What An Odd Claim

Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

Or (as like the block universe):

All events exist always.

(That is, they can't become, as from non-existence, thus they are ever.)

Don't see the similarity.

Events are what happened and/or is happening. What happened yesterday may or may not still be happening today.

So, I would not agree with the claim that all events exist always.

Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

In quantum entanglement, any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.

Apparently, such property has no definite value until you measure it.
It is the act of measuring itself that forces the property to adopt a value ("collapse").

Well, that is what they report back from weird corners in nuclear physics.

Einstein had complained about that. He said that quantum mechanics would lead to weird, paradoxical outcomes, and therefore, that there was something wrong with quantum mechanics. What happened later on, however, is that experiments managed to reproduce the weird outcomes that Einstein had complained about ...

Quoting alcontali

In quantum entanglement, any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.

Apparently, such property has no definite value until you measure it.

So, what exactly did not exist - in it's entirety - prior to the first report of it?

Quoting creativesoul

So, what exactly did not exist - in it's entirety - prior to the first report of it?

That what they will measure, does not exist, until they measure it.

Are you saying that sub atomic particles have no spatiotemporal location, spin, momentum, etc. prior to our measurement?

Today is tomorrow's yesterday... but if tomorrow never comes, how soon is now?

Reply to creativesoul This an answer to that question, not one related to particles.

The experience.

Reply to Coben

Hmmm...

Which experience?

Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

I like that much better. Seems odd. I'm willing to defend the assertion.

Any takers?

Fiction.

Facts are true even before we know them. The sun was a flaming ball of gas long before we discovered that fact.

But fiction comes into existence at the moment a human conceives it. Ahab became captain of the Pequod when Melville decreed it. Before Melville wrote the novel, there was no Pequod and there was no Ahab.

Perhaps we can refine your idea to: Truths about actual things were always true long before we discovered them. But truths about fictional things become true when someone says so.

Quoting fishfry

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

I like that much better. Seems odd. I'm willing to defend the assertion.

Any takers?
— creativesoul

Fiction...

...Ahab became captain of the Pequod when Melville decreed it. Before Melville wrote the novel, there was no Pequod and there was no Ahab.

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well. Prior to the report, Ahab and the Pequod was a collection of Melville's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

The report/novel does not shed light on that.

Reply to creativesoul Well, we could go for some kind of Platonism that the true good form exists out there somewhere like a well in a village and people come to the well with their buckets and take water from it which I would like to compare with what you call report.

In a way Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

but I think we need to keep in my mind that the report is about a specific arrangement of things which some might contend that didn't exist before.

Quoting creativesoul

Are you saying that sub atomic particles have no spatiotemporal location, spin, momentum, etc. prior to our measurement?

It is not clear. There are different interpretations possible for the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, one of which is that pre-measurement values are really confused and indeterminate. Einstein did not like this interpretation a bit. But then again, if this interpretation turns out to be resilient to falsification by experimental testing, then subatomic reality is simply to be considered confused.

Reply to creativesoul I find it very strange that you obsess over the same oddly worded truisms. Yes, stuff existed before people first started talking about stuff. Perhaps it's time you moved on.

Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

The exception would be the report itself. That can't exist prior to the report. It would work for everything else, I suppose, since in order to make a report about something, it has to exist, you have to observe it/become aware of it, formulate the report, etc.

Reply to creativesoul

Excellent post, subscribed!!!

Reply to creativesoul Reply to PoeticUniverse

I'm sure I'm missing something because it can't be this easy. To re-word what Poetic said: all events must have a cause.

Let's assume there's a high probability that that's true. Then wouldn't that also assume that energy created is never lost?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting creativesoul

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well. Prior to the report, Ahab and the Pequod was a collection of Melville's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Wait, what? Did Ahab and the Pequod exist before Melville existed?

Of course it's an interesting fact that Moby Dick is based on a true story. The whaling ship Essex was attacked and sunk by a whale. But of course all fiction is based on or inspired by some aspect of reality. That doesn't mean the characters of the novel existed before the author conceived of them.

Is there a point in time, in your opinion, in which Ahab did not exist? Or perhaps you mean to regard him as an archetype? The charismatic fanatic luring others to their doom? That's an eternal theme in human affairs.

But I'm not sure how to take your remark literally. The sun has always been a flaming ball of ga; but Ahab has not always been the captain of the Pequod. That's the thesis I am putting forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_(whaleship)

Quoting fishfry

the novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well. Prior to the report, Ahab and the Pequod was a collection of Melville's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.
— creativesoul

Wait, what? Did Ahab and the Pequod exist before Melville existed?

Not on my view. Melville's thought, belief, and ideas cannot exist prior to Melville.

Of course it's an interesting fact that Moby Dick is based on a true story. The whaling ship Essex was attacked and sunk by a whale. But of course all fiction is based on or inspired by some aspect of reality. That doesn't mean the characters of the novel existed before the author conceived of them.

Agreed.

Is there a point in time, in your opinion, in which Ahab did not exist? Or perhaps you mean to regard him as an archetype? The charismatic fanatic luring others to their doom? That's an eternal theme in human affairs.

There is a time before Ahab. Prior to Melville's thought, belief, and ideas.

But I'm not sure how to take your remark literally. The sun has always been a flaming ball of ga; but Ahab has not always been the captain of the Pequod. That's the thesis I am putting forth.

He's been the captain ever since Melville made him so.

Quoting fishfry

Perhaps we can refine your idea to: Truths about actual things were always true long before we discovered them. But truths about fictional things become true...

I don't call true statements or true propositions "truths".

Reply to tim wood

Spot on.

Reply to Terrapin Station

Spot on.

Quoting creativesoul

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it.

:rofl:

It's not possible for anyone to have an entire novel of that size in their head! Your title is spot on.

(And no, a rough outline or collection of ideas is not an entire novel).

:grin:
Reply to creativesoul
"Man is the measure of all things" Protagoras
"All we call observation is verbal" Maturana
"Language speaks the Man" Heidegger ( not vice versa !)

Have fun.

Quoting S

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it.
— creativesoul

:rofl:

It's not possible for anyone to have an entire novel of that size in their head! Your title is spot on.

(And no, a rough outline or collection of ideas is not an entire novel).

Hold on. The novel existed before the first REPORT of it. That is, if you consider a school report, or a critical analysis, or even a library index card as REPORT, then the statement can't be criticized. The book, whether in manuscript form or in printed form, existed before anyone could report it.

There is no contradiction here at all what I can see.Quoting alcontali

So, what exactly did not exist - in it's entirety - prior to the first report of it?
— creativesoul

That what they will measure, does not exist, until they measure it.

When they measure it, it exists. THEN they report it. Therefore the thing exists before it is reported.

The first level of all measurement is 'nominal' i.e. 'identifying and naming a thing' That necessarily involves directed focal interaction of an observer with a selected aspect of what is considered to be 'the world'. That is why physicists call 'things' - 'repetitive events'

Reply to S

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of Ahab...

Quoting fresco

The first level of all measurement is 'nominal' i.e. 'identifying and naming a thing' That necessarily involves directed focal interaction of an observer with a selected aspect of what is considered to be 'the world'. That is why physicists call 'things' - 'repetitive events'

So... this is a report after the measurement. Check.

Quoting creativesoul

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of Ahab.

Yes, but isn't Ahab an imaginary person? I think a novel can never report the thoughts and beliefs of an imaginary person... the novel reports how the author describes or makes known the thoughts and beliefs of an imaginary person.

Reply to god must be atheist

Sloppy writing on my part... I meant Melville's...

Imaginary people do not have thought/belief.

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

Quoting creativesoul

Imaginary people do not have thought/belief.

But they are reported that they have, by the author. "Jennifer thought the sky was bluer than on most other days." "Jennifer thought highly of George Bernard Shaw; she thought My Fair Lady was a fair interpretation of Pygmalion." Here, Jennifer is an imaginary woman, but her imaginary thoughts are reported by the author. She does not report them; she has them, as it is imagined by the writer and the reader.

Reply to god must be atheist

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report?

Reply to god must be atheist
Not a report 'after' if even the assignment of 'thinghood' is verbal.

Quoting god must be atheist

Hold on. The novel existed before the first REPORT of it. That is, if you consider a school report, or a critical analysis, or even a library index card as REPORT, then the statement can't be criticized. The book, whether in manuscript form or in printed form, existed before anyone could report it.

There is no contradiction here at all what I can see.

I suppose the statement is ambiguous enough to result in different answers. I was assuming that in this example, the "report" would be the novel itself. Otherwise it's just as obvious that, for example, the entire novel could exist before it's reported in the news.

Quoting creativesoul

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of [Melville]...

Yes, but that's irrelevant. It obviously didn't exist in it's entirety beforehand. An entire novel of that size consists of hundreds of pages, and it's not possible that the entire novel, which would include every single detail, existed in the form of ideas, thoughts, or beliefs, before he had written it all down. You're the one who used the words "in its entirety".

Quoting creativesoul

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

What you're attempting to do here is redundant. What you're doing here is once again pointlessly bringing to our attention another distinction of which we're already aware. It's very odd indeed that you appear to have made this your life's work. Here's a suggestion: wait until someone is stupid enough to say something like, "There's no difference between reports of things and what's being reported upon", and then what you're saying might actually be of relevance.

Quoting creativesoul

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well.

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough.

Quoting creativesoul

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter?

I'm going to drive a metaphysical wedge between music and dancing to music. They're not the same!

Reply to S But you have to hear a song in its entirety before you can dance to it.

Reply to jamalrob Yes, that which has that funky beat must exist in entirety before one can boogie woogie thereof.

Reply to S Well put.

Quoting jamalrob

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well.
— creativesoul

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough.

Sure. He could've shared that he was struggling with the ending.

Is there a difference between Moby Dick, Ahab, Pequod, and Melville's thought/belief? All three of the former are the latter, but not all Melville's thought/belief are Moby Dick, Ahab, or the Pequod.

Quoting jamalrob

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.
— creativesoul

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter?

I don't typically argue against 'isms'...

A thing's constitution can change over time. "In it's entirety" is helpful to understand existential dependency.

Quoting creativesoul

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report?

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her.

Quoting fresco

Not a report 'after' if even the assignment of 'thinghood' is verbal.

As god is my witness, I don't know what you are talking about. "After" what? Assignment of Thinghood? What the heck is a thinghood? Especially considering that you put it in quotation marks, which means that you don't really mean thinghood, but rather a different form of it.

I am sorry, I can't imagine what you are talking about, if you talk about a different form of something I don't knwo what you mean by.

'Assignment of thinghood' refers to the human activity of 'naming' which is the first level,of any measurement. A recent example might be the concept of 'global warming' which prior to a few years ago did not 'exist' in the sense of being a recognizable 'significant event' in human consciousness.

Quoting god must be atheist

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her.

Indeed.

Quoting fresco

'Assignment of thinghood' refers to the human activity of 'naming' which is the first level,of any measurement. A recent example might be the concept of 'global warming' which prior to a few years ago did not 'exist' in the sense of being a recognizable 'significant event' in human consciousness.

Not all naming is the assignment of thinghood. Many names were give,n taken, and extensively used long before any notion of 'assignment of thinghood'. Long before those terms were used first together as a name(the irony), we used names.

Quoting S

An entire novel of that size consists of hundreds of pages, and it's not possible that the entire novel, which would include every single detail, existed in the form of ideas, thoughts, or beliefs, before he had written it all down. You're the one who used the words "in its entirety".

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written.

Naming consists of elemental constituents. Names. Things being named. Things to draw a correlation between the two.

What happens when there is no elemental constitutive difference between the name and the thing being named?

Products of our own imagination.

Gender?

Is gender to us as Ahab is to Melville?

Reply to creativesoul Give some examples ?

What's the matter with the ones we have?

Is appropriateness to us as Ahab is to Melville?

Is a tree?

Could Melville have gotten Ahab wrong?

Howzat?

:brow:

Can we get appropriateness wrong?

What determines getting it right(assuming one has gotten it wrong)? A change of one's mind.

What determines getting a tree wrong?

What determines getting it right(again, assuming one has gotten it wrong)? A change of one's mind.

The difference, of course, is that getting a tree wrong is to get something wrong that existed in it's entirety prior to our first naming it.

But wait...

There was also a standard of appropriateness prior to our first naming it. Not as one that we knew about, but rather as one that operated unbeknownst to our talking about it. Unspoken. Not yet named. Not yet described. Like the first ideas of Ahab in Melville's mind(at the time), doing certain things during certain times and in certain situations was an evolving cognitive endeavor. Unlike Ahab now... it remains so. Like Ahab has always been, it has now also become metacognitive.

Quoting creativesoul

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written.

So it's just wordplay then. We're both right. How disappointingly trivial.

Reply to S

Not sure what it is yet...

Doesn't seem to work very well for some things... :wink:

Reply to creativesoul It plays on the meaning of "the entire novel" to give a different answer than what would usually be expected. So it's wordplay. The usual answer would be that the novel didn't exist in its entirety when it was only half complete.

Half complete novels exist in their entirety.

"In it's entirety" is the key phrase. Being amenable to evolutionary progression, that's a moving target. It's meant to focus upon basic elemental constituency... what things consist of.

Call it what you like.

Quoting creativesoul

Half complete novels exist in their entirety.

What's the point of even saying that, though? Given what you mean, who is disagreeing with you? Yes, a half complete novel exists in its entirety as a half complete novel, not as an entire, fully complete novel.

Anyone can come up with ambiguous statements and cause an argument over them in light of the different answers.

Quoting jamalrob

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.
— creativesoul

Why does it matter?

It matters to be able to take proper account of things in terms of their basic/rudimentary elemental constituency. That, in turn, enables an account of the evolutionary progression of that particular thing. The content of all reports shares a basic set of elementary constituents. They consist of the same things. Language use is one. Language is required to report upon thought/belief. If thought/belief begins simply and grows/evolves in it's complexity, then our account must satisfy this:It must be amenable to evolutionary progression.

Thought/belief(insert any mental ongoings of your choosing) is on the left, and a report(the first) thereof is on the right. What's on the right requires rather complex common language replete with names for mental ongoings. What's on the left does not always. Whatever the left is existentially dependent upon, so too is the right, but not always the other way around.

What does the thought/belief of a creature that has never spoken about it consist of?

Can't be common language. Propositions are existentially dependent upon predication. Predication... language. Can't be propositional content either.

Quoting creativesoul

What does the thought/belief of a creature that has never spoken about it consist of?

I’m going with “understanding”. Just a guess.

I’d rather be informed of what it consists of, to tell the truth.

Quoting creativesoul

He's been the captain ever since Melville made him so.

We're entirely in agreement. My mistake if I thought otherwise.

Reply to fishfry

No worries. It seemed that way to me as well. This time!

:wink:

Quoting Mww

I’m going with “understanding”. Just a guess.

I’d rather be informed of what it consists of, to tell the truth.

There we go.

Pardon me for having a habit - and a bad one at that - of mistakenly assuming that everyone else has as good a grasp upon my own linguistic framework/conceptual scheme as I do.

"Understanding" doesn't help here as best I can tell. I mean, on my view all understanding consists of thought/belief. In addition, there's a bit of common sense nuance concerning it. Understanding cannot be false, so... there's that.

In short, to directly answer the question...

All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things. With a non linguistic creature all of those things are directly perceptible.

Quoting creativesoul

All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things.

Ok, but.....what things?

Quoting creativesoul

With a non linguistic creature all of those things are directly perceptible.

So “what things” are things directly perceptible. Ok.

Does that mean non-linguistic creatures can’t remember things?

Moved the following discussion into this thread...

Quoting Mww

Imagine a language-less creature that has just touched fire for the first time. (...) All that is needed is a creature capable of drawing correlations between their own behaviour(the touching) and the pain that immediately ensued.
— creativesoul

For the language-less creature, it is sufficient to say his correlations are given from instinct.

It's usually not a good sign when someone asks another to elaborate upon another's thought/belief system(worldview) and then immediately refuses to accept the terms. Prior to enabling themselves to follow a line of thought that results from several key notions therein, such a person makes it literally impossible for themselves to follow along.

To answer the question...

I reject the proposition/statement:"Language-less creatures draw correlations that are given from instinct" on the following grounds...

1.Being given presupposes a giver. Unnecessarily multiplying entities is unacceptable on my view.

2. Correlations are not given to the non linguistic thinking/believing creature. To quite the contrary correlations between different things are drawn by the creature - often for the very first time. We can watch that happen. We can set the stage. We are not giving them the correlations. They draw them themselves. We cannot literally watch it happen because we cannot physically and/or literally get into the mind of another. That's of no relevant/germane/applicable negative consequence for we need not be able to.

Sometimes we can know beyond any and all reasonable doubt that another creature has drawn correlations between different things. We can often know exactly what things. Pavlov's dog drew a correlation between the bell and being fed. His involuntary tell was excessive salivation.

The earlier fire example...


Quoting Mww

Is it not an error of equivocation, to suggest that just because a language-less creature, e.g., preserves his well-being instinctively, he is drawing correlations?

What difference does that make? It would not be an error I've made. I've certainly made no such suggestion. In fact, you're the one invoking "instinct" here and then using it as an alternative explanation and suggesting an equivocation fallacy?

Drawing correlations between different things begins happening long before the creature becomes aware of their own mental ongoings. Correlations begin as simply as possible, and grow in complexity thereafter.

At the moment of a creature's biological conception, there is no thought/belief(correlation).




Quoting Mww

Isn’t it rather the case we think he must be making correlations because correlation is the only way humans can think anything at all? Including, what it’s like to be a language-less creature merely from his observable reactions.

Having a good grasp upon human thought/belief is the best possible starting point.

I would not dare claim to know what it's like to be a language less creature. I do not know what it's like to be an apple pie. I can clearly set out the basic elemental constituents of both language-less thought/belief and apple pie nonetheless.

Quoting Mww

What we're reporting upon(the thought/belief of a language-less creature) is not existentially dependent upon language. Our report most certainly is.
— creativesoul

Any report of ours is existentially dependent on language. That does not grant us authority to report on the thought/belief of language-less creatures...

Agreed.

On your view, what constitutes sufficient/adequate ground for us to acquire knowledge regarding the thought/belief content of language-less creatures?

Quoting Mww

All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things.
— creativesoul

Ok, but.....what things?

Depends upon the candidate under consideration. It's an exhaustive outline not a specific example. That happens when you work from universal criterion. You end up with an outline.

Bells and being fed... touching fire and feeling pain...



Quoting Mww

With a non linguistic creature all of those things are directly perceptible.
— creativesoul

So “what things”...

Bells and being fed... touching fire and feeling pain...

Does that mean non-linguistic creatures can’t remember things?

I wouldn't say that much. Remembering is drawing correlations...

[quote="Mww;336590" ]Point:
There are no false statements in a sound syllogism. It is impossible to falsify a true statement.
— creativesoul

Counterpoint:
Except when the statement was never true in the first place, re: in the case of the time-evolved knowledge that conditions the premises.[/quote]

That's not an exception. It was never a sound syllogism in the first place. The point was that one candidate is verifiable and the other is not. I'm choosing the former, and you're choosing the latter...






Quoting Mww

Falsification of valid syllogisms is possible merely by not holding with the conditions in the premises, yes.

Yes? Not what I said. Falsification of all valid syllogisms happens the very same way... we check to see if what's said corresponds to what's happened and/or is happening.

Quoting creativesoul

It's usually not a good sign.....

Hey....you told me to imagine, I did, and the product of the imagining was sufficiently explained by instinct.

Quoting creativesoul

...immediately refuses to accept the terms.....

There haven’t yet been any terms to refuse. Only general conditions (thought/belief is drawing correlations....), which I have accepted as good groundwork.
———————

Quoting creativesoul

I reject the proposition/statement:"Language-less creatures draw correlations that are given from instinct" on the following grounds...

You:
1. Being given presupposes a giver. Unnecessarily multiplying entities is unacceptable on my view.
2. Correlations are not given to the non linguistic thinking/believing creature.....

Me:
1. Yes, but being given from merely presupposes a source, which is not necessarily an external entity, per se, but could just be an internal constituent of the thought/belief process.
2. No, not so much given to, agreed, which seems to imply some outside origin, but rather.....as you say, correlations between different things are drawn by the creature. Again, the subtle difference between my given from and your changing it to given to.

Nevertheless, your rejection of instinct is all fine and dandy.....it is your theory after all....... but as yet you haven’t replaced it with anything. You may have been better served by agreeing instinct is indeed sufficient, but something else is necessary, in keeping with the hypotheses of your thought/belief theory.
———————

Quoting creativesoul

Is it not an error of equivocation, to suggest that just because a language-less creature, e.g., preserves his well-being instinctively, he is drawing correlations?
— Mww

What difference does that make? It would not be an error I've made.......

All I’m saying is that it would be an error of equivocation, if instinct is entirely sufficient to explain our observations of action/reaction in language-less creatures. It would not be such an error, if the theory of thought/belief in language-less creatures is demonstrated as being predicated necessarily on correlations they actually make, and make in some manner that cannot at all be mere instinct.

................Drawing correlations between different things begins happening long before the creature becomes aware of their own mental ongoings.

Ironically enough......so does instinct. Just sayin’.

By the way, isn’t saying “mental ongoings” with respect to language-less creatures, if not an error of equivocation, nonetheless an anthropomorphism, of a minor sort? Humans have brains and any human knows he has mental ongoings, so does it follow necessarily that any creature with a brain has mental ongoings?

Don’t worry, not important, really. There are behaviors in language-less creatures that would be quite difficult, and somewhat unreasonable I suppose, to attribute to instinct alone.
————————

Quoting creativesoul

I would not dare claim to know what it's like to be a language less creature. (...) I can clearly set out the basic elemental constituents of both language-less thought/belief and apple pie nonetheless.

Pies don’t do anything, dogs do stuff.

But go ahead and list those elemental constituents. I would think the creature list should be a whole lot longer than the pie list, right?

Quoting creativesoul

On your view, what constitutes sufficient/adequate ground for us to acquire knowledge regarding the thought/belief content of language-less creatures?

If all thought/belief is, is the correlation between perceptible things, then all I need to know language-less creatures possess thought/belief, is to observe action/reaction in one.

But the sufficient ground to acquire knowledge of a language-less creature’s though/belief content, is altogether impossible for me, for the simple reason that I have no access to it. In effect, I would have to be one, in order to know what it’s like to operate as one. Hell, I don’t even know the content of your thought/belief, other than it possibly resembles mine, and we are the same kind of creature. To suppose there is sufficient ground to acquire knowledge of the internal mental ongoings of a creature diametrically opposite to me, is......well......unintelligible.

This is why I don’t fancy talking about language-less creatures, with respect to mental ongoings in general, and the possibility of thought/belief as its ends, in particular. We generate all kinds of theories concerning our own thought/belief system, but at least we’re in the same reference frame as the theory, rather than theorizing about a reference frame of which we can have no part.

If you brought up language -less creature’s thought/belief merely to make a point about something else, please tell me what that point is.

Quoting creativesoul

That's not an exception. It was never a sound syllogism in the first place.

Oh, but it was certainly sound to all those considering it. It would have been impossible for them to think it wasn’t. In its time, it was the rule; in a later time it is the exception.

But I know what you mean; all truly sound syllogisms are not time-dependent. But any sound syllogism not time dependent, is also not empirical.

All I’m saying is that to consider sound logic we must at the same time consider what truth really is.

Glory be to all rabbit holes!!!!!

I've no interest in continuing with you Reply to Mww . We're way too far apart, and you do not seem to be capable of accurately reporting upon what I have claimed. So... continued misunderstanding/misinterpretation/misattribution of meaning is guaranteed.

For someone who fancies themselves as understanding Kant, it's quite odd to me than you seem to have so much trouble with the simple task of accurately reporting upon what another says.

Reply to fishfry I would disagree and say that any fiction is a compilation of prior reality, mixed up into something which only appears novel.

Quoting creativesoul

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them.

I would just reword it a little to;
Anything in existence is real in it's entirely, regardless of anyone/thing seeing or knowing about it.

Quoting Razorback kitten

?fishfry I would disagree and say that any fiction is a compilation of prior reality, mixed up into something which only appears novel.

Yes of course. Moby Dick is based on the true story of the Essex, a whaling ship sunk by a whale. All fiction is based on reality. Even science fiction always has recognizable themes from our own lives.

That doesn't mean that Captain Ahab existed a moment before Melville conceived and wrote him into existence.

I apologize if I've forgotten exactly what point we were making. Perhaps we're in agreement on something of importance. Fictional entities are interesting to me because I like the idea of mathematical fictionalism. Math is fiction exactly like Moby Dick is. And like Moby Dick, math is based on reality; but it is not itself reality. Math, like a novel, has value because it's interesting and enjoyable and because it gives us insight into life. It need not be literally true to have value. That's a good way to look at math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_(whaleship)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

Reply to fishfry
I say Captain Ahab was already there before he was thought into existence. For the same reason I can invent a random word at will, like fragalagadingdong and although it's never been heard in its entirety before, all the component parts were there, which I jumbled up together. The first words spoken by humans were a bridge between sounds they could already make and some action or object of reference.

Free will or original thought are illusions. I feel like I have free will but logically I know that cannot be. If I invent something new, which looks and seems new to everyone, it is only as a response to the need for said things invention to begin with.

Quoting Razorback kitten

...original thought are illusions.

Wrong and worthy of it's own thread.

Reply to creativesoul
Right and not worth arguing about

Quoting Razorback kitten

I say Captain Ahab was already there before he was thought into existence. For the same reason I can invent a random word at will, like fragalagadingdong and although it's never been heard in its entirety before, all the component parts were there, which I jumbled up together. The first words spoken by humans were a bridge between sounds they could already make and some action or object of reference.

Free will or original thought are illusions. I feel like I have free will but logically I know that cannot be. If I invent something new, which looks and seems new to everyone, it is only as a response to the need for said things invention to begin with.

Well ok. I understand. We can say for example that, if we agree on an alphabet of symbols, such as the English alphabet, in some sense every possible finite-length string already exists. From a, aa, aaa, ... to z, zz, zzz... The conceptual or abstract space of all possible finite-length strings of letters and punctuation marks already exists. Just as the sculptor extracts the statue that was already in the stone; the novelist simply selects one long finite string out of all the ones that could possibly exist.

You COULD look at it this way, if you chose to deny human creativity. And as you say that free will and original thought are illusions, I see that I'm reading you correctly.

I disagree, but I can't justify it! For all I know you're depressingly correct.

But wait. Can't we accept your point yet save creativity? Out of ALL the possible configurations present within the stone, the sculptor chooses one. Out of all the possible finite strings of symbols, the novelist chooses one finite string that tells a story about a tragic whaling expedition.

So even if we accept that every possibility is potential; doesn't it still take an act of human creativity to select one of those potentials and make it actual?

And when we do creative work, we discover that it's damned difficult to turn those potentials to actuals. We have a great idea for an essay or article in our minds but the thing doesn't write itself, we must struggle. The mathematician knows what's true but struggles for years with the proof. In theory the proof was already inherent in the axioms; but in practice, only the long struggle brings it out.

It's the struggle of the artist in bringing the potential into the actual that matters. So I still believe in creativity.

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.

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).

Novelty. Creativity. Do they really exist? Yes, but not if you are the person in which it came. You can't create with more than you have to create with and you can't be novel without already having the trivial building blocks in place to start with. It looks novel and creative to everyone else purely because they were missing the path of thought which took the author there. I don't think this is a depressing position at all. It just means that any one person is not responsible for any genius they're perceived to create on their own. Shakespeare would of been just another cave man if he was born 100 thousand years ago. Maybe the smartest and most adventurous of them but a primitive human. Just look what happens when a child gets raised by animals. They only develope as far as the intelligence around them allows.

Reply to Razorback kitten

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.

Thought begins as simply as possible and grows in it's complexity. Knowledge is accrued. We all stand upon the shoulders of all the greats before us. Sometimes we still draw novel correlations between the things. To deny novel thought is to say that there had never been the first one.