Jack believed that the clock was working and believed that "the clock is working" is true. Your insertion of the adjective 'stopped' muddies the waters: it adds a perspective: it adds the perspective of some X that knows the clock is stopped.
(Again, I won't be hurt if you don't want to engage. If I can't play with others I'm content to play with myself :sweat: ) — ZzzoneiroCosm
↪ZzzoneiroCosm
You beat me to it! Of course Jack didn't know the clock was stopped. So he didn't believe a stopped clock was working, he believed a clock was workin — Janus
For me propositions are just abstract representations resulting from metalinguistic analysis on the truth-functionality of our descriptive statements. So there are no “propositions” as mind-independent entities, nor as original bearers of truth values. Since propositions for me require developed human linguistic skills then they can not constitute the content of perceptions. — neomac
...Jack didn't know the clock was stopped. So he didn't believe a stopped clock was working, he believed a clock was working. — Janus
Which premiss are you denying? — creativesoul
I am denying that it makes sense to say that Jack believed a stopped clock was working — Janus
Was the clock he believed to be working not stopped? — creativesoul
I don't think it is really accurate to say that he believed the clock was working, because if he had thought about it — Janus
What twaddle.
— Banno
There we have it. It's all twaddle. :smile:
"Twaddle" is a nice word. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
You're playing with substitution in an intensional (with the "s" - non-extensional...) context.Are you saying that Jack did not believe that the stopped clock was working? — creativesoul
the relation between intension and intention. — Banno
It is impossible to believe that it's three o'clock after having looked at a clock that says so without believing that that clock is working. — creativesoul
It would help if you just stopped avoiding my question and answer it. What form does a language you don't know take? How does that change when you learn the language? Do the scribbles and sounds cease to be scribbles and sounds, or is it that you now know the rules to use those scribbles and sounds?Form is being used in two ways in this discussion:
I've said:
The form of a proposition is: subject-predicate.
and
A languageless proposition takes the form of images, sensations, emotions, feelings and their relationships.
In the second statement the expression "takes the form" is confusing in light of the previous usage of the word "form." It might be clearer to say: the content of a languageless proposition is images....etc
But I'm not sure it's correct to say a proposition has content. — ZzzoneiroCosm
But I thought you were asserting that a proposition is a subject and predicate. I've been saying that a proposition is scribbles or the sound of spoken words, or braille, or the movement of hands in sign language. It's like we're arguing whether or not the table is made of atoms or molecules. What is the table made of - atoms or molecules? What is a proposition made of - scribbles and sounds or subjects and predicates?I'm backing up until I understand what a proposition is. — ZzzoneiroCosm
You can contribute an answer to my question above that I've asked several times now and you've avoided it. It makes me think that you aren't interested in being intellectually honest.I'm still a bit confused about it, namely whether it's correct to try to divide it into form and content. Something circular might be happening there.
In short, I don't think I have much to contribute to your more in-depth discussion. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What form do correlations take? Correlations between what?As you have shown, beliefs exist prior to putting them into propositional form, so what form do beliefs take before being placed in propositional form?
— Harry Hindu
Correlations. — creativesoul
Does the cat believe that a mouse is behind the tree - without words?
— Harry Hindu
Yes. — creativesoul
In saying that the cat believes there is a mouse behind the tree, I'm saying that language is not necessary for holding the belief. I'm implying nothing at all with regard to whether or not the cat's belief is true, nor am I implying anything at all regarding whether or not the description of the cat's belief is true. What I'm saying is that if one believes there is a mouse behind the tree, and they are capable of reporting their own belief, then they will believe the statement is true as a result of believing there is a mouse behind the tree and knowing how to talk about it.
What I'm saying is that there is an actual distinction between what it takes to hold the belief and what it takes to hold the belief as true, or hold something to be true. There is an actual difference between holding a belief, and holding something to be true. — creativesoul
Thinking does not require language. It requires images, sounds, feelings, etc., of which language is a part of (scribbles and voices). You need language to report a belief, not check a belief. You need observations to check a belief.No. Checking to see if a belief is true is checking on the belief. Checking on the belief is thinking about the belief. Thinking about the belief requires language.
A cat can believe that a mouse is behind the tree, and go look for the mouse, but they are looking for the mouse, not looking to check and see if their belief about the mouse is true. — creativesoul
I need you to show me an example of the difference between holding a belief and holding something to be true — Harry Hindu
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.