Banno

That's a disgusting post, Apo. Deliberately offensive. I hadn't thought you so desperate.

Note the inclusion of the straw word "utterly"? More intelectual dishonesty. Choose any point you like as the origin, choose any units you like. They ...

I've been looking forward to your reply. I could accept abduction as creating hypotheses. But if so, i don't see any advantage in using the term abduc...

I am not your student. I am a mere mosquito. Bzzz bzzz.

Sure, the measurement is a construct. We can agree on that. The issue is that for your Pragmatism there is only the measurement. Hence for you height ...

Don't make the mistake of thinking my replies are for you. I doubt you could change your mind. No, they are there merely to point out to others the in...

Yep. It implies that induction is invalid.

There comes a point at which folk ought stop talking and do something. The USA reached that point on gun control years ago. There comes a point where ...

In the sense that Uluru has a certain height, regardless of our measuring it. But that your Pragmatism cannot admit this; and so is fraught with anti-...

Yes, Sir! X-) Enjoy your lunch. I can't decide between poached eggs or some Thai chicken and tofu soup for breakfast. But I am going to make a zucchin...

You mean like the way I keep going on about "Form of Life"?

Did you just make a joke?

OK, Apo - is there anything you would like to put forward as a point of agreement?

Rhetorical strategies - you overuse this one, the pretence that you have already answered the question when you haven't.

Because that's an invalid inference. Yeah. Somehow you think this not a contradiction.

Indeed; eventually one realises their is something wrong with one's interlocutor. At that stage one walks away, laughing or crying. It's bullshit, Tho...

Pretending that the issue is not peculiar to the US is disingenuous. Mad bastards. Time to love your kids more than your guns.

@"apokrisis" So where are we with the debate? We had agreed that induction was (deductively) invalid. You didn't see that as an issue. We agreed that ...

A neat sift. As if form of life had only one meaning. Directing us away from the debate.

Bullshit. In the philosophical sense.

Ah, It was gratuitous.

I don't have a problem with ascribing intent to animals. I do not think we can ascribe intent to evolution.

I think, rather, the colonists already knew what a swan is, in virtue of being competent speakers of English, and hence without regard for the writing...

Philosophical Investigations, p.223.

Bed time. No doubt Apo will be along soon to tell us all how Peirce thought of it first and explained it in terms of the semiotic grounds that beliefs...

On the grounds that they do not understand propositions. So what is involved in understanding a proposition? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY...

SO would you explicitly rule out non-human belief?

I can see advantages in making the definition explicit. The aim of this thread, for me, is not so much to set out a true and faithful definition - the...

(My emphasis) But hang on - can't one believe something that is indeed true? I believe this sentence is in English. So believing is something the mind...

So show me how to proceed. I know humans have beliefs. It's not an unreasonable place to start.

Belief tends to arise in threads hereabouts. I'm curious.

Good point. Often but not always? Perhaps we should say that the individual judges the proposition to be true?

We should add the obvious: To believe something is to hold it to be true.

To sort belief out from other propositional attitudes.

Glad to hear someone has some sense.

So we would have that A belief is a relation between an individual and a proposition. The individual must understand the meaning of the proposition in...

What about: In order to count as a belief, the believer must know what the proposition means. It does not seem too unreasonable to suppose that belief...

So having a belief requires language, and for the belief to be explainable. Adding this allows one to keep the intuition that thermostats do not have ...

Well, if thermostats have beliefs then there is no problem saying that cats, horses, mosquitos and viruses have beliefs.

More generally, is a belief somehow represented in the mind? That raises the obvious question of what form that representation might take.

Hm. It seems your view might be contrasted with PO-MO's Is there a place or thing in the thermostat that we could call the belief that it is cold?

Would you be comfortable with saying that the thermostat believed it was cold, so it turned on the heater? Moreover, where is that belief?

So does John contain a proposition? Or does he have an attitude towards that proposition?

A proposition.

So beliefs are some of those things that are in the mind. Being in the mind does not however mean that it i something we are thinking about - hence yo...

But this is a thread about belief, not facts. I'm not suggesting that facts reside in minds. John can believe things that are not facts. Can a thermom...

So does (a) have to be human?

So we don't wish to say that the thermostat believes it is cold? In the propositional attitude relation from the OP, the relation of belief does not a...

What do you think?

if so the question becomes - what has been lost? Suggestions?