It's true regarding your belief. It's false regarding the weather. — Michael
This is the issue. How can something be false regarding the weather absent of anyone's beliefs about it. The state of the weather can only be understood in terms of someone's belief about the state of the weather. — Isaac
Whether or not it's raining has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that it is raining. I can wrongly believe that it's raining or wrongly believe that it's not raining. — Michael
I didn't claim the state of the weather was dependent on anyone's beliefs about it. I said that the state of the weather can only be understood in terms of someone's beliefs about it. The public object "the state of the weather" to which "it's raining" refers is someone's belief about the state of the weather. The actual state of the weather is a hidden variable outside of our Markov blanket. — Isaac
Are you say it's impossible for it to be raining but for me to believe that it's not raining? — Michael
That's what it means for it to be raining, there is no more to it raining than that some people believe it is raining. — Isaac
It's raining if water falls from the clouds. If I'm in some windowless room and so can't see or hear what's happening outside then I might not believe that it's raining even if in fact water is falling from the clouds and my lawn is getting wet. — Michael
On does not, nor ever can, know the actual state of the weather — Isaac
On does not, nor ever can, know the actual state of the weather, so to refer to it would be absurd — Isaac
To what are you referring with "in fact"?
We can look outside. — Michael
We can talk about things even if we can't know if they're true or not. — Michael
The physical state of affairs outside my head. The actual state of the weather. Whether or not water is falling from the clouds, notwithstanding whether or not it's possible for me to know that it is or isn't. — Michael
It might be raining but I might believe that it's not raining. — Michael
To make a claim about the state of a referrent about which you cannot form any form any judgment without it being a belief, and then claim that it differs from a statement about your beliefs, doesn't make any sense. — Isaac
Just because I might need to believe something about the weather to talk about the weather it doesn't then follow that when I talk about the weather I'm talking about my beliefs. — Michael
It seems to. If you "need to believe something about the weather to talk about the weather", then it certainly seems to follow that you must be talking about those beliefs when talking about the weather. You have no other content in your mind to which to make any reference. Your language has to refer initially to something in your mind otherwise how would your linguistic cortices select the right word? — Isaac
I need to understand the English language to make meaningful use of the phrase "water is H2O" but such a phrase doesn't refer to the English language; it refers to the chemical composition of a certain kind of liquid. — Michael
If you construct the sentence "it's raining" I can only refer to a belief about a state of affairs because your brain has no other referent from which to select the appropriate terms. — Isaac
You do not have the actual weather in you mind, only your beliefs about it, so you cannot refer to properties of the weather, only your beliefs about them.
Then the sentence "it is raining" would mean the same thing as the sentence "I believe that it is raining" and both would be true iff I believe that it is raining, and so mistakes are impossible. Are you willing to commit to this conclusion? — Michael
Why must something be in my mind for me to refer to it? — Michael
But what is absurd about asserting "it is raining" and "I believe that it is not raining"? You keep saying that it sounds absurd without explaining what about it is absurd. We've already established that the two sentences mean different things, have different truth-conditions, and can both be true. So where exactly does the problem arise? — Michael
It makes perfect sense. "it is raining" and "I believe that it is raining" mean different things. The former refers to the weather -- a physical fact about what the world is doing outside my head -- and the latter refers to my belief. — Michael
I'm saying "It is raining and I believe that it is not raining".
There is only one belief; the belief that it is not raining. So where is this contradiction? — Michael
There are two belief statements. The contradiction is there. — creativesoul
Sincere speakers believe the statements they make. A sincere speaker believes it is raining regardless of whether or not they prefix the statement with "I believe". Given that it is not raining inside your belief, the latter is not just about your belief. "I believe" adds nothing meaningful here.
A speaker cannot believe them both at the same time. A speaker can assert them both at the same time. Hence, the absurdity and/or self-contradiction.
As G.E. Moore put it, “Why is it absurd for me to say something true about myself?” — Wheatley
Well, it's absurd for you to think it's not raining when it's raining. It's merely stupid for you to say you think it's not raining when it is. In the first case, you're an idiot. In the second case, you're telling people you're an idiot. — Ciceronianus the White
We're discussing the sentence, not the speaker. — Michael
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.