You're missing the point. Novelty of thought happens. So, to say that there is no such thing is just plain false.


Now, in your defense, sorta, I understand what you're saying here. Novel thought does not just pop into existence ex nihilo. All thought has 'ingredients' and circumstantial context... novel thought notwithstanding.

Agree with the rejection of using "what it's like"...

Physicalism is inadequate. Thus, physical causality is incomplete. It's the same problem of the inherent inadequacy of the basis of the line of thought. The physical/mental dichotomy cannot take proper account of that which consists of both.

Are you familiar with Chalmers' Hard Problem?
— frank

Yes. I don't agree it's remotely hard. — Isaac

It's a problem created by the framework itself.

It would take a book, although one thing I could say is that it(materialism) provides no account of meaning — Wayfarer

Which makes it incomplete. Not fallacious.

Who - The person behind the event
What - The thing or situation which is behind the event
When - The time at which it happened
Where - The place where it happened
Why - The intention behind the event
How - The steps taken for the event to occur

Is this an accurate description? — Fruitless

No.

Leaves the event itself untouched.

No, we should not tolerate the intolerant. — NOS4A2

That is the epitome of being intolerant.

Whenever a creature draws a correlation between different things for the first time... it's novel. Whenever a plurality of individuals draws the same correlations between the same things, they have the same thought(s). When a plurality of individuals all do it for the first time, the same novel thought is had by a plurality of creatures. Such is the groundwork for shared meaning(language).

The obvious flaw with the claim that there are no novel thoughts is that throughout history there have been.

That's more than adequate ground to reject the claim that there are no novel thoughts.

There are. Good enough for me.

Thanks. Just piddling...

The point of this rhyme began about truth
A word we've not yet had to speak
'Cause when describing belief of the wordless
It misleads to get in that deep

For one without words cannot think about thoughts
They lack what it takes to do so
Isolating one's own mental ongoings
Is language being used ya know

My cats without words do expect to be fed
They meet me when I return home
Purring and pushing their body to leg
They lead me straight to their bowl

This shows their belief beyond any doubt
They expect to me to do what I do
Their not looking for food they want the treats
That expectation when met becomes true

:smile:

Noice.

:smile:

But the dog doesn't read books oh no it cannot
For like cats a dog has no words
It's reading what's happening what's going on
To impune propositional attitude's absurd

A dogs belief is just not linguistic you see
It can be like an expectation
For when we open the food bin it knows
She then jumps around in exhaltation

:wink:

On what ground can it be doubted?

...original thought are illusions. — Razorback kitten

Wrong and worthy of it's own thread.

...

There's a common prayer called the serenity prayer. Chock full of wisdom, regardless of it's source.

Much can be said against.

Much can be said for contentment.

Explain the criticism Banno. It's unacceptable. Textbook problem. Salva veritate. Leibniz.

Not to mention, it's not allowed in substitution to begin with. We cannot substitute one term for several different terms unless they all mean the same thing. In this case, in this use... they do not.

The blacks...

The women...

The Jews...

The Dems...

The Republicans...

The left...

The right...

Americans...

Trump voters...

All those share the same problem.

All thought, belief, and statements thereof presuppose truth. There's quite a bit of power there.

You have no better idea of correspondence to reality thn you have of flooble. — Banno

That's not true.

Gazelles are constantly wary of danger. I would say that the gazelle that sees no danger where there is danger has a false picture. — Janus

Seeing danger is not the same thing as seeing a lion. Danger is not a directly perceptible thing.

I disagree that anthropomorphism is inherently in our accounts of 'dumb' animals. We can acquire knowledge of all belief by looking at the right sorts of things when it comes to examining our own.

We can know that all of our examples are existentially dependent upon written language. We can know that all written language is existentially dependent predication. We can know that all predication is correlation. We can know that not all correlation is predication.

That's a good start.

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. Being called "true" does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. A statement's being true requires correspondence to fact/reality. — creativesoul

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement Flooble. Being called "true" does not make a statement Flooble. A statement's being true requires being flooble. — Banno

...you say there is a difference between something's being flooble and it's corresponding to reality... — Banno

Where did you learn how to substitute?

Good for me?

C'mon Banno...

Perfect. P's are floobie. Changing the terms in an argument/explanation is only acceptable if the truth conditions are maintained. You've changed the entire meaning, and thus the truth conditions alongside. You'll have to explain what you find relevant in that reply.

:smile:

I was in the middle of attempting to offer a more charitable reading(one that was more amenable to my own view, since you're claiming agreement). You've done a much better job than I was doing, but that account/report of the gazelle's mental ongoings still doesn't quite work for me.

I know this will undoubtedly come off as my being nit-picky but...

The hypothetical gazelle speech act you've offered is one that requires fairly complex language use. The gazelles have none. So, I cannot grant the part about "if they could speak" as even a possibility. They do not have what it takes(as best we can tell). They do, however, have the capability to draw mental correlations between different directly perceptible things(as best we can tell anyway). I do not think that either gazelle acts deliberately as a result of thinking about their own physiological sensory perception.

More to my liking would be an account in which the content of gazelle mental ongoings consisted entirely of correlations drawn between directly perceptible things. The gazelle believed the lion was in the bush. The gazelle believed it was about to drink from the waterhole. The other gazelle did not believe the lion was in the bush. Rather, it had drawn no correlations including the lion at all. It had no belief about the lion. So, I would not agree to saying that it's picture(belief) was false. That would require believing the lion was not in the bush. Follow me?

Something else needs mentioned here. Tarski was a logician. He attempted to take account of(define) truth using logical notation. It cannot be done with such means. He did reduce our account/report of correspondence(of statements/propositions) to it's most basic elemental constituents.

A beautiful bare minimum explanation/criterion. Perhaps "rendition" is better.

Do we all know what true is? — creativesoul

Good point. I know I do, but as for you... — Banno

Here's what I know...

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. Being called "true" does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. A statement's being true requires correspondence to fact/reality.

We make statements meaningful. Statements say something because of us and only because of us. Being meaningful is necessary but insufficient for truth. It's meaningful regardless. It's not true unless what it says is the case. That is, it's not true unless it corresponds to fact/reality.

:kiss:

...you could have a true or false picture of things without language. — Janus

I used "requires" very deliberately. It means - if one cares to understand what I'm setting out here - that something is existentially dependent upon something else. The phrase "without language" is problematic to me for it cannot draw and maintain the distinction between things in terms of existential dependency.

To wit...

Something can be both existentially dependent upon language and without it. Thinking to oneself about what one wants to do tomorrow is something we do that is existentially dependent upon language, but because it is unspoken many say that that is done 'without' language.

So...

Substitute that phrase with "is not existentially dependent upon language" and not only is the problem dissolved, but we also adopt a framework that is capable of setting out existential dependency.

Being true requires correspondence. Being called true requires language. Correspondence does not. Being true does not. Either being true does not require truth or truth does not require language.

...we all know what true is, too; so why bother with correspondence? — Banno

Do we all know what true is?

Propositions did for philosophy what dark matter/energy does for physics.

If there aren't two things, then how is the word "correspondence" being used? — frank

See for yourself

So, all terms have only one sense for you? What a strangely limited viewpoint! — Janus

Don't devolve Janus.

We're currently talking about truth as correspondence to fact/reality. To change the referent from correspondence to fact/reality to fact/reality(actuality) is a big problem. That's an entirely different conversation.

Using more than one sense of the same term constitutes a formal fallacy. Equivocation. It also inevitably leads to self-contradiction.

I do not understand what you are doing. — Banno

I thought he was referring to bivalence...