I disagree because I would count all linguistic beliefs as having been already expressed; otherwise how would they count as linguistic? A linguistic belief might not be expressed out loud in a particular instance, but that is another matter. — Janus

And one that stops us when we're attempting to place all belief in one or the other category.

Speaking roughly...

It seems to me you want to be able to distinguish the beliefs of animals from those of people, using language in some way.

You tried to do this by ascribing unexpressed beliefs to animals, and expressed beliefs to people. But that doesn't work.

What might work would be to differentiate between beliefs about brute facts and beliefs about social facts. Social facts are dependent on being said; hence the dog believes it will be fed, but not that it will be fed next Tuesday - because "Tuesday" is socially constructed, and hence not accessible to an agent who is outside the social, linguistic frame - who does not participate in the language game of days of the week.

I disagree because I would count all linguistic beliefs as having been already expressed; otherwise how would they count as linguistic? — Janus

Linguistic belief are those consisting of correlations drawn between language use and other things. Compare/contrast that to non linguistic beliefs, which are those consisting of correlations between different things, none of which are language use.

Still speaking off the top of my head...

So a reflexive belief would be one in which...

Well, every belief is a relation between an agent and a proposition, such that the agent holds the proposition to be the case. The general form of a belief is "A holds that P is true".

A reflexive belief would then be one in which the proposition would involve a belief about a belief. So in the general form of a reflexive belief the proposition "P" would itself be a belief. Hence, "A holds that P is true" where P is "A holds that Q is true":

"A holds that 'A holds that Q is true' is true"...

And the reflexivity consists in the nesting of such beliefs.

Perhaps we could call non-reflexive beliefs "brute beliefs".

To make this work it would have to be related back to the cat not being able to believe it will be fed next Tuesday while believing it has four feet. The thesis would be that social facts can be explained in terms of beliefs about beliefs.

I don't think linguistic beliefs necessarily involve correlating language with anything; they involve symbolically correlating or associating some thing or things with an other thing or things. Believing something does not necessarily involve thinking about language at all.

Bye the way...

Check out Generative_adversarial_network

NIce. :up:

Were @creativesoul talks of "all belief consists of correlations drawn between different things" he seems ot me to say nothing more than that beliefs are beliefs about propositions; about states of affairs - after all, what is a proposition if not a correlation?

So I don't see that it adds much to the conversation.

To make this work it would have to be related back to the cat not being able to believe it will be fed next Tuesday while believing it has four feet. The thesis would be that social facts can be explained in terms of beliefs about beliefs. — Banno

I think it's kind of weird to talk about a cat believing it has four feet; it simply knows it has the feet it has. You might say the cat believes her food bowl is around the corner when she can't see it, regardless of whether it is or is not in its customary place.

I agree. It is either tautologically, trivially true, or it is wrong to say that.

Yeah - so does a belief have to be held before the mind in some sense. Tried that discussion before with @Isaac.

Did you believe that my house has a front door, before you just read this question?

Did you believe that my house has a front door, before read this question? — Banno

I didn't disbelieve it. If asked I would say it is more likely than not. But that just reflects background ideas about houses and front doors.

I didn't disbelieve it. — Janus

Four possibilities:
Janus believes Banno has a front door
Janus believes Banno does not have a front door
Janus does not believe Banno has a front door
Janus does not believe Banno does not have a front door

You are saying that before the question, you adhered to Janus does not believe Banno has a front door and Janus does not believe Banno does not have a front door...?

Not really, I would say the fifth possibility is that I didn't believe or disbelieve anything about your front door (or lack of front door) prior to the question.

You could discount it as a fifth possibility and equate that with your third and fourth possibilities, I guess, as long as you don't see them as opposites to your first and second possibilities.

I think it's the same.

Right, but the "sedimentation" is, I think biological at base. So, I suspect some (perhaps most?) animals have a sense of self, but, lacking symbolic language, they have no generalized, absract idea of self. We have both, and our having both is on account of us being language users. — Janus

Right. I agree with all of that.

With sedimentation I was thinking of culture. For instance, this English language is a kind of historical sediment. And then there are the 'assumptions' (enacted interpretative approaches) that philosophers don't know they have and so haven't been able to challenge. Perhaps you've seen how Wittgenstein's 'beetle in the box' tends to offend and mystify, precisely because it's so well aimed.

...every belief is a relation between an agent and a proposition... — Banno

The above assertion remains a point of contention, and it is one that I will not agree with, until someone, somewhere, can convince me how propositions can possibly exist in such a way that a language less creature is capable of being part of a relationship between itself and them(propositions). Be that as it may...

Let's set that point of contention aside for now, because I really, really, appreciate the progress we've made elsewhere during this discussion. It's shown itself as important(to me). Given that I do not say "really really" very often, I can only hope that my having done so puts my gratitude on display. Saying so is part of showing so here.

I mean, without being able to be in one another's presence, the words we use are not accompanied by mannerisms, tone of voice, facial expressions, emphatically significant volume levels, etc. The point being...

I am grateful to not only have this opportunity, but to have had all of them. Now, don't take all this 'mushy' stuff too far, or the wrong way. It's not all about you! :wink: Nonetheless, know that you are an irrevocably important part, as are several others, including but not limited to Janus.

Even those who I find myself at odds with are more than capable of adding to my overall understanding of human thought and belief. Note that I've stopped always using them as synonyms!

:smile:

While they are always results from the very same process, while they all consist of correlations drawn between different things, it is clear that not all thought are believed. Consider insincere speech acts and/or dishonest speakers as well. Surely as a result of keeping such things in mind, we're justified in saying that we know that one need not believe every thought that goes through one's mind, and thus there is a distinction to be drawn between thought and belief.

I want to give the rest of your last post due attention in a separate post.

It seems to me you want to be able to distinguish the beliefs of animals from those of people, using language in some way. — Banno

That would be a consequence, unintended. The aim is to acquire knowledge of human thought and belief. It started out being about my own. You may remember the story...

You tried to do this by ascribing unexpressed beliefs to animals, and expressed beliefs to people. But that doesn't work.

That method doesn't work. We agree there. However, if you carefully review what I've been arguing here, you'll note that I have not invoked such terminology. In fact, I've argued against it's ability to do what need done here. The aim is knowledge of all human thought and/or belief. Successfully acquiring such knowledge cannot happen with just any old methodological approach.

Unfortunately, some of the terminology I've been using has tremendous philosophical baggage attached to it, and for some reason there are many people either unwilling or unable to grant someone's terms as the first step. As a result, the terms "necessary" and "universal" are not as helpful as they would otherwise be. They trip people up. Not to mention the sheer scope regarding the consequences of the position I'm advocating. Daunting, to put it mildly...

...and I have a life that doesn't involve doing philosophy all the time!

:wink:

What might work would be to differentiate between beliefs about brute facts and beliefs about social facts. Social facts are dependent on being said; hence the dog believes it will be fed, but not that it will be fed next Tuesday - because "Tuesday" is socially constructed, and hence not accessible to an agent who is outside the social, linguistic frame - who does not participate in the language game of days of the week.

What do brute facts and social facts have in common such that having that commonality makes them facts?

That's right off the top of my head. If a fact is a true statement, and a social fact is not a statement at all, then what sense does it make to call them by the same name "fact"?

What do brute facts and social facts have in common such that having that commonality makes them facts? — creativesoul

They are true.

Check out Generative_adversarial_network — Banno

I think the time is coming (if the species can manage it) when not only synthetic faces but also synthetic conversation partners will be hard to isolate from the real. Our neural networks are tiny compared to what is possible. What if we built an 'electronic brain' the size of NYC? What if it developed its own humanoid holographic avatar? We wouldn't necessarily have to think it was 'more' than 'just a computer.' We might just see ourselves in a new way. If the thing was charismatic enough, it might found a religion.

...probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar... — Nietzsche

*If anyone is curious, that face beside path is the face of a ghost who was never born.

What do brute facts and social facts have in common such that having that commonality makes them facts?
— creativesoul

They are true. — Banno

That strikes me as wrong. It's late, and I'll attend to it at another time.

:wink:

Thanks. It's (almost)always a pleasure...

Were creativesoul talks of "all belief consists of correlations drawn between different things" he seems ot me to say nothing more than that beliefs are beliefs about propositions; about states of affairs - after all, what is a proposition if not a correlation?

So I don't see that it adds much to the conversation. — Banno

Awww... You should have asked me that question. I've been waiting for something like that.

A proposition is a proposal. Proposals consist entirely of language use. Not all correlations are drawn between language use and other things. All proposals are just such correlations. All proposals consist of correlations drawn between different things some of which are language use.

:wink:

What it adds is the ability to take proper account of pre linguistic belief in such a way that is easily amenable to evolutionary progression.

If the thing was charismatic enough, it might found a religion. — path

A synthetic religion, if it were one that kept the "others" content, might be worthwhile.

A synthetic philosopher would be... disturbing. And yet also intriguing. If what counts is what is done rather than what is said, if acts are what is to be valued, then the content of the myth is irrelevant, and what is of value is what the myth shows:

A synthetic philosopher's propositions would serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands them eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, they are used as steps—to climb up beyond them... throwing away the ladder after he has climbed up it.

Proposals consist entirely of language use — creativesoul

...as if we never spoke about stuff. That's what the use is.

I would not worry too much about AI being like human thought, belief, and/or intelligence until an electronic device is capable of drawing meaningful correlations between itself and other things. That always begins - in part anyway - by recognizing/attributing causality. Until an artificial creation can do that, it cannot be an integral part of the process that results in thought and belief.

That's not to say that there are not big potential problems with automation. That's another thread.

You asked(someone else not advocating those terms) what the difference was between propositions and correlations. Simply put... All propositions are correlations. Not all correlations are propositions.

I was just answering.

But what if you met a synthetic philosopher? And they were erudite, interesting and challenging?

Perhaps you have.

What avatar might she choose?

Not all correlations are propositions. — creativesoul

For example...

Not all correlations are propositions.
— creativesoul

For example... — Banno

The correlations my cats have drawn, and continue to draw time and time again between the sound of rustling plastic and getting treats.

But what if you met a synthetic philosopher? And they were erudite, interesting and challenging?

Perhaps you have. — Banno

I suspect I have interacted on occasion with several different bots. I'm a sucker for such a thing...

:wink:

Comes with trusting that others are speaking sincerely.

...corresponds to the proposition "rustling plastic implies impending treats".