A more exact formulation for truth with respect to judgement might be: judgement is the necessary means to truth, and by association, the more exact formulation for truth with respect to cognition would be: cognition which conforms to its object is the necessary condition for truth. — Mww

It would follow from the first formulation that no creature lacking the faculty of judgment could have true cognitions, or they could if the aforementioned true cognitions are not existentially dependent upon - and thus do not require - truth.

Looks like a conflation between what's required for thinking about whether or not some thought/belief and/or statement is true, and what's required for some thought/belief to be true. Terrapin does the same thing. Judgment, as set out by him, is a metacognitive endeavor. True belief is prior.

If judgment were necessary for truth, true thought/belief could not be had by a creature incapable of judgment. I'm (vaguely)familiar with the introduction of CPR where Kant called judgment an innate talent that cannot be taught, etc. I disagree because judgment is far too complex a thought/process for a human to be born with already fully intact and working(innate). Rather, depending upon the notion of judgment, it comes later, sometimes much later in the individual and collective evolutionary progression of thought/belief.

If these are all to be called "facts", then what do we call the false ones?
— creativesoul

Non-facts? — Janus

And so what makes a proposition, statement, and/or conception true(fact)?

I read it. I'm disputing it. Care to address the rest?

The "Slab!" game and the counting apples game could be played by the very same person. But in what sense could we translate one into the other? — Banno

I don't see that this helps. It just replaces meaning with correlation. — Banno

"SLAB!"(language use), slabs, and other things are the content of correlation, which - if a plurality of capable creatures draw correlations between these things - results in shared meaning.

"Correlation" is not just a replacement term for "meaning", they are not the same thing. Rather, that's what all meaningful thought/belief have in common, amongst a few other things.

That's what is peculiar to me. Witt said look at how language is being used with all sorts of other things - besides the language use - in mind. His remarks guide our attention to all of the different content of correlation that makes one use("Slab") different than another("SLAB!!!"). All else being equal, the intonation, attitude, and past experience concerning similar situations plays the determinative role in the difference.

That difference in meaning is the difference in the correlational content.

My concern with the OP, as others have already expressed, is that moving information from one head to another can be one use of language, even though it may not be its only use. — Luke

I've seen it claimed. I've seen agreement. What I have not seen is a coherent explanation of exactly how information - which is already meaningful, lest there could be no translation/decoding - can be moved. Meaning is not a monolithic single thing that is able to change locations like some things can, cups, cupboards, chairs, and tables. Rather, it consists of simple/basic elemental constituents, such as language use(a speaker), slabs, intonation, other behaviours and additional context. In order to move information, meaning has to be moved along with it.

So...

Since all of those things are required for meaning to be attributed, and not all of them move through a conduit, or phone line, or fibre optic, or airwaves, or... whatever, what since does it make to say that information(meaning) can be moved?

Creative seemed to be denying meaning from DNA replication on the mistaken account that nothing is making a correlation in DNA replication and the incorrect assumption that there is no agent involved in DNA replication. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion.

True statements, true propositions, and true conceptions...

If these are all to be called "facts", then what do we call the false ones?

Clearly, because some are false and facts cannot be, not all verbal statements, propositions, and/or conceptions are facts.

What makes them either true/false? What makes them a fact?

Correspondence to fact/reality/events/what's happened/what's happening. Wait, that doesn't work.

Calling them true/false statements, propositions, and conceptions works just fine. There's no need to call them "facts". They are true - and not false - because of their correspondence to fact.

Reports of that which has happened and/or is happening(events) are in propositional form. Facts are what's happened and/or is happening(events).

Facts cannot be false, all three things you mentioned can.

I’d rather go with truth is a cognition. — Mww

Please do. Spell it all out. A true one?

There are two senses of 'fact': facts as verbal statements and facts as ostensive ontological propositions or conceptions of states of affairs. — Janus

:brow:

Those aren't the only senses...

Verbal statements can be false. Propositions can be false. Conceptions can be false.

Facts cannot.

I cannot overlook the backdoor smuggling of agency when there is none warranted. All talk about information being within cells, rna, dna, etc. dubiously presupposes meaning where there is no creature/agent capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

The issue is "meaning". I think there is far more meaning in two extremely complex things like DNA which happen to match, than there is in the correlation between a proposition and a state of affairs. In comparison, the correlation between a proposition and a state of affairs is extremely simplistic, while the correlation between replicated DNA is extremely complex. Don't you think that the complex correlation is far more meaningful than the simplistic correlation? — Metaphysician Undercover

QED

Indeed, meaning presupposes identity. — jorndoe

Not all meaning. Linguistic meaning... as it pertains to logic... sure.

...facts are always already in propositional form. If you disagree then give me an example of a fact that is not in propositional form. — Janus

Are we drawing a distinction between what my report is existentially dependent upon and what I'm reporting upon?

If facts are true propositions/statements, then the approach you've taken has some purchase.

What if facts are events(what's happened and/or is happening)?

All sorts of things happen that are not in propositional form.

I think we agree here.

There's much to be said about having eyes for one person. The level of intimacy is unparalleled. The depth of love unmatched. All of the pages of the future are a bit brighter if we're both disciplined and lucky.

:wink:

That said, if you want porn, don't be surprised when it not only comes up empty, but also seems to create other unforeseen issues. With two people capable of mutual consent, do-whatcha-like.

:smile:

Thanks.

Interesting subject matter.

The assertion of the OP was specifically about information; not about "all those things and more". Unless there is an argument that (moving) information is equivalent to meaning and knowledge (and more?)... — Luke

As if information need be equivalent to meaning or knowledge in order for both to be germane to the OP?

Meh.

Language cannot move anything. Language has no agency. No physical structure to exert upon that which is being moved.

Language can move everything in the sense that it can re-arrange one's beliefs.

The OP was an intentional provocation. Stir things up a bit.

Those are not mutually exclusive options... are they? It can be about all those things and more.

Still like to see this debated...

Anyone?

:brow:

It's about information, meaning, and knowledge... and doing stuff with language that cannot be adequately accounted for by saying that language moves information from one place(mind) to another.

Read through it...

"Independent" doesn't imply "incorrigibly isolated and not capable of interaction."... — Terrapin Station

Indeed. That's the first thing that came to my mind, or words to that effect/affect...

Come on, Banno. You know you have to do better than that. 5 words? Fucking Australians. There's a good chance the moderators will delete your post, with good reason.
— T Clark

I guess we were too late. And he'll justify it by wringing at least 10 pages out of you suckers. — Baden

:lol:

Ignoring the multi-dimensional aspect of these correlations is where language often runs into trouble. — Possibility

That bit about "the multi-dimensional aspect" points in the right direction.

When DNA replicates, it's quite clear that something is making a correlation between distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover

Got an argument, or perhaps minimal criterion for correlation(what all correlation is existentially dependent upon)?

The cup is on the table. Someone says "the cup is on the table" Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken. — creativesoul

Sure. So why do you think I'd say they're both mistaken? — Terrapin Station

Because coherency(lack of equivocation and/or self-contradiction) matters, and you've already claimed the following...

On my view, a mistaken truth-value judgment is either (i) a different person having a different judgment about the relationship of a proposition to a state of affairs--it's mistaken in the different persons' views, or (ii) the same person having a different judgment at a later time, where they feel they should have had the later judgment at the earlier time (and it's mistaken in their view, but perhaps the revision is what's mistaken in other persons' views at that point) — Terrapin Station

You're conflating belief and truth and bordering upon utter nonsense.

The cup is on the table. Someone says "the cup is on the table". Person A...

Squirming...

The cup is on the table. Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken.

You're conflating truth and belief.

Push hard enough on the notion of information and a conflation between causality and meaning takes place
— creativesoul

What are you saying...? — Metaphysician Undercover

All talk about information being within cells, rna, dna, etc. dubiously presupposes meaning where there is no creature/agent capable of drawing correlations between different things.

There is much to be said about learning how to use language. I'm not talking about the average ordinary just talking about what's on your mind. Rather, I'm talking about using language with the intent to acquire a desired result.

We use language to ask questions about things, and make statements about things. Prior to either of these particular uses, we must first use language to pick individual things out of this world to the exclusion of all else as a means to isolate it as it's own subject matter worthy of subsequent considerations. Hard to talk about something or ask about something if there is no way to successfully refer to that something.

But there are other things that can be done with language...

Very early on, we make concerted attempts to use language as a means for obtaining what we want at the time. We use certain language in certain situations with a clearly understood, envisioned, imagined, thought of result(clear expectation of what will happen afterwards). The child behaves in such a way as to do what s/he/they believe will get them the result that they are looking for.

Each and every one of us has drawn and will continue to draw correlations between certain situations, specific things, and particular language uses. This is how one learns to use language with the intent to reach a goal.

All of these ways, and more, provide a concrete footing for Banno's earlier assertion that knowing(how to use and/or do things with language) requires some sort of rule following...

:kiss:

I cannot overlook the backdoor smuggling of agency when there is none warranted. All talk about information being within cells, rna, dna, etc. dubiously presupposes meaning where there is no creature/agent capable of drawing correlations between different things.
— creativesoul

Actually, agency is warranted. How do you think DNA could replicate without agency? — Metaphysician Undercover

Easier than I thought...

Push hard enough on the notion of information and a conflation between causality and meaning takes place...

Terrapin's view neglects the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. He also adopts the conventional conflation between propositions and belief. His notion of judgment is metacognition at work.

Judgment is not truth. If it were, there could be no such thing as mistaken judgment. Judgment is belief, not truth. Truth is presupposed within both.

The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. — Terrapin Station

Sure it can, and must. Lest there could be no mistakes made. The statement is true regardless of any particular individual's belief/judgment about it and/or whether or it it is worthy of being called "true".

So correspondence requires thought on your view? — Terrapin Station

Indeed, and in a very specific way. The presupposition of truth(correspondence), the attribution of meaning, and thought/belief are irrevocably entwined. Truth and meaning are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of thought/belief. Both emerge onto the world stage via a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things, and all of this happens prior to language.

Never said it did, nor need I. You'll have to do better than this Terrapin. I'm not going to assent to what you're asserting. It's wrong on several levels.

I don't think about that which exists in it's entirety prior to our account of it in such terms.
— creativesoul

Haha, well that's what you should be doing to do philosophy--think about this stuff. If we're going to claim that the relation obtains outside of a judgment, if we're going to claim that that's how it exists, how it works, then we should have some idea of what, exactly, we're claiming about it ontologically, some idea of how it works, some support of our contentions, etc. especially aside from the fact that it's a common belief or a common way to talk about it. — Terrapin Station

Truth is not judgment. That's where you arrived. That's not my problem. "We" is the wrong pronoun to use here. I reject the position you argue for/from.

Judgment - per your description - is very complex metacognitive thought/belief. Judgment about the truth conditions of a statement requires language use.

Correspondence to what's happened/happening does not. True and false belief is prior to language. Judgment is based upon pre-existing thought/belief. Sound judgment is based upon true thought/belief. Poor judgment, well...

Stop, while you're ahead.

There's more than one way to take account of things. I should not use a framework that I know is riddled with issues.

Knowing involves some sort of rule following.... — Banno

That overstates the case.

Some knowing does.

Knowing that fire causes pain does not.

Knowing that it is feeding time doesn't require some sort of rule following either.

Drawing a correlation between directly perceptible things, such as the act of touching fire and the ensuing pain, requires neither following rules nor common language. That correlation is belief that touching fire caused the pain. That is nothing less than the attribution/recognition of causality. Expectation ensues.

Drawing correlations between directly perceptible things such as myself, the food container, the odor of the food, and the sound of the container lid being opened, etc., results in expecting to eat. The expectation that results is clearly put on display for all to see each and every time those correlations are drawn - once again - between the same things.

Both are well-grounded true belief. Both are meaningful to the creature. Both presuppose their own correspondence to what's happened/happening.

Neither requires language use, predication, or propositional content. Our report requires all of these. Neither requires my report.

Communication of information- as Banno implied earlier - has the same meaning on both ends.

Communication of information is shared meaning. It's what happens when two people draw the same correlations between language use and something else. Miscommunication happens when the correlations between the language use and something else is different regarding the something else. That's how and why the same words can mean very different things to different people.

Situating meaningful information anywhere along the spatiotemporal line of evolutionary progression in a place/time preceding initial/original thought/belief formation presupposes meaning prior to thought/belief.

Here, as earlier, a conflation between causality and meaning will ensue.

Paraphrasing... What happens instead, in a nutshell, is that folk use observable parts of language--utterances, text marks, symbols, gestures, etc, in a "game" that makes sense of further linguistic observables in context, as well as other behaviour, and where part of that is a game of trying to elicit particular behavior as well as gain approval responses, etc. from others.

The big difference here is that meaning is found in the actions of the interlocutors, not in private languages.

Meanign is not private, but what we do together when we do things with words. — Banno

Some linguistic meaning, that is...

Witt began pursuing this vein. Enlarging the scope of observation to include not only the vocalization and/or written expressions, but also the accompanying actual behaviours during the utterance(speech act).

The Speech Act Theorists picked it up and carried it a little farther. They expanded upon the meaning in terms of force. There's much to be liked about Austin to this regard(expanding our considerations regarding how meaning is attributed).

Meaning is shared solely by virtue of a plurality of capable creatures drawing correlations between the same sort of things. The smashing of the bottle on the surface of the ship amidst it's christening.

Using a copy metaphor(copying information is copying meaning) is unhelpful here. The sender cannot copy themselves, and they are an elemental part of the correlations drawn between the marks and other things.

How do you believe the relation obtains outside of a judgment? — Terrapin Station

I don't think about that which exists in it's entirety prior to our account of it in such terms.

What happens instead, in a nutshell, is that individuals assign meanings to the observable parts of language--utterances, text marks, symbols, gestures, etc, where the "game" is to do that in a way that makes sense of further linguistic observables in context, as well as other behavior, and where part of that is a game of trying to elicit particular behavior as well as gain approval responses, etc. from others.
— Terrapin Station

This is pretty close to what I would say, except for the notion that meaning is assigned to the parts of language.

The implication of that would be that there is somehow meaning apart from its expression.

And I can't make sense of that. (@creativesoul and thought/belief) — Banno

Linguistic meaning includes it's expression(how the language is used). There is no separation without loss. While the attribution of meaning can happen without(prior to) language, and thus without it's being expressed, such attribution of meaning is irrelevant here.

Here's what troublesome to me... aside from the talk of moving something that does not have a spatiotemporal location...

I cannot overlook the backdoor smuggling of agency when there is none warranted. All talk about information being within cells, rna, dna, etc. dubiously presupposes meaning where there is no creature/agent capable of drawing correlations between different things.

All information is already meaningful. All attribution of meaning(and thus all meaning) requires a creature capable of making connections(drawing correlations) between different things. So too does information.

Push hard enough on the notion of information and a conflation between causality and meaning takes place...