creativesoul

"Belief and language go together" doesn't follow from "Creatures with the ability to think about their own thought and belief - and those without - ar...

I have long since agreed that a creature can have beliefs that they do not know how to describe. You want to call that "ineffable", be my guest. You w...

Banno seems to be pointing out that our usage of "belief" helps explain being mistaken. I would agree. I would argue against the claim that beliefs ar...

Well Banno. I've offered you three separate replies to that already(the error approach). I'd like for you to reply.

I'm thinking that this dubiously presupposes that imagination is possible without physiological sensory perception. Imagination requires physiological...

Well, no. The incoherence is a consequence of the framework being used. I can talk about stuff without issue, until I attempt to compare that with som...

You see Hanover, on my view there is no clear distinction to be drawn and maintained between language and some phenomenal states after language acquis...

I know that this was directed at Banno, however this is the fatal flaw of Kant being put on display... but with a twist of wording. Earlier you claime...

What is there to experience(aside from confusion resulting from not knowing how to put one's thought into satisfactory words) that is ineffable?

I am at a place where I would like for you to clearly set out the distinction, particularly seeing how it is your expression that has lead us to where...

If one cannot talk about their experience, then they do not know how to talk about it. Some music makes me feel good. I like it. Isn't that all one ne...

Well, I reject the noumena/phenomena distinction dues to it's untenability. I could argue for that, but I suspect you've seen such arguments before. S...

See, Hanover, I cannot make sense of this at all. Your position and my own are similar in that we both claim a distinction between monikers for mental...

What underwrites our different positions is that I draw a distinction between notions of "belief", "falsehood", and "truth" and what they're taking ac...

It's a fine analysis of reports/accounts of belief. These are not equivalent to belief. A report/account of belief is about belief. The game of correc...

Perfect Banno. The difference between our accounts is clear. That doesn't follow, but I suspect you know that already. It's a matter of existential de...

Well, seeing how thought and belief formation is an ongoing process, there's always something more to speak about. That's another matter altogether. W...

Belief presupposes truth.

If all our belief were true, there would be no need to discriminate between true/false belief. But... not all our belief is true. Creatures with the a...

It also varies from itself. If it is so unique that you cannot speak of it, then it is only because you've yet to find the words for doing so. Look to...

We're in agreement on that Sam. Well, aside from the fact that you've implied that there is only one concept of "belief". I just wanted to avoid falli...

If we grant the adequacy of that criterion for belief, we still face a difficulty distinguishing between a creature that is simply responding to it's ...

Physiological sensory perception. Spatio-temporal distinction. Something to become significant/symbolized. Something to become sign/symbol. An agent w...

People in some circles talk of something being "refined"... We have refined palates and other 'tastes'(personal preferences). In order to qualify as s...

I know it's awfully tempting to say that knowing how to use the word "belief" shows that one knows what belief is, but that's just asinine... There's ...

We're getting into what could be interesting territory... What is the criterion, minimally, that counts as belief? Are there a set of necessary and su...

The cat's belief, strictly speaking in terms of it's content, are the correlations drawn between the sound and getting treats. I would err on the side...

Seems that Manafort's a tough nut to crack... A mark of a true team player if he suffers for the cause instead of turning states' evidence. Then again...

My cat hears certain rustling of certain plastics, and she comes... She is clearly expecting to be given treats. I'm claiming that that expectation is...

Expectation is belief-based though, wouldn't you agree?

The funny thing is that I'm not at all comfortable with that term either... I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy... For now, it's as close as I...

I still love ya Sapientia... :heart:

Yeah. I can see how the term "holding" could be problematic. However, it means nothing more and nothing less than the creature has formed a belief by ...

John believes that "The cat is on the mat" is a true statement. He holds this belief about the cat's whereabouts as a result of looking at the facts(t...

Actually, this doesn't strike me as wrong. In fact, you're saying much the same thing as myself. The difference is that you hold that not all believin...

Well, I need not argue anymore about the notion of "object of belief" adding nothing but unnecessary confusion. That much is clear enough...

I'm not missing it, Janus. I'm rejecting it. If we say that having a belief requires formulating it and understanding it, then we automatically set ou...

I didn't misinterpret. That's what you've done. Set it out... What is John's belief? What is the object of John's belief? What is the state of affairs...

Speaking of equivocation... Those seven terms have been called "John's belief", "not John's belief", "what John believes", "the object of belief", "th...

:yikes:

So, let me see if I have this account of yours right. There are a few incomplete sentences, and I'm trying to be charitable. On the one hand you say t...

I think you mean conflation... Equivocation is when different senses of the same term are being used by the same author in the same argument/account. ...

I agree. One can say whatever one wishes to say. However... In order to know what we're talking about when we say that belief is not X, we must know w...

John believes X. X is not John's belief. That is self-contradictory. Nonsense. Do you see it otherwise? If so, the burden is yours. Please reconcile.

Just did.

Again, there are two separate issues at hand... First, are you willing to say that John believes something that is not his belief?

Okay Sapientia... I want to clear this up, and it looks promising form here. You down?

I quoted you... who quoted me... I figured that because your analogy immediately followed, that that is what it was supposed to apply to...

You ask me to explain myself. I do. Then you complain about it and imply that I'm not addressing what you're saying??? Answer the question.

I prefer you answer that very simple question. Honestly, I do not follow your analogy...