First actions are not reliable indicators of belief. Second, several different beliefs could be reported as an explanation for most actions. Thirdly, several different beliefs could cause the same behaviour. Lastly, on my view, positing pre-linguistic belief without getting into what belief consists of is to gratuitously assert a pre-linguistic belief. — creativesoul

When talking about prelinguistic beliefs actions are the only indicators of a belief. There is no other way to say that a human or animal has a belief other than by observing their behavior.

Your second criticism is a point about interpretation, not the belief, i.e., the action reflects a belief independent of your interpretation of the belief. If a prelinguistic human is using their hands to root around in the soil, then one can say with absolute certainty that the human believes that it has hands. You may infer other obvious and not so obvious beliefs, but that is separate from having the belief state.

The rooting around in the soil does reflect more than one belief, that's for sure, but that doesn't count against the idea that the actions reflect the beliefs. In fact, it supports the idea.

My view does tell you what the belief consists of, viz., the actions of the person or animal in question. It's not at all gratuitous. We do this all the time, linguistic beliefs or not.

.

.

My epistemological theory Creative only requires that there be prelinguistic beliefs of a certain kind, and what gives life to these belief are our actions. The actions show the belief.

To be honest, I really don't know what's going on in the mind of a prelinguistic person or animal. My intuition and my metaphysics says there is much more going on than we realize. What that is, again, I don't know. You're going beyond my claims, and my claims are going beyond what Wittgenstein would say. There may be something to what you're claiming, and some of it may just be speculation. Whatever the case, keep thinking about it, but keep thinking about it with Wittgenstein in mind, because I think his thoughts on the subject are important.

But one of the big appeals - one of the temptations you see thinker after thinker succumbing to - is the possibility of pronouncing the Truth. Of being the one who pronounces. — csalisbury

People want to know if a belief is true, there's nothing more natural. Does God exist? Does God not exist? Is one belief better than another, or are all beliefs purely subjective? Everyone one has a philosophy of life, you can't escape it. Even your ideas put forth a certain philosophy. It needs unpacked quite a bit, but I'm sure there is a philosophy about truth pronouncements in there somewhere. Once you put forth your philosophy, people want to know if it's true. Then they might ask if it's subjectively true or objectively true, and on and on it goes. That's how we discover.

A language-less creature can touch fire. Touching fire causes discomfort. Some language-less creatures can touch fire, feel discomfort, and attribute causality by virtue of inferring that touching fire caused the discomfort. All attribution of causality is thought and belief. That creature thinks, believes, and otherwise infers that touching fire caused the discomfort. That creature's belief is true. That creature's belief is well-grounded. That creature's belief cannot consist of language. That creature's belief cannot consist of propositions. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon justification. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon language. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon justification. — creativesoul

Sorry, I should have realized that that was your example, my mistake. I did read this a while back.

So we have some prelinguistic human, or even an animal that touches a fire and feels discomfort, and you're saying that in virtue of this sensory experience "...they attribute causality by virtue of inferring..." - I follow the first part, but it's the latter that seems very problematic. It seems to me that you're giving these beings linguistic notions, viz., the concepts of causality and the ability to draw an inference. How do we know they're attributing causality and drawing an inference based on the discomfort they feel. For example, I can say that if a prelinguistic human roots around in the ground for grubs, that the prelinguistic human believes there are grubs in the ground. How do I know that this is the case? I know based on their actions. Apart from their actions I know nothing of what's going on in their minds.

Moreover, all I see are simple beliefs. The prelinguistic human touched the fire and felt discomfort, and as a result, formed a further belief based on these sensory experiences. I do believe there is a causal connection between the touching of the fire and the belief, but it's not because they attributed causality or even inferred this. The causal connection is independent of what they think. It's because the touching of the fire sent an uncomfortable signal to the brain, which caused a further belief, which is then seen in their actions, viz., staying further back from the fire. So we see the actions after the experience, which leads us to observe the further beliefs formed after the experience.

My conclusion is that these are nothing more than simple prelinguistic beliefs. I'm not sure why you want to add all this baggage, viz., that their attributing causality and inferring X.

Creative, I don't see where you explained what a well-grounded prelinguistic belief is. We agree that there are prelinguistic beliefs. Give an example of a well-grounded prelinguistic belief, and what makes it well-grounded. I just don't see where you've explained this.

I agree, we express beliefs all the time that can be justified, or that are well-grounded, without putting forth the reasons or evidence for those beliefs. If I express a belief as a true belief, one might ask how it is that I know it's true, then I will respond with my reasons/evidence. However, there are some beliefs that don't fall into this epistemological language-game. Those are Wittgenstein's hinge-propositions or bedrock beliefs. They are grounded, but they are grounded in a way of acting, i.e., my actions show or demonstrate that I have the belief. Is this what you're saying? This kind of grounding seems to be a bit different than what you're saying. Being well-grounded seems to imply something more, not sure, I'll keep reading your explanations.

Yes, I agree.

I'm adding numbers to your statements to make it easier.

Regarding the idea of prelinguistic knowledge(justified true belief)...

1. Creative knows that belief exists prior to language.

2. Creative knows that being justified is being well-grounded.

3. Creative knows that the act of justification does not cause the belief statement being argued for to be well-grounded; rather it is the act of providing those grounds.

4. Creative knows that well-grounded belief is not existentially dependent upon justification.

5. Creative knows that the attribution/recognition of causality can be well grounded.

6. Creative knows that a prelinguistic creature can believe that touching fire caused discomfort/pain.

7. Creative knows that that well grounded belief can happen prior to language.

8. Creative knows that touching fire causes discomfort.

9. Creative knows that that particular well-grounded true belief is prior to language. — creativesoul

Your first premise: I agree that a belief can exist prior to language.

Your second premise: For me justification and being well-grounded are the same. If you can say that I'm justified in believing X, it's the same as saying my belief is well-grounded, both of these are necessarily linguistic. Why is well-grounded prior (maybe because of the causal effect) to language and justification not?

Your third premise: The act of justification doesn't cause any belief, that would be weird. You seem to be saying that the act of justification is different from being well-grounded, in that being well-grounded is causal, or can be causal. I know that I made an argument that prelingistic beliefs are causally generated, but you seem to be taking it one step further, by adding in the idea of being well-grounded. I don't see the need to extend it, it's just another belief that is causally generated, it's not a matter of being well-grounded. By their very nature they are foundational, basic, hinge, or bedrock, there is no need for the idea of being well-grounded. Isn't this a kind of justification. It seems confusing. Moreover, it seems that you're still adding in ideas that are necessarily linguistic.

Your fourth premise: Based on your distinction between justification and being well-grounded I can see how this might follow.

Your fifth premise: I don't know what it means, i.e., "...the attribution/recognition of causality can be well-grounded."

Your sixth premise: I agree.

Your seventh premise: I have a problem as already stated with this idea.

Your eighth premise/conclusion: This seems to be a conclusion, but I'm not sure.

Your ninth statement/conclusion: I disagree, because I have problems with your premises as already stated. Moreover, much of what I said in my previous statement still applies.

Finally, some of this is difficult to follow because of how your defining terms.

That's funny. :grin:

Nothing is the absence of anything, even a definition. Therefore, for a true nothing to exist, every possibility must exist at every time but never any one at any particular time. These circumstances would prevent the nothingness from being defined and it would remain nothing. — unic0rnio

If you want to understand the word nothing, then simply look at how it's used in ordinary sentences. There is nothing mysterious about the use of the word. Definitions are simply guides, but use tells us much more.

Say nothing.
I did nothing.
There is nothing there.
Your book said nothing.
Nothing's easy.
I have nothing.
I admit nothing.

These along with hundreds of other uses will tell you more about the word than the musing of hundreds of philosophers.

I thought I would add the following Creative...

There is some agreement between my position on this subject, and what Creative is inferring. However, there is also significant disagreement on some of these issues. For example, we agree that without prelinguistic thought and belief there would be no language. However, we disagree in terms of what things are pre-linguistic. For example, Creative seems to believe that justification, truth, and knowledge are prelinguistic. My position is that all epistemological constructs are necessarily dependent on language. So, when we talk about truth, justification, and knowledge, these are all necessarily dependent on language. Why do I infer that this is the case?

First, some concepts, such as belief, are both non-linguistic and linguistic, i.e., beliefs can be shown to exist in these two forms. They can be shown by our actions, i.e., by opening the door my actions show that I believe there is a door; and they can be stated as part of a language, “I believe in such-and-such.”

Second, another key feature of non-linguistic beliefs is that they can have existence apart from language, i.e., they are not rule-dependent, and this is key to understanding my position. Any belief that can have existence apart from language, is not dependent on language. You can think of it this way: The word Mars has a referent quite apart from the concept Mars, so the referent is not dependent on language, i.e., the referent is not rule-dependent. Don’t confuse this with using the word Mars linguistically, i.e., there are rules that govern the use of the concept in a linguistic setting. However, this is quite different from the referent itself, which exists quite apart from any linguistic consideration. This is also true of non-linguistic beliefs, which can have an existence (a referent) independent of language. The referent that manifests itself in terms of non-linguistic beliefs, are the actions associated with the belief. In fact, this is what makes some or all of these kinds of beliefs bedrock or hinge.

Third, some concepts or beliefs are necessarily dependent on language in that they are rule-dependent, and there is no independent referent that they can latch onto apart from their use in language. Justification is just such a concept, justification gets its meaning from how it’s used in a language, and only from how it’s used in language. This is very similar to the idea that it’s linguistically impossible to have a private language, which by the way, is very different from using a language privately. The latter is done only after learning a language, the former is supposedly done in a completely private setting. If justification was something that could be done apart from language, then it would also be true that there would be no rules that governed the activity. This follows from the idea that rule-following is necessarily social. Not only would this be true of justification, but it would also be true of truth and knowledge. It’s not you who decide how such words/concepts are used.

I think the experiences of NDEs goes beyond consciousness filling in the gaps based on cultural experiences. There are just to many NDEs that demonstrate that people are having real experiences, and these are corroborated by objective testimonial evidence. In fact, what's seems weird is that while the brain is shutting down, instead of the experiences being less real, which is what you would expect of a brain that's not at full capacity, what you find instead is that the experiences are more real. What I mean by more real is that the experiences are hyper-real, NDEers experience more awareness, more knowledge, larger visual field, etc. In fact, this reality seems dreamlike by comparison.

It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse. — Christoffer

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, the argument I gave on the first page of this thread is an INDUCTIVE argument.

No shit, it's a philosophical forum, I didn't know that. I don't mind responding to arguments, but I don't like having to repeat myself, especially when you come in here without reading a good part of the posts. If you're going to lecture someone about arguments, know what you're talking about. I know enough philosophy to know what an inductive argument is.

Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

Guys if you're going to continue this long discussion on consciousness you should start up a thread. This thread has to do with NDEs and whether they provide evidence of consciousness

If you read the exchange between Fdrake and myself you'll get more of the answers to these questions. Fdrake came up with the best counter-argument, although I don't think it does the job of refuting the points I have made. If after you have read my responses to Fdrake you still have questions, I'll try to answer them. I just don't want to spend hours responding to questions that I've already answered.

Thanks,
Sam

Obviously you haven't read my arguments. If you had you could have addressed them. Most of what you argued has already been addressed.

Yes, I am familiar with this project.

A class by Dr. Duncan Pritchard on Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndS5MPoH4Zc

Remember, I'm telling you what the evidence is telling us, that doesn't mean that I have all the answers. I know I don't. Moreover, because you can't make sense of it doesn't mean much, unless of course there's an obvious contradiction.

Consider the things you may be willing to experience if you knew you couldn't ultimately be harmed.

But we don't have much choice about suppressing our memory when we fall asleep. It just happens as we fall asleep. Maybe it is similar with the suppression of memory during incarnation - it just happens and there is not much we can do about it. Maybe one day we will be able to control it. Maybe one day we used to be able to control it but we lost that ability due to a spiritual fall, as the esoteric sources say. — litewave

Well, the dream analogy isn't perfect, but I do believe that when we choose to come here, part of making that decision is the suppression of who we really are, what we know, and where we're from. We make an agreement when we come here, for e.g., we agree to come here for a certain period of time, which is why people who have NDEs are told it's not their time, you have to go back.

Ya Brian I see total unity of mind or consciousness, which is why I think the unifying principle behind everything is consciousness.

I think the suppression of memory allows us to fully engage in this world.

I would just be guessing, but it does seem to be the case that whatever we experience contributes to learning on some level. We can see this when people have life reviews during their NDE. They are never judged, but only asked what did you learn? What's most important about living life is love. Maybe some of these experiences take us so far away from love that we are only able to see its importance the further we get from the ideal.

What I find interesting is that many people who have an NDE recover their memories during their experience. They'll say to themselves, "How could I have forgotten that," or "Oh, now I remember." If you think about different levels of consciousness, say dreaming for example, this is exactly what happens as we descend into the lower levels of awareness, we forget the higher levels. It's not until we wake up (so to speak) that the memories return.

Maybe the question should be reversed, why would you want to undergo the experience of being murdered, because based on the testimonial evidence you probably know before coming here some of what you'll experience, or even all that you'll experience. However, probably what you don't know is how you will respond to the experiences as a human. Another way to think about it is this: Think of what we put ourselves through to achieve an important goal, people will put themselves through some of the most grueling of experiences, and even risk extreme pain to achieve a goal. So it wouldn't surprise me that some people would choose to have these experiences; and remember, not everyone chooses to be murdered or tortured, some people choose to live out relatively normal kinds of lives.

First, nothing can ultimately harm us, but obviously that doesn't help as we're experiencing some very difficult experiences. Second, it's what we learn from these experiences that seems to be important. Third, you agree to this, so it's nothing that's forced upon you, which is why I don't believe there is really a problem of evil. Moreover, some of us think that it's so important, viz., coming here, that we come back and do it again. I don't have all the answers, and no one does, but coming here does have important ramifications on who we are; and it's not only important for us, but also those people who are around us.

One point is probably to allow you to fully partake of this reality without the hindrance of knowing what this reality is. It would affect your ability to fully immerse yourself in this reality.

One of my pet peeves is when people join a discussion without reading the thread. At least skim through the material.

Good point about defending arguments.

Ya, I'm sure there are many traditional beliefs that go against much of this. What I've tried to do is let the testimonial evidence speak for itself, even if the conclusions meant going against many traditional beliefs, whether western or eastern traditional beliefs. Much or many of the conclusions are downright bazaar in many cases, although it seems that many of our metaphysical beliefs may have sprung from some of these NDEs, for example, reincarnation.

What follows is something I've talked about before, but it gets lost in the pages, so it bears repeating. It also represents my conclusions from studying many thousands of NDEs. Of all the things I've written, this is most important to me, it goes to heart of who we are, and where we come from.

Part of this is a response to Aleksander's comment just above, but it goes beyond his question. Could it be a dream, Aleksander asks?

It's just another level of consciousness (awareness) that we choose to experience for a variety of reasons. You won't know, at least many of us, what those reasons are until you return to the source of your being, at least not fully. Some of us do feel we know our purpose. For example, some people have always known that they wanted to be a doctor, teacher, scientist, etc, but most of us who live average lives don't have a sense that we should be pursuing x, y, or z. So for the average person their sense of purpose tends to be muddled in a myriad of small seemingly insignificant acts or experiences. Remember that everything you do has significance, even the smallest of things, yes, even your responses in this forum has significance. Any interaction with another person has significance, and while it's true that we are all part of an ultimate consciousness (for lack of a better description), at the core of this consciousness is love; and to the degree that you're able to express this love, you can be sure that that is definitely part of what you should be doing, part of your purpose. And no matter what we believe, most of us would agree that being kind to others, even to the most vulnerable (animals for e.g.) is a good thing, even to those we loathe.

What is the source? it's ourselves, we are the source, we along with many others are the co-creators of this reality, and all realities. There is no God in the religious sense, that's just man's way of trying to describe what he feels at a deeper level. The closest thing to a God is this source, but we are part of the source, we are one with it, all of us. In a very real sense, we are god. Every thing that exists is ultimately connected to the source. It's our home, where we come from, where we get our life. Moreover, we are eternal beings, who live out many different lives in different realities. Sometimes we choose to come back to this reality, which is probably where the idea of reincarnation came from.

As I said above we make the choice to come here, we actually agree to certain things before we come here. Part of this agreement includes the suppression of many of our memories, choice of parents, when we die, who are children might be, and the choice of some or even all of what we experience.

I'll end here for now.

This is one example of what life is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89VlnvGnP2s

:nerd:

Sounds good to me. How much time will be given to respond?

This is a study of memories and NDEs.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/03/NDE-85-MCQ-ConCog.pdf

The following video is interesting, especially the first few minutes. Start at 3:27.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGizqsLumo

The problem you're going to run into is that there are many different uses of the word irrefutable, depending on one's epistemology. For example, for me, one use of what's irrefutable is what's foundational, i.e., what cannot be coherently or reasonably doubted generally.

Another use of the term might be a proof, i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion is irrefutable. Even inductive arguments might be referred to as irrefutable depending on the strength of the premises. But you're going to get people who hold to the idea that their version of the word irrefutable is the only use that counts.

Good luck trying to get unanimity - I've never seen it happen in this forum or any other forum, but don't let that deter you.

Unfortunately we can vote ourselves right into tyranny, whether from the left or right.