So much the worse when the philosopher is going to claim that the something could never be perceived directly. — Banno

The idea of rejecting the distinction between direct and indirect perception interests me, but then again, I don't use "indirect perception" in such a limited fashion. For me, whether or not something is directly perceptible or not is partly determined by what it consists of. So, it's not just about a tool using perceiver. It's also about the elemental constituency of what's being perceived.

We sometimes indirectly perceive both causes and effects. Worldviews are efficacious. They cause certain things to happen. Worldviews cannot be directly perceived, but their inevitable affect/effect on the world can.

Worldviews are - in large part at least - adopted during common language acquisition. They are in that sense, an affect/effect of societal norms.

An electron's consciousness — RogueAI

Requires consciousness be something that it is possible for an electron to have. What ground/justification is there for holding such a belief?

Poetic flowery language. While that's certainly useful, it's not usually a good way to do philosophy.

It's all about the relationship between the three terms in the OP. People use those three terms in very different ways.

Try this...

All belief is about what happened, is happening, or is expected to happen(events). Facts are events. Belief is always about events. Events are not truth apt. Beliefs are. Correspondence between events and belief is truth. Reality is all the events(what's happening) at any point in time. Reality is not truth apt. Belief is. Belief is always about fact/reality. Correspondence between fact/reality and belief is truth.

When a creature attributes the right kind of meaning to a particular set of events during either contemplation or observation, they formed and/or reformed accurate(veridical) belief. They've a good grasp upon the way things were, are, or are expected to be. They have true belief about fact/reality.

I want to see real evidence that [panpsychism's] the case before I change course
— flannel jesus

What would that evidence look like? How do we go about verifying something like panpsychism? — RogueAI

Evidence to disprove a theory that claims everything is conscious? I think that the standard for what counts as something being conscious takes center stage in such a debate.

We could start by examining obvious cases where we would agree that the candidate under consideration is conscious. Remove individual particulars and gather relevant common denominators.

On my view, it's all about meaningful thought and belief. If some thing or other is capable of thought and belief then they are conscious.

Is it possible consciousness appeared when a certain amount of information processing in brains was present? In that case, if consciousness just happens when a certain amount of information is processed, would you really say it's a "product of evolution"? — RogueAI

...in brains...

That was left out. The biological machinery evolved. That's too important to neglect. Certain brain structures (and other biological systems) evolved and as a direct result of having them, some creatures became capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things... and hence, simple cognition emerged.

Where does it all start? <-----that seems to be the underlying sentiment/question. Evolution of biological structures was/is and will continue to be a slow process. What sort of thing can consciousness be, such that it is capable of emerging and subsequently evolving over time given enough mutation and happenstance into the sort of extremely complex metacognitive endeavors we humans find ourselves engaged in?

I think that consciousness is a biproduct of meaningful thought and belief. Or, perhaps, is equivalent to meaningful thought and belief.

Interesting conversation. I've been looking for just such a discussion. Care if I join? More questions than anything, really... for now.

It's a popular sentiment that children don't owe their parents anything, e.g. — baker

Thanks for the reply.

That assertion/statement/proposition is stated in such a way that most would agree with it... as written.

Many people, from all sorts of completely different socioeconomic circumstances, would share the exact same propositional attitude towards what you wrote despite having completely different and otherwise contradictory belief about why it's acceptable to feel like that. The differences matter.



The attached blurb was penned by a very inconsiderate person. It reeks of overgeneralization. To refuse to help one's own parents simply because they did not successfully prepare themselves - financially - for the later years in life is to punish them for what could be financial mistakes. Some financial mistakes are honestly made.

Some people are on fixed income after being promised that if they participated in the social security program they would have enough money to live comfortably during retirement. Some of those people are not necessarily at fault for having such an unsettling debt to income ratio. The financial cost to live comfortably now is far higher than social security and healthcare are capable of providing.

If the child is more than capable of helping but refuses to do so in lieu of intentionally punishing them - for the sake of punishing them - for the rest of their life, then that is a child who knowingly and deliberately causes unnecessary harm to their own parents. Mean inconsiderate possibly very self-centered person.

I'll not pass universal judgment on every single individual's personal belief(popular sentiment) that they do not owe their parents anything.

There's also quite a range of what exactly is not owed. There are all sorts of different kinds of debt. All debt is owed. "I owe you nothing" means I am not in debt to you. Not all people who believe that they do not owe their parents anything are talking about money. The sentiment underwriting the agreement has emerged as the result of very different individual particular circumstances.

Yet bearing in mind the premises in your OP, it's clear that one couldn't be where one is today were it not for one's parents, and that some akcnowledgement of this debt is in order.
Similar for one's teachers. — baker

That's a bit too strong for my taste. If taken too broadly, parents land in the category of cause along with all other influences in our lives. It doesn't make much sense to have a sense of owing a debt to everyone who changed or influenced our lives. I do agree that that is certainly an apt thing to say about some people.
 
Not all parents teach their own children. Of those who do, not all teaching counts as something we ought aspire towards. Some people are raised by people other than their biological parents. All people live with others during their lifetime. We are most certainly interdependent social creatures, which speaks to the following...

Another popular sentiment is to think of oneself as independent, as not having needed anyone in order to succeed, and taking pride in this. Similarly as above with parents and teachers, it's clear that such is not possible, and that a million things need to come together in order for a person to succeed, a million things over which the person has no control. — baker

American rugged individualism is preached and practiced. Many do not carefully consider that different influences effect/affect each and every one of us. I, for one, consider myself very lucky. I also make concerted attempts at doing things that open up the possibilities.

Not all parents are worthy of holding in high esteem.

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling..
— creativesoul

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone. — baker

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! :smile:

1. Temporal ordering and causation. Is the dependence relation you're interested one of logical necessity or one of (physical?) causation? Or maybe the two are two sides of the same coin? I could see the argument that our logical sense emerges from the causal, as a form of abstraction that evolution equipped us with, but you can also see arguments for logic being more essential and "at work," in causation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Logic, on my view, is an accounting practice. Hence, it is existentially dependent upon something to take account of, as well as a practitioner.  

2. That "elemental" parts are, in ways, more fundemental that wholes. The elemental parts must exist before the wholes, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Necessary elemental constituents comprise the complex entity. Here it is worth noting that necessary elemental constituents are themselves entities. Most times, they exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the complex entity, but not always.

But might we consider that the whole sometimes seems to precede the distinction of parts. E.g., we needed the universal process, the fields in which "part(icles) subsist" before we can have the elemental parts? Or, the universal relation through which "mass" emerges must pre-exist "massive particles," as the latter are necessarily defined in terms of the former. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Here we must be careful, I think. It's easy to conflate what it takes for us to become aware of something, with what it takes for that something to exist in it's entirety prior to our knowledge of it. I'm also not well versed enough to even offer a well-informed view regarding particle physics or quantum physics.

Which makes me ask, is this for only the universal case, or the particulars as well? You can't have an individual apple pie without first having apples, but it seems possible to have war prior to fighting. Maybe this says something about the essence of war. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe. It may say something about entities which have their elemental consistencies completely and totally determined/established/delineated by us. War is one such thing. If there is war without fighting, then - at that time - that war doesn't include fighting. That war, at that time, does not consist of fighting. However, I do not see that example as an interesting one. You have been touching upon the rightful application of the outline/discipline though. So, thanks for that!

:smile:

In what way is it it more "anthropomorphic," then something like the inverse square law, Maxwell's equations, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

After a quick look... it seems I've perhaps made a mistake regarding Shannon's Information. For some reason or other, I had the impression that it situated meaning in circumstances where there could be none.

Hegel doesn't deny time or the fact that we aren't actually starting from nothing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Understood. It makes no sense to me for anyone to insist that we act like it's even possible to set all presuppositions aside. It's not. I do agree that Kant had inherent issues, namely untenability. Hegel seems to have the same fundamental flaw.

I'm interested in how thought and belief emerge. Amongst a number of them, I also reject the subject/object, physical/non-physical, internal/external dichotomies, particularly when it comes to taking proper account of minds(thought and belief). None of those frameworks are capable of taking proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither one or the other. Thought, belief, consciousness, mind, etc... are precisely such things on my view.

I think we have to focus on what is needed to exist a priori to let apple pies exist. Because, despite apples and apple trees being key elements to their existence, we understand that they are not the only elements of an eventual apple pie. — javi2541997

Well, if our aim was to acquire knowledge of all of the necessary preconditions pertaining to the emergence of apple pies, then we would have to focus on that. I'm not seeking omniscience, nor do I require it. We can know some things are prior to others. We can know some things consist of others. Etc. Seeking and acquiring some knowledge is a useful endeavor. We need not know everything in order to know some things.

The apple pie example was meant to get familiar with the discipline set out in the OP. We can have more interesting talks, to me anyway, regarding the emergence of truth, meaning, and belief.

Not at all - just a bit exasperated at having misinterpreted the aim of the OP. — Wayfarer

Good. Sorry for the disappointment I was part of. I've always liked you Jeep. :smile: Hope you're well. You seem so. Moderator now too!

>>>>insert shaka<<<<

I had the same thought, but when I re-read the OP I realized it doesn't commit itself to this. With the exception of p5, the OP is entirely negative: it is all "cannot". "Must exist prior" is no part of the OP. — Leontiskos

Very astute! I'm impressed. Some things emerge simultaneously. Meaning, truth, and some of the simplest thought(s) seem to me to do exactly that.

Some language less creatures have belief. Belief emerges prior to language. All belief is meaningful to the believing creature. Meaning emerges prior to language. Some language less belief is true. Truth emerges prior to language.

Seems that way to me anyway.

Shannon Entropy — Count Timothy von Icarus

Reeks of anthropomorphism...

You might be interested in Hegel's two Logics, which follow a somewhat similar methodology. But Hegel has the added criteria that we must start without any presuppositions, from a "blank slate." — Count Timothy von Icarus

We work from starkly different criteria regarding what counts as a 'somewhat similar methodology'. One takes note of time. The other denounces the practice. The aim is the evolutionary progression of mind, thought, belief, worldviews, knowledge, etc. Of course it presupposes time.

There is a distinction to be drawn and maintained between our account/report and what we're taking account of and/or reporting upon. They are completely different entities. Our report includes meaningful language use. What we're reporting upon does not always. So, when it comes to insisting that "we" start with a blank slate - as reporters - that's impossible. Blank slates don't write.

However, as far as blank slates and the first thinking or believing creatures go...

It had to start somehow. Much to my own dismay, I've found that the gradual nature of evolutionary progression - when it comes to the emergence of human consciousness - refuses to offer the deep satisfaction of an ah-hah - there it is - moment in time. It's not like adding vinegar to baking soda. It would be more like watching the erosion of oceanfront tectonic plates in real time. There would not be a sudden clear distinction from this moment to the next when the candidate under consideration/observation suddenly becomes conscious in the way we describe ourselves with that word.

We've been drawing all sorts of complex meaningful correlations, connections, and/or associations between all sorts of different entities for a very long time. Many, if not most of those correlations include language use... for us anyway. Some language less creatures are capable of forming, having, and/or holding thought and belief about the world and themselves. They do it the very same way we do. The differences between thinking and believing creatures involve the content. The content is limited by the biological machinery the candidate is equipped with.


Yup.

I think it's pretty well certain that our report of the evolutionary progression of human thought and belief presupposes both, time and causality - as it must. That's what the words mean, after-all. I mean, it's impossible to set out a timeless progression of past events. That's nonsense.

There's many an interesting avenue packed up in that post. Thanks. I'm currently absorbing it.

:up:

Apple trees existed prior to apple pies. Insert p1. Hence, apple trees cannot be existentially dependent upon apple pies.

Apple pies are existentially dependent upon having the elements combined by some capable agent. However, not all complex entities are.

Well we plainly have different notions of what that consists of, but never mind, I hope someone else has a contribution to make. — Wayfarer

:brow:

I get the feeling that you're somehow offended? Not sure why or how, but not the aim here. I'm just more interested in a notion of mind that is amenable to evolutionary progression such that it can bridge the gap between language less animals and ourselves. So, the elements we're speaking of are already complex entities themselves...

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling..
— creativesoul

What was the more interesting/compelling application you had in mind? — Leontiskos

I think that philosophy proper has gotten human thought and belief wrong. Hence, there are no conceptions/notions thereof that are amenable to evolutionary progression.

It is. :brow:

Is the order that emerges from the chaos of the very early universe causal or consequential? — Wayfarer

Hey Jeep! Nice summary. Causal.

I'm not really all that interested in speculating on the origin of the universe. As you may know, I do have a strong methodological naturalist bent, if for no other reason than minimizing the potential of forming and/or holding false belief. My main interest has always been thought and belief, belief systems, worldviews, etc. Current and historical political events show the importance thereof.

A second question is, exactly what do the purported simple elements comprise? — Wayfarer

Again, I find that sort of reduction uninteresting. I'm more concerned with current important events and practices in the macro world with a particular interest on how individual and collective thought and belief systems play a role.

So I'm afraid the 'sheer simplicity' of your outine might only be because it's simplistic. It's a very appealing intuitive image, that of simple elements giving rise to more complex phenomena through the evolutionary process, and arguably one of the reigning metaphors suggested by evolution. But there are a great many philosophical and scientific conundrums thrown up by it. — Wayfarer

Hopefully you'll let me know if I cross any boundaries and venture off into those conundrums. I doubt I will, but I suppose I unknowingly could.

Your OP is very interesting, and I am surprised that it didn't get attention back then. I hope this thread gets more replies, because it deserves it. Although I am not an expert on logic, I am interested in your premises and conclusions. But it is obvious that I would probably not have the answers or debate you are looking for. Yet, I would make an attempt to keep up with the path or sense of your thread. — javi2541997

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not necessarily looking for any particular answers. I'm more interested in the scope of rightful application, the consequences of application, any possible valid negation/objection; any weaknesses or limits, etc.

Apple pies consist - in part at least - of apples. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apples. Apples are existentially dependent upon apple trees. When A is existentially dependent upon B and B is existentially dependent upon C, then A is existentially dependent upon C. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apple trees. Apple pies cannot exist prior to apples or apple trees.
— creativesoul

I agree that B - or apples - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees - but A - apple pies - is not existentially dependent upon C, because its existence depends on other factors.

p1 I have the apples but not the rest of the ingredients. So, apple pies are existentially dependent upon the latter - or other factors... — javi2541997

I agree that apple pies are existentially dependent upon more than just apples, hence, the "- in part at least -" bit. There is more to a complex entity than just one singled out element, and the emergence of complex entities includes all of the elementary constituents comprising the entity. That is the hallmark of necessary elemental constituents; if we remove any particular one, what's left is not enough. No single one is both necessary and sufficient.

p2 I have all the ingredients, but I do not cook the apple pie. It depends existentially upon me, not B or C. — javi2541997

There are uncooked apple pies.

 

p3 Apple trees and apples are produced to make juice - for example - so it is not necessarily that their purpose for existing is the apple pie. — javi2541997

Never said otherwise.

Three years later... another attempt to generate interest...

Whereas in time ignorant can become knowing, — unenlightened

Indeed.

It gets very interesting when one who has been ignorant of their own false belief becomes aware of exactly what they once believed.

Farmers mistaking sheets for sheeps. People believing that broken clocks are working ones. Etc.

Either some belief is not equivalent to propositional attitude or no one ever looks at a broken clock and presupposes that it's not broken. That's exactly what happens when one of us believes that a broken clock is working. S will not agree to "that broken clock is working" at the time they trust it. The farmer certainly would not assent to the claim that that sheet is a sheep, but they most certainly take that sheet to be a sheep. They believe that a sheet is a sheep. They will not state it at the time. That's due to our inability to knowingly believe a falsehood.

Nice thread!

Anyone saying that Trump voters just hate minorities are ill-informed. — ButyDude

Well... not all, but definitely, demonstrably, provably...

Some... many... but not all.

It’s not surprising that you’d blame Trump for someone else’s crime, but that’s only because it’s obvious your sense of justice has been perverted a long time ago. — NOS4A2

How do you square that sentiment with Trump's history of punishing others without honoring their right to redress?

Nice decision... Biden campaign has a user account on Trump's platform.

Watch Trump take away the free speech of others...

Very effective move. Just show Trump contradicting himself all the time. One looooong track.

... in reality the algorithms of every online media platform have kept myself and even yourself from experiencing legitimate arguments against our beliefs. — ButyDude

Short life... this 'reality' referenced above. Sometimes to some people. Never every time concerning all people. Reality includes all people during all applicable timeframes.

Gross overgeneralization.

Echo chambers exist. Not all are powered by algorithmic forces. Pick any applicable time period... some people during the timeframe will not be challenging their own thought/belief about the world due to constant reaffirmation. Algorithmic echo chambers feed the confirmation bias of those who personally and totally identify with their worldview. To some people, any questioning of anything they say or do is taken as an assault, attack, or some other affront. This is witnessed by how any and all attempts to be helpful are met with hostility. Cognitive dissonance is more jarring the first time it happens. When reality doesn't match expectations, the ground is fertile for such circumstances to happen. How we accept our mistakes matters most, on my view anyway.

Private small social groups/communities sometimes produce the same results. Most importantly, the algorithms under consideration have not been in the world long enough to have affectively influenced everyone in the manner described in the above quote. That's one strike against.

There are plenty who seek legitimate arguments against their worldview/belief system. I'm one.

No one has been affected by every algorithm. No one is following an algorithm's path all the time. No one is always being influenced by algorithmic forces. Of all the people who've been influenced by the platforms in question, some became aware. Some of those knew the importance of the matter. Some deliberately minimize usage. I do as a proactive corrective measure taken.

Echo chambers are a problem... I grant that much without pause.

Self inspection takes others. None of us can see the flaws in our own worldview. If the only people we allow ourselves to be influenced, effected, and/or affected by are those with whom we already largely agree with, we're already in an echo chamber. If we never seriously consider another's worldview simply because it contradicts our own; if we never sit and seriously consider another explanation of the same set of events, we'll never become aware of any of the possible mistaken belief we hold regarding the world and/or ourselves

The clock is broken and sometimes we believe that it is not broken. — Banno

The term "it" refers to the broken clock. Sometimes we believe that a broken clock is not broken.

That rendering best matches what I'm claiming, but again, never would we ever assent to "a broken clock is not broken".

De dicto/ de re. — Banno

From the SEP...

Propositional attitude verbs are opacity inducing. That is, they seem to create linguistic environments that do not permit substitution of co-designating singular terms salva veritate. This is the basis of Frege’s puzzle. Modals like ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that’ are also opacity inducing. Opacity inducing expressions give rise to a de re/de dicto distinction. The de re/de dicto distinction has meant different things to different people.

You're not helping.

Where does disquotation fit here? Why are you now talking about theories of truth? — Banno

The SEP article on propositional attitude reports places the practice under scrutiny as well, although Kripke and Frege take different issue than I. Disquotation plays a role in the practice you're employing.

Suit yourself.

Ignoring the negation does not make it go away.

You're running the conversation. — Banno

That's never true with your threads!

:cool:

False belief cannot be true
S's belief is false
"That clock is working" can be true
"That clock is working" cannot be S's belief — creativesoul

The above negates your rendering.

I'm not offering an example of beliefs that are not propositional. Language less belief does that. This example shows the inherent inadequacy regarding disquotation and belief as propositional attitude.

You're having a lend.

Maybe a different tack...

False belief cannot be true
S's belief is false
"That clock is working" can be true
"That clock is working" cannot be S's belief

:brow:

:confused:

No. I'm wondering why you keep changing the example.

P1. Sometimes we believe that a broken clock is working.

The propositional content here is "a broken clock is working"; the bit after "that".

This is not an example of a belief that does not have a propositional content. It is an example of a belief that we can have even though we would not agree to the propositional content at the time. This belief, when put into propositional terms, is not something that we would assent to at the time.

That seems to me to cause a problem for the current belief attribution practices...

Disquotation:If an agent A sincerely, reflectively, and competently accepts a sentence s (under circumstances properly related to a context c), then A believes, at the time of c, what s expresses in c.