The probability just is the confidence — Isaac
I'm hesitant to talk in terms of 'caught up in' social conventions. When marks become one part of a correlation between the marks and something else, they become meaningful. Social convention is simply an agreement upon what else those particular marks ought be and/or will be correlated, associated, and/or otherwise connected to. — creativesoul
Sure. I would not argue against that notion at all, aside from pointing out that our language is much more than noises and marks, but I suspect we're in agreement here as well. — creativesoul
What does the phrase "by-definition subjective" refer to? It might be worth saying that I also reject the objective/subjective dichotomy... — creativesoul
The difference is that not all belief formation(drawing correlations) involves social convention. However, it is the commonality that is key to understanding. All social conventions consist - in large part - of common belief... shared meaning. Shared meaning is nothing more and nothing less than a plurality of creatures drawing correlations between the same things... — creativesoul
I suspect that we're in agreement here on some basic level anyway... — creativesoul
I guess I'm trying to figure out how you think of correlations. If I 'warn you about the flooded bridge' by making sounds...and you turn your car around...then the sounds I made only work because I chose the right sounds. And those sounds are the right ones because we were both trained to react that way to such sounds (ignoring the extra complexity of trust and so on for the moment.) Any sounds would do. The sign is arbitrary. We just happen to use those sounds. — path
For the most part, the marks are arbitrary maybe. Some are not. A sign is always meaningful. Clouds are signs of rain when, and only when, a creature connects them. — creativesoul
Correlations are the basic building block of thought and belief... at every level. — creativesoul
For the most part, the marks are arbitrary maybe. Some are not. A sign is always meaningful. Clouds are signs of rain when, and only when, a creature connects them.
— creativesoul
Right. So the issue for me is: how is this connection manifested?
I think (?) you'll agree that they act differently. — path
Clouds affect the probability that they'll do this or that. In the human case, clouds might increase the probability of speech acts invoking 'rain.' Or of carrying along an umbrella. — path
Correlations are the basic building block of thought and belief... at every level.
— creativesoul
I like to read this in terms of the world as a system of relationships (correlations as relationships.) Any comments? — path
What does they refer to? — creativesoul
For the most part, the marks are arbitrary maybe. Some are not. A sign is always meaningful. Clouds are signs of rain when, and only when, a creature connects them. — creativesoul
So the issue for me is: how is this connection manifested? I think (?) you'll agree that they act differently. — path
Seeing the clouds may influence subsequent behaviour. The notion of probability does not play a role in all belief. I agree though, humans often do something specific after seeing rain clouds. What does that have to do with basic rudimentary non linguistic belief? — creativesoul
Bedrock belief is not always linguistic. The connection between the clouds and rain could be bedrock to all subsequent behaviours influenced by that belief. That includes language less creatures too!
That's a prerequisite for an acceptable notion of belief amenable to evolutionary progression. — creativesoul
That's a prerequisite for an acceptable notion of belief amenable to evolutionary progression. — creativesoul
A sign is related or correlated to a response — path
We must be very judicious regarding what sort of belief we attribute to that cat. — creativesoul
The sound of the plastic is meaningful to her as a result of her connecting it to getting treats. When she hears the plastic, she expects treats. She thinks about the sound and it is significant to her as a result of a pattern of past events. — creativesoul
Can we explore this without peering inside the 'mind' of the creature? And can we do this when talking about humans, also? — path
Well, I've not been using such language. However, the language I've been using effectively exhausts all 'mind' talk I am aware of. Human thought and belief make for good subject matter(s). — creativesoul
A sign is related or correlated to a response — path
I did not say that though.
A sign becomes such as a result of being part of the correlation. — creativesoul
Let's imagine some species that sometimes responds to a sign, maybe half of the time. Some other sign (which we would then not call a sign) never elicits a response. Other signs always elicit a response. At least from our perspective it's tempting to talk of probability as a measure of their response. — path
Saying that we know, as a result of enough testing results/data, that some creature or another will probably act this or that way when presented with the same scenario, is all fine and good.
There is no ground for claiming that the creature thinks in probabilistic terms... at least not language less ones. — creativesoul
A sign is related or correlated to a response — path
I did not say that though.
A sign becomes such as a result of being part of the correlation. — creativesoul
I don't understand the difference.. — path
I agree. There is no ground, in some sense, for saying that the creature thinks at all. — path
Become correlated/related is becoming part of a correlation. To be related is to be in relationship. — path
There is a causal relationship between touching fire and the sudden onset of pain. That relationship need not be thought about. — creativesoul
Drawing a correlation between touching fire and the onset of pain is not... that is belief formation about(the content of which is) the fire and the pain. — creativesoul
Everyday events count as more than adequate ground. We just have to know what to look for. — creativesoul
My issue is whether 'thinking' has some deep meaning beyond patterns in behavior. What does it add? That's the beetle, as I see it. At the same time, we obviously know how to use words like 'think' with the usual blind skill. So there's no doing away with that. We can only question the mentalistic paradigm from within that paradigm. Does it lead us down dead ends philosophically? — path
Well in everyday terms I do think that my cat thinks. Some of this is just empathy. Conceptually it seems to be an extension of the usual hypothetical entities, thoughts which can never be measured or touched. In some sense attributing thoughts might be a fancy way of describing tangible behaviors. — path
...I suggest that even worrying about thought at all might muddy the water here. — path
The sound of the plastic is meaningful to her as a result of her connecting it to getting treats. When she hears the plastic, she expects treats. She thinks about the sound and it is significant to her as a result of a pattern of past events.
— creativesoul
OK, but how does 'expect' and 'think' add to what is already happening? Don't get me wrong. It's plausible and intuitive. But how is it explanatory? Maybe it is in some way, but this detour to hidden consciousness is curious. — path
Pavlov's dog involuntarily slobbering after hearing the bell shows us, along with his path towards the food bowl, that he thinks, believes, and/or expects to be fed. — creativesoul
We're actually in the process of demonstrating exactly what I've been advocating. We're each drawing correlations between different things in an attempt to build a bridge of mutual understanding... shared meaning. — creativesoul
Behaviour is not thought. Behaviour is a result thereof. Roughly, of course. — creativesoul
However, you then claim that there is no doing away with common usage of "think", and I assume the use of "believe" and "belief" as well. While you're correct in that there may be no doing away with it, we can show where it fails.
Are you asking if thinking is distinct from behavioural patterns? — creativesoul
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.