Yes, Harry, words can be used to talk about things. But they can do much more than just refer. The problem with a purely referential theory of language such as yours is that there is so much it cannot explain. — Banno

Thats all fine, but if meaning is not simply use, but the relationship between cause and effect, then words can be used to do other things, but as an effect of ones ideas and the intent to communicate them, words can always be used to refer to, or get at, one's intent, just like any one of their behaviors. Its just that "actions speak louder than words" in that its easier to hide the reference to ones intent with words than it is with actions that dont involve words.

I do not think that you understand what I'm arguing. — creativesoul

Perhaps. It does seem to me you are obsessing over a minor point. If I were to say that I am choosing to use the term "belief" only for those things that can be put into the form of propositional attitudes, would you object? I doubt it. And yet here we are.

Is there anyone who agrees with you on this, Harry? — Banno

I'm not aware of any literature of language as the relationship between cause and effect, apart from your own comments.

Is there any?

I'm well aware of Davidson's views, and while I have some sympathy for them, this is not what the present discussion is about.

The orthodoxy is that beliefs can be best discussed as propositional attitudes.

I'm not aware of any literature of language as the relationship between cause and effect, apart from your own comments.

Is there any? — Banno

Not language, meaning. Are you paying attention?

There wasn't any literature on the evolution of organisms by natural selection until Darwin wrote it. Why can't you address the argument instead continually committing these logical fallacies?

No, Harry - it doesn't refer to the begging of a conversation; it is the begining of a conversation. — Banno

Not necessarily. What if the other person doesn't respond and say, "Hello" back? "Hello" can't be the beginning of a conversation that never starts. This is why it is better think of "hello" as referring to the intent to start a conversation.

In a way, what we are both saying is true and not necessarily contradictory. Use refers to intent. This is why the theory that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect helps in describing the sound or scribble as the effect with the intent as the cause. The use would be the relationship between the intent and the scribble or sound. It's just that I'm also asserting that meaning also exists everywhere else causes (not just intentional causes) leave effects.

The orthodoxy — Banno

Is there such a thing as "THE orthodoxy"? It rings puffy and tendentious.

As per all philosophical considerations, it takes for granted that beliefs are propositional attitudes. — Banno

From your own link:

"Most [not all] of these proposals take the objects of belief to be either propositions, or sentences in a formalized language."

Bad faith or blind faith.

, Yes, and so what.

Yes, and so what — Banno

No, and that's what.

@creativesoul,

Banno is excellent at engaging others — creativesoul

so far with half-backed stipulations and random links which he doesn't even care to support or understand. mmmkey.

The orthodoxy is that beliefs can be best discussed as propositional attitudes. — Banno

Again, this isnt specific enough to be useful. What kind if attitudes? Attitudes of (degrees of) certainty. You keep throwing around, "truth" without properly defining what it is and how one determines some proposition is true or not except as the degree that some proposition referrs to some state-of-affairs or not. What if there are conflicting attitudes toward some proposition? How does truth resolve the conflict?

Banno is excellent at engaging others — creativesoul

My attitude toward this proposition: :rofl:

...It does seem to me you are obsessing over a minor point. If I were to say that I am choosing to use the term "belief" only for those things that can be put into the form of propositional attitudes, would you object? I doubt it. And yet here we are. — Banno

Actually, that is exactly what I'm objecting to.

How can a language less creature, say a prehistoric mammal, have an attitude towards a proposition when propositions themselves are language constructs? The failure of what you argue is shown in it's inherent inability to make much sense of such language less belief.

Well, I agree that he's not taken the criticism head on, not mine at least, nor yours; both of which seem relevant and valid. However, I'd rather not make this about Banno.

Care to further discuss the topic, as compared/contrasted to my interlocutor?

Banno is excellent at engaging others
— creativesoul
My attitude toward this proposition: :rofl: — Harry Hindu

And yet here you are.

What kind if attitudes? — Harry Hindu

The attitude that the proposition is true. That's been on the boards since day one.

True, not certain.

You keep throwing around, "truth" without properly defining what it is and how one determines some proposition is true or not except as the degree that some proposition referrs to some state-of-affairs or not. — Harry Hindu

"P" is true if and only if P

I think I've mentioned this before. That's as good as it gets for truth. "how one determines some proposition is true" depends on the proposition; something else I've said many times. It's absurd to suppose that there could be one way to determine if a proposition is true.

You seem to have changed topics.

There wasn't any literature on the evolution of organisms by natural selection until Darwin wrote it. — Harry Hindu

You are a new Darwin for the epistemologists.

Use refers to intent. — Harry Hindu

Grice? That would at least be something. But he thought we should look to meaning, not to use. Inferring intent is fraught. Use has potential for more empirical procedures.

How can a language less creature, say a prehistoric mammal, have an attitude towards a proposition when propositions themselves are language constructs? The failure of what you argue is shown in it's inherent inability to make much sense of such language less belief. — creativesoul

Again?

So a belief is a something stored in the mind of a Diprotodon?

Be interesting and you might warrant a reply.

Again?

So a belief is a something stored in the mind of a Diplodocus? — Banno

Can a languageless animal experience uncertainty? In my experience at least some of them can. When in any way uncertain - such as when there is hesitation in proceeding a certain way - what else could such animal be possibly uncertain of if not issues regarding what ought and ought not be done in relation to what is or is not?

No proposition is being made yet there occur conflicting beliefs in relation to what is and ought be done for as long as the uncertainty occurs. This proposition-devoid conflict of beliefs* occurring in the mind of the respective languagleless animal.

* Belief as minimally understood to comprise trust in what is or ought to be done.

Where headed towards arguing about whether Bayesian priors of neural networks are properly described as beliefs, again.

Diprotodon did not have items of furniture in their minds that could be properly described as beliefs. Rather they had behaviours that we can set out and explain in terms of beliefs and desires.

I dunno. This seems to be a fairly straight forward corollary of the beetle in the box. That folk with a decent grasp of Wittgenstein - yes, you , @creativesoul - can't see this strikes me as quite odd.

Diplodocus did not have items of furniture in their minds that could be properly described as beliefs. Rather they had behaviours that we can set out and explain in terms of beliefs and desires. — Banno

Always Skinner with this one. (Reductionism to operationalized visible behaviors.)

Are you a behavior analyst?



Languageless creatures have languageless beliefs in the form of thought-patterns and emotional patterns that motivate behavior.

(Call it furniture if you want.)

What's the controversy?

Always Skinner with this one. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's all you see because you choose not to think.

That's all you see because you choose not to think. — Banno

Weak.

What do you bloody well expect? The Skinner accusation against Witti is pathetic, a lost cause and a waste of time.

As is this thread.

What do you bloody well expect? The Skinner accusation against Witti is pathetic, a lost caise and a waste of time. — Banno

It's against you, not Wittgenstein.

Again:

Languageless creatures have languageless beliefs in the form of thought-patterns and emotional patterns that motivate behavior.

(Call it furniture if you want.)

What's the controversy? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Tell me what the controversy is.

Tell me what the controversy is. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Nuh. Old stuff. Look it up for yourself.

pathetic, a lost caise and a waste of time.

As is this thread. — Banno

The more aggressive you get, the more vulnerable you appear.

Why are you spending so much time on something that you consider...

...pathetic, a lost caise and a waste of time — Banno

?

It's not quite rational.

What's the controversy? — ZzzoneiroCosm

In absence of @Banno's reply:

I believe it nullifies the importance of the beetle in a box argument - for, in this argument, if it isn’t linguistic it is irrelevant. Whereas to claim that nonlinguistic beliefs can occur is to claim the relevance of nonlinguistic givens. The two appear to stand in direct contradiction.

At least this shows some acquaintance with the actual issue.

The only curious issue here is how @creativesoul squares his thinking with the beetle.

↪neomac
Be interesting and you might warrant a reply. — Banno

Well I'm just afraid that this one is by far the best reply you can come up with on the topic under discussion, sir.

In absence of Banno's reply: — javra

Thanks.

Care to further discuss the topic, as compared/contrasted to my interlocutor? — creativesoul

I don't see how we can further it. I and you seem to agree on points that he fails to address. And apparently proudly so.

I have a question more about your own views, but maybe that's not the place to discuss it: how do you see the relation between concepts and beliefs?