creativesoul

On the one hand stated that all thought is unspoken, while on the other called thinking in musical terms "non-linguistic" thought... He's said enough.

If "true" means that a proposition appears in the world, there is something terribly wrong with the framework.

The barn facade is the same problem. Accounting malpractices. The belief is that the facade is a barn. Another barn or sheep actually being present so...

I don't see the similarity.

Smith is justified in believing that Jones owns a Ford. We'll grant Gettier there as well. However, Smith could not know that Brown was in Barcelona b...

An illusion is of something that is not... Much ado about nothing. Where there is no consciousness there can be no illusion thereof. If all consciousn...

Thought/belief begins simply in it's constitution and grows in it's complexity. All thought/belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between dif...

Whether or not Banno's remarks are irrelevant nonsense is neither established nor determined by your belief about them. I think Banno was spot on in m...

That criticism wasn't nonsense. It was not understood by you, apparently. It was spot on though, given the context.

The problem, I suspect, is the framework you work from. My suspicion is that there are inadequate criteria at work. Settle it for me. Thought, speech,...

I see nothing philosophically interesting there to talk about. Looks like an exercise in arguing semantics.

I find this quite problematic, my friend... Statements are statements of thought/belief.

Non linguistic thought/belief are correlations drawn by a language-less creature.

So, you're saying that non linguistic thought is any thought that does not involve language, and you cannot offer an example of that. That would expla...

So, what counts as not involving language? :brow:

All unspoken ones then?

Abandoning universal rights to privacy and free speech requires first granting them... The US cannot abandon them for it has never granted them.

What exactly are you calling "nonlinguistic thought"? :brow: Looks like a conflation between an account and what's being taken into account. Care to o...

Not interested. Are there any other frameworks you'd like to compare/contrast? What are we up to now? How many different times have you changed your t...

All things thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered are relative in a specific sense. Meaning is relative.

If you cannot tell the difference between existence and an existent, then there's not much I can do here.

Think/believe what you like. Gratuitous assertions are inadequate on my view. I've been defending everything I've said without subsequent valid object...

No. It is quite the reverse. All predication is correlation. Not all correlation is predication.

Thinking that something is directly perceptible requires thinking in those terms. Those terms require already having picked something out to think abo...

If the entire history of language use including the term "existence" is not enough to prove that we name and think of things long before thinking abou...

There is no such thing as non linguistic predication... I'm seriously re-thinking how to parse that bit. "All correlation presupposes it's own content...

Nicely put.

Stuff exists prior to thinking about it. That's not the same as saying that existence can be in the mind of a non-linguistic creature. Existence is no...

Wrong question. It's not a matter of why. It's a matter of how we come to think in terms of existence.

The existent is not existence.

You cannot show that. Existence is attributed to things already named. First and foremost. Existence is thought about by virtue of using descriptive p...

I do not appreciate the misquote.

Sever the term "tree" from everything and we're left with the term while the tree no longer remains. Sever the tree from everything, and we're left wi...

The question is about the content of non-linguistic thought/belief. In particular some folk seem to wonder whether or not a non-linguistic creature is...

That's a common belief. It's false. No time now... Later.

Prelinguistic creatures do not think of "trees". Rather, they draw a correlation between trees and other things. "Trees" is a word. Trees are not. The...

I'll add a bit. Perhaps it will help. Non linguistic animals cannot talk about thought/belief. Thus, they cannot think about thought/belief. Since ent...

...

:brow: Yeah. I'm done here.

"Something has existence" is not "Something exists". The former uses the term "existence" as a predicate. The latter does not. Kant argues against the...

All philosophy consists of thought/belief. Seems to me that getting that right is imperative.

Do you really not understand the problem here? Compare the first question to the last phrase...

That's not what was said. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that non linguistic animals can entertain thought/belief that they cannot have. Entertai...

So, if this is true then there is no difference between having the same thought on more than one occasion, and having the same thought whenever one wi...

The difficulty you find with my recent meanderings are valid but have nothing to do with your own self-contradiction/incoherence. Kant argued against ...

The justification, it seems, is knowing the names of things. This is called "a hand". This is a picture of a person called "N". Witt wouldn't agree th...

:brow: And yet you've been also talking in terms of a thing's existence, and that is exactly what Kant was arguing against.

And this... What am I to make of it? Animals can entertain thoughts that they cannot hold. :yikes: I'll stick with what I've got. Although, your criti...

And more... What counts as thought/belief on your view?

I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding how someone can bring past thought/belief back in mind - whenever they wish - without thinking about p...