So... the mental is the domain which clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consist of?

Essentially what I get from your post is ‘belief and thought statements are related’. — I like sushi

Aww. That's too bad. There is so much more to enjoy.

They are identical at their core. All correlation. The separation only applies in situations where the creature is suspending judgment or speaking insincerely. Here one can be considering without assent, or deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. All correlation.

Enough of this though. Not my thread...

I'm wondering where human thought and belief are delineated in the OP, by the OP?.

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of?
— creativesoul

The mental? — Marchesk

As in... in the head?

Realism about one domain doesn't entail you to be a realist about another. — Marchesk

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of?

:brow:

Happy?

All thought and belief statements consist of predication. All prediction is correlation. Not all correlation is predication. All thought and belief consists of correlations.

Given that this is a forum for discussions it would make sense to say why you feel that way and perhaps even offer up what you believe to be a ‘better’ framework. — I like sushi

Step numero uno. Get human thought and belief right. That's the first thing I mentioned.

What if I'm having issues accepting the framework you're using?

I understand the transcendental to be not "above", but "below", our conscious experience, and thus not "transcendent"... — Janus

I understand the transcendental to be... not transcendent.

:brow:

That's incoherence rearing it's ugly head.

I would laugh, elbow bump, and buy you a drink!

Sure...

Where is the category regarding human thought and belief?

I've no idea what you meant then.

Could you rephrase your first reply to me tonight?

I'm going to keep you on your toes!

Either mountain experience is not subjective, experience is not subjective, or mountain experience is not experience...

Which is it, because you've claimed that experience is subjective and that mountains experience?

How about addressing what you did say, and my response to what you did say?

Looks like I repeated a mistake already made. Copy and paste a misattribution repeats the mistake.

My fault.



Original above... Edited later to add the following...

On second glance, I believe it is you, my friend, who've made a mistake here. Janus did indeed say what I quoted. I took your word to be good, at first... Second looks are well worth having.

I agree; we could say that experience is subjective insofar it is conscious... — Janus

...it's not wrong to say the mountain experiences erosion if it does. — Janus

:brow:

Do you see the problem here?

If you remain consistent, you'd be forced to say that you cannot get a grasp upon anything pre-conceptual.

Mt. Everest existed in it's entirety regardless of whether or not one believes that.
— creativesoul

You simply assume that it does. It would have been more open-minded to have written: "Mt. Everest existed in it's entiretyor not regardless of whether or not one believes that." — Janus

If you re-read the entire post, you'd see that I said "if"...

C'mon Janus... you know better.

I can accept that something external exists, but the question is if the everyday things we talk about are reducible to those external things. — Michael

Some of the everyday things we talk about are those external things. I'm not even sure what you're trying to ask me here. Trees aren't reducible... are they?

I’m just interested in hearing what other individual people’s complete philosophical systems are, phrased as answers to the same set of questions for comparison. — Pfhorrest

Does one's philosophy have the burden of following all of the conventional distinctions?

:brow:

I saw someone recently characterize the difference between left-wing populism (which is a thing) and right-wing populism something like this: both are ostensibly in favor of the common people against their elite rulers, but left-wing populists see the "common people" as the laboring classes (proletarians) generally and the "elites" as the wealthy ownership classes (bourgeoisie) generally, while right-wing populists see the "common people" as the "middle class" (petite bourgeoisie) of the "normal" national identity (race, language, religion, etc) within the country in question, and the "elites" as some nefarious international cabal of foreigners and their political puppets within the country in question. — Pfhorrest

I think that that's a fairly accurate albeit rough summary of the difference. However, some left populism doesn't vilify ownership so much as elected officials who knowingly act against the people when a conflict of interest arises between huge corporations or their own personal interests(these are often one in the same), and common people.

This is perfectly normal parlance. — Janus

Well of course. All sorts of people say all sorts of stuff all the time. Language use can be perfectly sensible and say stuff that's dead wrong.

I understand the transcendental to be not "above", but "below", our conscious experience, and thus not "transcendent"... — Janus

Don't you see a problem here, my friend?

Seriously, I like the shit outta you(that's an endearing Appalachian American colloquialism), so I'm not being disrespectful in any way.

:cool:

Beyond what is consciously experienced we experience processes and forces just as the mountain experiences erosion — Janus

How do you know this? That is... how do you know what experience is beyond conscious experience?

I think you may be conflating causality with experience. The latter is existentially dependent upon the former, but the former is not equivalent to the latter. Experience takes quite a bit more than causality.

It's better than forwarding no argument at all! — Janus

I think you'd change your mind if you carefully considered the logical consequences of that argument. It leads to a reductio.

First of all, I've never said that the objective/subjective dichotomy was incoherent.
— creativesoul

What exactly is your issue with it then? — Janus

It is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which consists of both. Experience is one such thing.

If primordial experience, as distinct from conscious experience, is pre-conceptual then no discursive handle can be gotten on it, despite your promissory notes. — Janus

Surely you're not really going to forward such an argument?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to understand what "mountains experience erosion" is taking about on your view if I knew what criterion you employ as a means to determine whether or not it makes sense to attribute experience to some thing or another.

I'm all ears...

I don’t think I’m asking too much. — Mww

Coming from someone who has demonstrated a habit of ignoring all the tough questions leading up to a refutation of their own claims... well... that's a bit rich...

...the mountain experiences erosion. — Janus

That is what can happen if one does not have the basics of complex experience right. Mountains do not have what it takes. Anthropomorphism.

What are you referring to if there is no coherent distinction? Now, don't get me wrong, I think human experience, primordially speaking, is prior to any such distinction, but we cannot get any conscious handle on that primordial experience; it is rightly thought as transcendental. — Janus

First of all, I've never said that the objective/subjective dichotomy was incoherent. Secondly, I am referring to the typical use of that distinction. I can refer to another linguistic framework without assenting to it and/or accepting it. Thus, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at in that regard. It's as if you seem to think that one must somehow assent/accept that which one claims to deny simply because one talks about it.

I'm suddenly being reminded of NOS in the racism thread...

The last bit, of course, I reject. Not only can we, I have gotten quite a good 'conscious handle' on primordial experience, if by that we mean experience prior to language acquisition and/or language less creatures' experience. One cannot get a good handle on primordial experience, if one doesn't have the basics of complex experience right.

Thought and belief.

Same story brutha! That's where it's at! Get that right, and much is gleaned...

What are logical forms taking account of?
— creativesoul

Illogical thought; irrational reasoning.
— Mww

What about logical thought, and rational reasoning?
— creativesoul

What about them? — Mww

Are logical forms taking those thoughts and reasoning into account as well?

It doesn't follow from the statement "We've been mistaken about some things" that we're been mistaken about everything. It does not follow from the statement "We do not see some things as they are" that we cannot see anything as it is.
— creativesoul

That's not what I said either, I said we cannot all be seeing things as they are (otherwise there would be no disagreement), and I also said we cannot be mistaken about everything, for instance we cannot be mistaken about the fact that "not everything can be an illusion, there has to be something real". — leo

We're in agreement, it seems...

It's certainly not enough to say that ordinary word usage captures reality. — Marchesk

So, don't say that...

See how easy it is to solve some of these historical problems of language use? Language use is not the sort of thing that captures anything. Some things we talk about aren't even things that are capable of being "captured" to begin with... we talk about them nonetheless...

Our experience of the world including perceptions and thoughts. — Marchesk

So, there's clearly a difference between the world and our thought and belief about it?

I agree.

Explanation is always complete because it details some thing-- "It has been explained"-- but never exhaustive because there are things of which a given account does not speak.

So yes, the tree has been accounted for, insofar as it has been truthfully spoken about. Speak the shape.of it's leaves, you give a full account, insofar as you describe, the shape of the trees leaves. Do not be fooled by the fact there is much more to the tree, you have genuinely accounted for the tree. You just aren't accounting for the many other ways and relations this tree exists in. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not much to say aside from we're working from incommensurate notions of what counts as "complete". An incomplete account can be true. I agree. I do not ever call an incomplete account of X a full account of X.

It's obviously somewhat different than the appearance — Marchesk

Set it out... this difference between world and.... what, exactly are you claiming must be different than the world?

Our image... as retinal?

It's obviously somewhat different than the appearance, or naive realism would have gone unquestioned. — Marchesk

It doesn't follow from the statement "We've been mistaken about some things" that we've been mistaken about everything. It does not follow from the statement "We do not see some things as they are" that we cannot see anything as it is.

Who's arguing for naive realism?

...an image of something more fundamental than the image... — leo

The world, perhaps?

:meh:

I think what could be agreed upon is that the world we see is an appearance, an image of something more fundamental than the image, and that this image depends on us. — leo

And the world...

:brow: