creativesoul

I know human thought goes beyond 'mere' correlations. Not all correlations are 'mere'. Most are quite complex...

Sigh. Offer an example and I'll gladly deconstruct it for you. I've seen no definition which claims what you've stated...

There's something to be said about our ability to become aware of that which is not existentially contingent upon our awareness of it. Correspondence ...

I didn't say that. I said that all thought/belief consists in/of mental correlations drawn 'between' 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and...

Every instance when meaning is first attributed. What follows is a bit more self-contradiction on your part. You asked me how not taking an account of...

I wouldn't say "ants and snakes think like humans." I would say that all thought/belief consists entirely in/of mental correlations drawn between 'obj...

I would concur, aside from the bit in parenthesis. Again, I would concur. Here's where the issue lies, as far as I can surmise. On my view, contemplat...

Not all correspondence(truth) is dependent upon meaning. That was the claim. I stand by it. I also stand by the agreement that meaning is required for...

That doesn't make much sense to me sand. What is contemplation and conception if not mental correlation? They're typically more complex than simple co...

All thought/belief consists entirely in/of mental correlations drawn 'between' 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself(the creatu...

All statements of thought/belief consist in/of predication. All predication is correlation. Not all correlation is predication. All correlation is tho...

There's the rub, yes? We work from conflicting notions of what exactly counts as thought/belief. You're arguing by definitional fiat, it seems. It fol...

That argument was yours Meta. I actually clicked on your avatar and scrolled through your comments to find it. Anyone else could do the same, assuming...

Try this... Thought/belief is prior to language. Some pre-linguistic thought/belief is true. True thought/belief is existentially contingent upon trut...

I fear that you've begun to confuse the different conversations. Here is ours. Keeping it separate from the others is crucial... That is the original ...

I don't see how this helps our understanding.

Well put Fafner. All valid arguments are consistent(coherent). Thus, validity requires coherence.

Someone can say that "X" is true when it is not. Being called "true" does not make something so.

I am quite curious to see an example of a valid conclusion that is either inconsistent or incoherent. Likewise, I am also quite curious to see an exam...

I'm ok with that. Just trying to be as clear as possible. Let's go from there then... So, for our purposes here, a truth value is an assignment of "tr...

I'm a bit dumbfounded here Fafner. Logic has nothing to do with coherency? That is all logic concerns itself with. The rules of correct inference. Con...

In logic...

Talking about truth in terms of truth values is fine as long as it is done with quite a bit of discipline. Strictly speaking, truth value is a measure...

You're introducing all sorts of new terms... unnecessarily so. You're conflating being mistaken with being and/or becoming aware of that.

Fair enough. Let's revisit your argument as you've clarified... Truth value is not truth. Truth conditions are not truth. The conclusion introduces ne...

Indeed. The 'nature' of thought is a difficult topic. Any such notion would need to be able to effectively explain/exhaust all of the different senses...

I'm inclined to agree with the parts regarding what is lost when translating thought/belief into logic. Simply put, logic presupposes truth as corresp...

All A's are B. All B's require C. All A's require C. That is the general outline of argument here. It suffers in scope as a result of improper quantif...

As it pertains to the topic... Truth depends upon interpretation. Interpretation is subjective Truth is subjective That was one argument that I, and o...

What are you talking about? The debate between us was about existential dependence. You were asserting that meaning is existentially contingent(depend...

Bullshit Meta. You said that being judged as wrong is what makes something wrong. I didn't invoke the term, you did. I was talking about mistaken inte...

What's the difference between saying something is wrong and something being wrong? :-|

Rubbish. Being judged as wrong is being called "wrong". Something can be called "wrong", but that doesn't make it so. If what you say here were true, ...

What issue are you talking about?

Our knowledge of the same river includes not only which specific singular entity we're focusing our attention on, but also how it changes...

If there is no such thing as being the same, then the very notion of being not the same is rendered utterly meaningless. If all change makes being the...

Nope. As I said, it was the same river. Oh, pray tell... What does? This could be fun.

I have see no problem with taking change into consideration. The problem arises when it's taken too far. For instance, it is not a matter of practical...

This coming from one who incessantly (mis)attributes meaning to my words. If the above is true, then in order for you to be mistaken, it would require...

If it is the case that the constant state of flux causes one to believe that they cannot step into the same river twice, then that person cannot talk ...

The beauty is, of course, that when it comes to whether or not some statement is true, the naysayers' belief isn't necessary. I would think a scientis...

So one holds belief that contradicts established knowledge. What's the margin of error? :)

Interpretation is the attribution of meaning. One can mistakenly attribute meaning. Meta doesn't know the difference, for if s/he did s/he would be fo...

Science isn't the sort of thing that it makes much sense to say that one "believes any of it". What would count as believing science.

If one can be proven as having joined the Russian team that was being put together with the sole motive of doing whatever it takes to influence the Am...

That question remains unanswered. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C...

Indeed. Thoughts can be vague and fleeting. They can also be less vague and ever approaching clarity. It's the combinations that intrigue me. Knowing ...

Not the same thought. Different intensity different thought different expressions... Agree?

It is best to leave you with your (mis)understanding.

If you want to understand correspondence, from my 'viewpoint', I suggest that you think about the term "truth" quite a bit differently than you've dis...