that things can either possess or fail to possess.

That is along the lines of what I meant when I said that there is nothing (excluding logical contradictions like "round triangles" which are merely words incoherently strung together) that doesn't exist or hasn't existed in some way or other. — Janus

:brow:

And yet you've been also talking in terms of a thing's existence, and that is exactly what Kant was arguing against.

Kant did not argue against talking in terms of existence tout court but against imagining that existence is a property which something may either possess or not. The difficulty I find for you is that you argue against talking in terms of existence and yet you need to talk in terms of existence to make your distinction between existential dependency and other forms of dependency, and also to make your claim that the existence of what we think about is presupposed in the thinking about it. You have not convinced me that you can do without that distinction.

You simply think repeatedly anything you have previously thought. You don't need to think about the thought itself or about your re-thinking it in order to re-think it. For example maybe you think "I am a communist", you can hold that thought by rethinking it, but you don't need to think about the thought :"I am a communist", or about the fact that you are thinking the thought, you just need to think it again.

Thought consists in associating ideas. Belief consists in taking those ideas to be correct, or true.

Kant did not argue against talking in terms of existence tout court but against imagining that existence is a property which something may either possess or not. The difficulty I find for you is that you argue against talking in terms of existence and yet you need to talk in terms of existence to make your distinction between existential dependency and other forms of dependency, and also to make your claim that the existence of what we think about is presupposed in the thinking about it. You have not convinced me that you can do without that distinction — Janus

The difficulty you find with my recent meanderings are valid but have nothing to do with your own self-contradiction/incoherence.

Kant argued against using the term "existence" as a predicate(predicating/attributing existence to a thing). You've done that throughout our exchange here, and yet you attempted to invoke Kant as though his position on existence somehow aligns with your own. It doesn't.

I've explained several times what I mean by saying that some one can hold thoughts. Another aspect of this is being able to grasp what a thought means such that you could translate it into different but equivalent terms. For thoughts to be held they must first be graspable.

Anyway all this kind of talk can easily be plagued by terminological differences or nuances and it is mostly speculative when we begin talking about what animals can or cannot do anyway, so I don't think there's much mileage in going over and over it. I mean what I'm basically saying is that I don't think it is in these kinds of considerations that important philosophy lives.

Animals can entertain thoughts that they cannot hold. — creativesoul

It is very reasonable to say that an animal could have a transient thought which might compel it to act. But it is hard to imagine that such primitive ideation could be retained beyond its immediacy. Hence it is possible for a thinking creature to continue entertaining a thought, even if it has ceased to hold onto it.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding how someone can bring past thought/belief back in mind - whenever they wish - without thinking about past thought/belief. — creativesoul

You simply think repeatedly anything you have previously thought. You don't need to think about the thought itself or about your re-thinking it in order to re-think it... — Janus

So, if this is true then there is no difference between having the same thought on more than one occasion, and having the same thought whenever one wishes to...