Ain't gonna change?

[Furrowed Brow]

From Evidence in Favor of Christianity

I ain't gonna change what I believe

As an atheist I too am as certain as anything I can be certain of that I ain’t gonna change what I believe. Maybe I’ll posts some reasons later. So question:

• 1/ what beliefs do you hold regarding any god that are if you were honest not up for modification?
  2/ why ain’t you gonna change what you believe?

[Furrowed Brow]

Oh, stop it. You know what I meant by "internal" as well as I do, and it has nothing to so with anything being "inside" anything. It has to do with our individual subjectiveness, which you admit we all have.

Yeah but what do you mean by subjectivness…. I don’t mean intentions, hopes, wishes, wants, desires, thoughts, feelings and every other word you can think up to describe that subjectivness. I have started thread in the past on this subject but they did not get very far, primarily because language gets very tricky and people struggle to break free of mind/body dualism.

Anyhow, when it comes to the mind I reject an internal/external dichotomy of any form or hint of dualism. “I� is a grammatical indexical, it is also a social construct that allows you to keep track of yourself in social narratives and within a social space.

When you describe what “you feel� the discourse is immediately social. And what ever the feeliness of your feels maybe….it is not the case you cannot communicate what these are….it is the case that whatever aspect that cannot be communicated it is not a part of and does form the language we use to communicate with each other; or sometimes just talk to ourselves.

Your position does not seem to be that all thoughts can be expressed in words so much as that any thoughts which cannot be so expressed cannot be shared,

No. Back to front. What cannot be shared cannot be thought……you have no thoughts extra the social you.

Okay I have a thought…what is it you ask….well err I can’t quite put it into words……If this is the case then I have said nothing…..if I am unable to say what I mean even quietly to myself I have not yet had that thought.

The problem here is not metaphysical, or subjectivness, it is the limits of language and what can be said and the relationship of words like thought, intention, hopes etc to the language that bears them. What I am getting at is that the meanings of such words –the words we usually associate with having a mind – are only social meanings. An absolutely private meaning is on this view a contradiction.

Meanwhile, over here in MY head, there are all sorts of perceptions, thoughts, emotions and beliefs for which there are no words.

Be careful there Cnorman “in My head� looks like an internal claim. But no….. words like perceptions; thoughts, emotions etc convey public meanings and only public meanings. This can be demonstrated by the fact language is public, and thought experiment after thought experiment. You have emotions and private thoughts you may not say out loud, but none that you are unable to articulate….or if you are unable then you are not able to think them.

Put another way: the meanings of thoughts and thinking are embedded in language not a private internal self.

That I cannot adequately share them is clear enough,

Whatever you share has meaning already out there in public, meaning drawn from social behaviors, social context, and all the stuff that goes on between people……not inside people. What you cannot share you have no words for….and thus it is technically speaking meaningless.

But that they are therefore not there at all is just a bit too materialistic an idea for me to swallow. In short, I don't agree.

This is not materialism, it is philosophy of language. If you want to say you have private emotions or private thoughts or private feelings only you can experience you need a theory of language to describe how you can have such a thing as absolutely private meanings….and then show how such a theory itself can ever be meaningful.

My point was simply that beliefs - that is, real beliefs of actual people, as opposed to the theoretical beliefs of hypothetical people who really don't exist - invariably contain such universalized and emotional subtexts, and so are, when stated in words, always and inevitably incomplete and inaccurate.

People are complicated – yes. Really complicated – yes. Stuff goes on that is unsaid - yes again. But there is nothing going on that is meaningful that cannot be said, and whatever it is that cannot be said is not a thought or an emotion or an intention or a desire or a wish etc etc etc. Whatever might be left over I can’t possibly say…..and thus I can’t possibly think.

[cnorman18]

Oh, stop it. You know what I meant by "internal" as well as I do, and it has nothing to so with anything being "inside" anything. It has to do with our individual subjectiveness, which you admit we all have.

Yeah but what do you mean by subjectivness…. I don’t mean intentions, hopes, wishes, wants, desires, thoughts, feelings and every other word you can think up to describe that subjectivness. I have started thread in the past on this subject but they did not get very far, primarily because language gets very tricky and people struggle to break free of mind/body dualism.

Anyhow, when it comes to the mind I reject an internal/external dichotomy of any form or hint of dualism. “I� is a grammatical indexical, it is also a social construct that allows you to keep track of yourself in social narratives and within a social space.

When you describe what “you feel� the discourse is immediately social. And what ever the feeliness of your feels maybe….it is not the case you cannot communicate what these are….it is the case that whatever aspect that cannot be communicated it is not a part of and does form the language we use to communicate with each other; or sometimes just talk to ourselves.

Your position does not seem to be that all thoughts can be expressed in words so much as that any thoughts which cannot be so expressed cannot be shared,

No. Back to front. What cannot be shared cannot be thought……you have no thoughts extra the social you.

Okay I have a thought…what is it you ask….well err I can’t quite put it into words……If this is the case then I have said nothing…..if I am unable to say what I mean even quietly to myself I have not yet had that thought.

The problem here is not metaphysical, or subjectivness, it is the limits of language and what can be said and the relationship of words like thought, intention, hopes etc to the language that bears them. What I am getting at is that the meanings of such words –the words we usually associate with having a mind – are only social meanings. An absolutely private meaning is on this view a contradiction.

Meanwhile, over here in MY head, there are all sorts of perceptions, thoughts, emotions and beliefs for which there are no words.

Be careful there Cnorman “in My head� looks like an internal claim. But no….. words like perceptions; thoughts, emotions etc convey public meanings and only public meanings. This can be demonstrated by the fact language is public, and thought experiment after thought experiment. You have emotions and private thoughts you may not say out loud, but none that you are unable to articulate….or if you are unable then you are not able to think them.

Put another way: the meanings of thoughts and thinking are embedded in language not a private internal self.

That I cannot adequately share them is clear enough,

Whatever you share has meaning already out there in public, meaning drawn from social behaviors, social context, and all the stuff that goes on between people……not inside people. What you cannot share you have no words for….and thus it is technically speaking meaningless.

But that they are therefore not there at all is just a bit too materialistic an idea for me to swallow. In short, I don't agree.

This is not materialism, it is philosophy of language. If you want to say you have private emotions or private thoughts or private feelings only you can experience you need a theory of language to describe how you can have such a thing as absolutely private meanings….and then show how such a theory itself can ever be meaningful.

My point was simply that beliefs - that is, real beliefs of actual people, as opposed to the theoretical beliefs of hypothetical people who really don't exist - invariably contain such universalized and emotional subtexts, and so are, when stated in words, always and inevitably incomplete and inaccurate.

People are complicated – yes. Really complicated – yes. Stuff goes on that is unsaid - yes again. But there is nothing going on that is meaningful that cannot be said, and whatever it is that cannot be said is not a thought or an emotion or an intention or a desire or a wish etc etc etc. Whatever might be left over I can’t possibly say…..and thus I can’t possibly think.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I still don't agree.

Consider this; the thought comes first, then the words. They are not the same. Otherwise why do we struggle to find words to express a difficult thought or emotion? If thought and word were identical, there would be no struggle. Thoughts are expressed in words, but the thought must be there first for us to put words to it. If there is no thought before the word appears, what is it we are trying to find words for?

Further. Why do we so often feel compelled to express the same thought in different ways as we try to get the meaning of our thought across to another? Does that not prove that the thought is separate from the words?

For the record, I don't believe in a mind/body duality either, nor a distinct soul or spirit or any of that; but I do believe that our thoughts are separate from each other's, that my thoughts are not your thoughts. Even when they are expressed, and we both think them with the same words, they are not the same.

There is also the issue of nonverbal cue and body language, tone of voice, and all of that. The literal meaning of words is only a part of what we communicate (in person). Much else is communicated that might take volumes to explicate, and no one writes those; but we get the meaning anyway, and rarely try to express it in words, even to ourselves. There is your socially existent thought that is not contained in words.

When someone approaches you with a smile and an outstretched hand, do you really say to yourself, in words, "This person is friendly, pleasant, possibly happy, and wants to shake my hand, probably as a prelude to introducing himself"? I think not. The meaning of the expression and gesture is there, you grasp it, but all those words are nowhere in sight. You don't bother to think them, but the meaning is there.

Thought and word are not the same thing. I could say more, about the way words can be used indirectly in fiction writing to convey an effect or an emotion while never referring directly to either; about my experiences on the stage, where speaking the words is only the first layer of communication and the least important; and of, again, the struggle to put words to an insight or thought one has in regard to a belief or conviction.

It certainly IS possible to think something without expressing it in words; we do it all the time - every time we have to think about what words to use to express our thoughts, in fact. Before we find the words, we are thinking something. If what you say is true, that would be impossible; the thought would not exist, and so there would be nothing to find words for.

[Furrowed Brow]

The problem is that there are certain narrative paradigms embedded in our language that are much part of the way we speak we stop noticing how they contour how we think about a problem.

Consider this; the thought comes first, then the words. They are not the same. Otherwise why do we struggle to find words to express a difficult thought or emotion?

And this point reveals exactly what I mean. The point hopefully made clear is that the meaning of our words is amongst us in our shared social space and our behaviors. This includes emotion words like hate, love, jealousy etc, the words of emotionality, are public words and this is where their meaning lies.

For example, Bob kisses Ben’s girlfriend Daisy. Ben punches Bob on the nose. We might say Ben was jealous to explain why he punched Bob. But what we mean by “jealous� is in the behavior acted out between Bob, Ben and Daisy. Of course it can be more subtle, maybe Ben just gives a certain dark glare, or goes all huffy. There are numerous ways Ben might behave and numerous contexts in which we might use the word Jealous: but all of these are public.

There is however a paradigmatic way of thinking dubbed folk psychology that posits an implicit concept of mind. It is a way of seeing “jealousy� as some internal state of Ben’s. But the meaning of the word is in his actions and behavior that can be described and are out there in public. It is not the case that Ben is in a jealous state that makes him act jealously, if this is what people think then they impose a massive theory of mind with no theoretical model worked out and no evidence….other than behavior.

We could be more long winded, and rather than say stuff like “Ben is jealous� say “Ben is acting jealousy�. In the second mode we convey the same meaning accept the grammar of the sentence does not leave us with a feeling that we should be invoking an internal state of Ben that is the internal mental/emotional state of jealousy. But if you think about it all “Ben is jealous� means is “Ben is acting jealousy�….unless of course you have some theory of mind pressing on you.

If thought and word were identical, there would be no struggle. Thoughts are expressed in words, but the thought must be there first for us to put words to it. If there is no thought before the word appears, what is it we are trying to find words for?

I’m arguing there is not such thing as thought, emotions, intentions etc sub the public space these words inhabit and from which they draw their meaning. We seek the right words to express ourselves in a social situation. To solve problems. To fit ourselves into a social narrative and show where we stand in that narrative. Words are not the cloak or garments that cover a thought. They are the signs from which we form a thought.

There is a massive theory of mind lurking behind the points you are making cnorman. But the thrust of what I am saying is that that theory of mind is generated from what is essentially a problem of the logic of our language, and if we look at language we find there is no need for a theory of mind because it can seen to on the one hand not be needed and on the other cause a whole set of intractable problems of its own.

Further. Why do we so often feel compelled to express the same thought in different ways as we try to get the meaning of our thought across to another? Does that not prove that the thought is separate from the words?

No. Words and sentences come in different shapes and sizes, and the answer is that we explore different collections of words, to reach a meaning that suits us and the context of use best. If one collection of words fails to have a satisfying affect we seek a different set of words. But the thought is conveyed by language, and subsists in language.

We feel compelled because we exists in a public space and engage with and try to fit into public narratives.

However I would say a thought does not have to be words, though there does have to be a language. I work on the railway and we use bell codes, lights, and hand signals to communicate meaning, but again these codes and signal are a public behavior that convey a public meaning….like start the train.

Anything that passes as a symbol can express a thought, art can express a thought….maybe what you are after is how we might looking at painting and then seeking to put the meaning of the painting into words. But the words and the painting are two distinct modes of communication, and thus two different modes of thought. We should not expect a fixed translation. And what we are translating subsists in a social space.

For the record, I don't believe in a mind/body duality either, nor a distinct soul or spirit or any of that;

good. But this is not a metaphysical argument.

But I do believe that our thoughts are separate from each other's, that my thoughts are not your thoughts.

And that is not the implication of what I’m saying. We are each individuals, but the language (and symbols) which are the tissue of thought we do share.

Even when they are expressed, and we both think them with the same words, they are not the same.

It depends on the context you face and the context I face, but if we are talking the same language, and using its symbols the same way, then we share the same thought with the same meaning. Meaning is never private. This is not to deny that you might be the only one who knows what you are thinking. It is to deny that the meaning of your thought is inaccessible to others.

There is also the issue of nonverbal cue and body language, tone of voice, and all of that. The literal meaning of words is only a part of what we communicate (in person).

True. So tone of voice, nonverbal cues are part of the grammar of a living langauge. And this is a good point, what space do tone of voice and body language inhabit? And of course the answer is a public space. You may wink, or your lip curls when you speak, and attached to this behavior you have a certain feely experience. I do not deny you are experiencing something, but it is the wink and the curled lip that are part of the grammar of what you are thinking, and not the feeliness.

When someone approaches you with a smile and an outstretched hand, do you really say to yourself, in words, "This person is friendly, pleasant, possibly happy, and wants to shake my hand, probably as a prelude to introducing himself"? I think not.

Mostly I smile back. And the smile forms part of language, and convey a public meanings, but the smile dooes not convey an inner state of mind.

The meaning of the expression and gesture is there, you grasp it, but all those words are nowhere in sight. You don't bother to think them, but the meaning is there.

Ooo… in this example, there is no disconnect between mind and action. That is getting closer to my point. In this example your actions convey meaning. The thought is formed in situ as your action. A clear case of a thought out there in public space.

A smile means a smile, and the actions they elicit between individuals in situ. A smile does not mean I am happy, pleased, friendly etc until those words are used, unless of course there is a social agreement that instead of saying “I am happy to meet you� the words are replaced is with a smile and shake of hands. I am not saying words cannot be replaced with expedient social conventions. What a smile does not mean is that you have some internal happy state of mind that is causing you to smile, and is the meaning of the grin messing up your face.

Thought and word are not the same thing.

True to a point. Words are a mode of thinking.

It certainly IS possible to think something without expressing it in words; we do it all the time - every time we have to think about what words to use to express our thoughts, in fact.

Ho hum... you are fully held by a certain theory of mind that is the product of the grammar of our langauge and i don't think you even notice.

Before we find the words, we are thinking something.

We are on the verge of thinking something. The thought is about to be formed, but whatever process are percolating prior to the formation of a sentence or an action, that is not a thought, because it carries no meaning until words and actions occur, and are fitted into a social context.

If what you say is true, that would be impossible; the thought would not exist, and so there would be nothing to find words for.

If you were right then how are thoughts formed? What comes before a thought that allows a thought to be formed? This position creates all sorts of problems from the invocation of metaphysical realms on which we draw our thoughts to infinite regress of a thought needing a prior unconscious thought, itself needing a prior unconscious thought and so on ad infinitum: and I’m saying there ain’t even a real problem to solve. This is a grammatical tangle not a psychological or metaphysical conundrum.

[cnorman18]

The problem is that there are certain narrative paradigms embedded in our language that are much part of the way we speak we stop noticing how they contour how we think about a problem.

The problem might also be that there are theories of language and communication that so distort the perception of subjective reality that we do not notice how they do so.

Consider this; the thought comes first, then the words. They are not the same. Otherwise why do we struggle to find words to express a difficult thought or emotion?

And this point reveals exactly what I mean. The point hopefully made clear is that the meaning of our words is amongst us in our shared social space and our behaviors. This includes emotion words like hate, love, jealousy etc, the words of emotionality, are public words and this is where their meaning lies.

So there are no such things as actual thoughts and emotions other than the words we use that are associated with them?

If there are such things, how are they not separate and distinct from the words?

If thought and word were identical, there would be no struggle. Thoughts are expressed in words, but the thought must be there first for us to put words to it. If there is no thought before the word appears, what is it we are trying to find words for?

I’m arguing there is not such thing as thought, emotions, intentions etc sub the public space these words inhabit and from which they draw their meaning. We seek the right words to express ourselves in a social situation. To solve problems. To fit ourselves into a social narrative and show where we stand in that narrative. Words are not the cloak or garments that cover a thought. They are the signs from which we form a thought.

So private thoughts do not exist; and words themselves are thoughts, and there is no meaning behind them?

This will not be the last time I ask: Does this really make sense to you?

There is a massive theory of mind lurking behind the points you are making cnorman.

So what?

What is YOUR theory of mind? Is there basically no such thing? If there is, might we not have at least a few basic ideas about how it works without being obliged to formulate a "massive" set of rules and laws and principles?

I am beginning to understand why you do not believe in God. If absolutely everything must be completely analyzed and understood and explicitly explained in exhaustive detail, Square One will be difficult to leave behind.

But the thrust of what I am saying is that that theory of mind is generated from what is essentially a problem of the logic of our language, and if we look at language we find there is no need for a theory of mind because it can seen to on the one hand not be needed and on the other cause a whole set of intractable problems of its own.

I challenge you to explain that in detail. I see only assertions, not explanations of why they are true or applicable.

To wit:

What, exactly, is the "problem of the logic of our language" that gives rise to this "theory of mind"? What is that theory, precisely?

The statement "...we find there is no need for a theory of mind because it can seen to... not be needed" is as circular as a statement gets. Why is no theory of mind needed?

What are the allegedly "intractable problems" that such a theory might cause - that are more intractable than the problems caused by your own theory?

Why are potential problems a reason to avoid constructing a theory in the first place?

Does a theory of mind have to be exhaustively detailed and totally mapped out before it can be considered at all?
It seems to me that you are very close to saying that there is no such thing as "mind" at all, only language; and your primary reason seems to be that it's easier to think about that way.

Does that really make sense to you?

Further. Why do we so often feel compelled to express the same thought in different ways as we try to get the meaning of our thought across to another? Does that not prove that the thought is separate from the words?

No. Words and sentences come in different shapes and sizes, and the answer is that we explore different collections of words, to reach a meaning that suits us and the context of use best. If one collection of words fails to have a satisfying affect we seek a different set of words. But the thought is conveyed by language, and subsists in language.

Doesn't the very sentence "the thought is conveyed by language" imply that the two are separate things? You seem to be saying that language IS thought, but you have just implicitly stated the opposite, no? One thing is conveyed by another. If they were the same, no transitive verb would be needed.

When we "explore different collections of words," what are we trying to find if there is no thought yet?

However I would say a thought does not have to be words, though there does have to be a language. I work on the railway and we use bell codes, lights, and hand signals to communicate meaning, but again these codes and signal are a public behavior that convey a public meaning….like start the train.

So "start the train" is the thought which is symbolized or expressed by word or gesture or signal. The thought is therefore a separate thing from its communication. QED.

Anything that passes as a symbol can express a thought, art can express a thought…

Again; a symbol or art can express a thought. Transitive verb. The two are separate things.

...maybe what you are after is how we might looking at painting and then seeking to put the meaning of the painting into words. But the words and the painting are two distinct modes of communication, and thus two different modes of thought. We should not expect a fixed translation. And what we are translating subsists in a social space.

But according to what you are saying, there can be no "translation." The meaning of a set of words is the only one possible. They represent nothing behind them that can be translated; the words themselves (or the painting or whatever) are the thought, and there is nothing else.

Does this really make sense to you?

For the record, I don't believe in a mind/body duality either, nor a distinct soul or spirit or any of that;

good. But this is not a metaphysical argument.

I agree. It is an argument about whether words and symbols are tools that convey thoughts, or the thoughts themselves. As I said, you yourself seem to have indicated the former. Why you keep trying to make the latter work is a mystery to me.

But I do believe that our thoughts are separate from each other's, that my thoughts are not your thoughts.

And that is not the implication of what I’m saying. We are each individuals, but the language (and symbols) which are the tissue of thought we do share.

What about the inarguable fact that the meanings of words are often flexible and ambiguous?

Even when they are expressed, and we both think them with the same words, they are not the same.

It depends on the context you face and the context I face, but if we are talking the same language, and using its symbols the same way, then we share the same thought with the same meaning.

Oh?

Example, one of millions; "The Democratic Party (or Labor, in your world) tends toward socialism."
Do you think that sentence carries the same implications and subtexts for everyone? Is it a positive or negative observation, for starters?

If what you say is true, why are there such things as "misunderstandings," and why are they so common? Are they not cases wherein two people attribute different meanings to the same words?

Does this really make sense to you?

Meaning is never private. This is not to deny that you might be the only one who knows what you are thinking. It is to deny that the meaning of your thought is inaccessible to others.

What about when you can't find the words to express what you are thinking? When you can't make others understand? Is there then no actual thought that you are trying to convey - you are just mistaken to think that you have one?

If thoughts are words, why can't I find the ones that fit?

"Fit what?" seems to be the answer, and it is inadequate.

Does this really make sense to you?

There is also the issue of nonverbal cue and body language, tone of voice, and all of that. The literal meaning of words is only a part of what we communicate (in person).

True. So tone of voice, nonverbal cues are part of the grammar of a living langauge. And this is a good point, what space do tone of voice and body language inhabit? And of course the answer is a public space. You may wink, or your lip curls when you speak, and attached to this behavior you have a certain feely experience. I do not deny you are experiencing something, but it is the wink and the curled lip that are part of the grammar of what you are thinking, and not the feeliness.

Am I right in understanding that you say there is such a thing as "feeliness," but that it has no signifigance to thought- and in fact is a result of the words or gestures we use?

Does that really make sense to you?

When someone approaches you with a smile and an outstretched hand, do you really say to yourself, in words, "This person is friendly, pleasant, possibly happy, and wants to shake my hand, probably as a prelude to introducing himself"? I think not.

Mostly I smile back. And the smile forms part of language, and convey a public meanings, but the smile dooes not convey an inner state of mind.

Is there no such thing as a state of mind, which is of course what is meant by "internal state"? Is there nothing behind the expression or the gesture, only the gesture itself?

Does this really make sense to you?

The meaning of the expression and gesture is there, you grasp it, but all those words are nowhere in sight. You don't bother to think them, but the meaning is there.

Ooo… in this example, there is no disconnect between mind and action. That is getting closer to my point. In this example your actions convey meaning. The thought is formed in situ as your action. A clear case of a thought out there in public space.

A smile means a smile, and the actions they elicit between individuals in situ. A smile does not mean I am happy, pleased, friendly etc until those words are used, unless of course there is a social agreement that instead of saying “I am happy to meet you� the words are replaced is with a smile and shake of hands. I am not saying words cannot be replaced with expedient social conventions. What a smile does not mean is that you have some internal happy state of mind that is causing you to smile, and is the meaning of the grin messing up your face.

Is there no such thing as a mental, aka "internal" state?

What about a phony smile that is worn to conceal hatred or anger? According to what you are saying here, there can be no such thing. There is no mental, aka "internal" state, but only the smile. No conflict is possible.

And again - does this really make sense to you?

Thought and word are not the same thing.

True to a point. Words are a mode of thinking.

How can they be a "mode" of thinking when they stand alone? If words ARE thoughts, how can there be another "mode" of thinking?

If a certain hand signal or a certain color of lantern or a certain sound or certain words can all indicate the same thing - e.g., "stop the train" - is it not clear that the thought is separate from the "mode" of communication, and not identical with it?

If not, why not?

It certainly IS possible to think something without expressing it in words; we do it all the time - every time we have to think about what words to use to express our thoughts, in fact.

Ho hum... you are fully held by a certain theory of mind that is the product of the grammar of our langauge and i don't think you even notice.

Ho, hum.... Perhaps you can explain precisely what that certain theory of mind is, precisely how it is the product of the grammar or our language, and most importantly, exactly why it is wrong and in what ways.

You have done none or that nor even come close, and as it stands your argument is no more credible than if you were claiming to be spiritually awake while I still slumber. Explain what you mean and prove it.

What is your theory of mind? As nearly as I can tell, you decline to even think about it because it's easier to simply define thought as communication, not because that necessarly reflects reality.

Before we find the words, we are thinking something.

We are on the verge of thinking something. The thought is about to be formed, but whatever process are percolating prior to the formation of a sentence or an action, that is not a thought, because it carries no meaning until words and actions occur, and are fitted into a social context.

So thoughts do not exist until they are expressed in words?

The following question seems to me to be no more problematic than the specious infinite regression that you propose below; If there is no thought before the words are chosen, how do we know what words to choose?

And didn't we more or less start with that?

If what you say is true, that would be impossible; the thought would not exist, and so there would be nothing to find words for.

If you were right then how are thoughts formed? What comes before a thought that allows a thought to be formed?

What difference do those questions make?

"How are thoughts formed?" and "What comes before a thought that allows a thought to be formed?" are still perfectly legitimate questions even when thoughts are defined as words, are they not? How does your theory provide answers to them?

Is a question, even a difficult question, a reason to drop a line of inquiry anyway?

This position creates all sorts of problems from the invocation of metaphysical realms on which we draw our thoughts to infinite regress of a thought needing a prior unconscious thought, itself needing a prior unconscious thought and so on ad infinitum...

Forgive me, but that's nonsense. Zeno's paradox supposedly proves that it is impossible to move from point A to point B in the same way. Positing the actual existence of thoughts does not imply the need for prior unconscious thoughts, and certainly does not imply an infinite regression.

The origin of thought is not the question anyway, but its existence as something distinct from the words used to express it; and as I said, the origin of thought is still a mystery even if thoughts are defined as words. Where do the words come from? What precedes them? You have no more answers for those questions than I have for these, and so the questions are a red herring.

From what I can see here, it is not I who am lost in the limitations of language, but you. You are discarding your own perceived subjective reality in favor of language theory and an insistence on a detailed and coherent structure that may or may not exist.

: and I’m saying there ain’t even a real problem to solve. This is a grammatical tangle not a psychological or metaphysical conundrum.

Please explain the "grammatical tangle" in detail, as opposed to merely stating that there is one.

And, while we're at it; are there such things as "psychological or metaphysical conundrums" at all? Or do they not exist either?

[cnorman18]

PS - Doesn't this statement of yours from the Avatar thread rather knock your entire argument into a cocked hat?

...we English never quite say what we mean, and never quite mean what we say.

If words = thoughts, how can this beee?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Any of my beliefs are subject to change, given the evidence that demands their change. It is more than possible that every one is wrong. All that is required is some event or discovery to show me that they are wrong.

[Fallibleone]

PS - Doesn't this statement of yours from the Avatar thread rather knock your entire argument into a cocked hat?

...we English never quite say what we mean, and never quite mean what we say.

If words = thoughts, how can this beee?

Perhaps he didn't quite mean it.

[JoeyKnothead]

PS - Doesn't this statement of yours from the Avatar thread rather knock your entire argument into a cocked hat?

...we English never quite say what we mean, and never quite mean what we say.

If words = thoughts, how can this beee?

Perhaps he didn't quite mean it.

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are!

[Furrowed Brow]

The problem might also be that there are theories of language and communication that so distort the perception of subjective reality that we do not notice how they do so.

Well actually yes. Most philosophical knots are those tied by philosophers. I tend towards the idea that philosophy works best as an intellectual therapy that releases us from the tying the knots in the first place.

So there are no such things as actual thoughts and emotions other than the words we use that are associated with them?

We have to be careful here otherwise we will be talking passed each other. But yes there is no mental state of jealousy, hope, wish, want, intention etc if by mental state you are invoking some model of the mind structured by states to which we can attach these words. States of jealousy, hope, wishes, desires and so forth are behaviors and the meaning of these words found not in some model of an internal mind but embedded in social context.

To reach this conclusion requires a minimal theory of language – i.e. meaning is social. This can be demonstrated. To go further requires building both a theory of mind, and a more complicated theory of language, one that often invokes metaphysics e.g. platonic realms, and pushes different forms of dualism, and I’m saying none of this is necessary and it creates more of muddle than it solves.

If there are such things, how are they not separate and distinct from the words?

The meanings of words of emotion and thought are social because language is a social tool. There is no need to invoke inner realms or mental realms or mental states to give a foundation to the meaning of these words.

So private thoughts do not exist; and words themselves are thoughts, and there is no meaning behind them?

Why can I agree to this but somehow feel we are not on the same page?

What is YOUR theory of mind? Is there basically no such thing?

Basically……….a mind to which words like love, hate, jealousy, wishes, wants, desires, thoughts etc… are ascribed, do not literally exist. In this sense there are literally no mental states. I say this because all the meanings of all these words are embedded in the social space that exists between us.

If there is, might we not have at least a few basic ideas about how it works without being obliged to formulate a "massive" set of rules and laws and principles?

But when you go the road of using words that are taken from social contexts and then posit they signifying some internal state of mind…….you have created a theory of mind based on……what……words that are drawn from social behavior, context, narrative and grammar. On an everyday level this really is not important, but it is important when we begin to philosophize and theorize about how the mind works…..and take seriously there are such things as mental states.

I am beginning to understand why you do not believe in God. If absolutely everything must be completely analyzed and understood and explicitly explained in exhaustive detail, Square One will be difficult to leave behind.

I ain’t got off zero. But I don’t need to know everything, however what I do know has to be in correct logical order.

What, exactly, is the "problem of the logic of our language" that gives rise to this "theory of mind"? What is that theory, precisely?

The problem is that we take words whose meanings are socially embedded and turn them into some theory of a mental realm. The problem arises in many ways but I gave a clear indication of how grammar of language misleads with the example of “Ben is Jealous� and “Ben acts jealousy�. When we say Ben is Jealous there is a tendency to invoke some internal state of Ben that is the state of jealous, and when we do that we have a theory of mind formed from a slip of grammar….but most times that does not matter.

However it does matter when grammar leads to a view of the mind that leads to the mind/body problem…a problem that says there is either some form of mind/body dualism and that mental states and physical states are different things because emotions and thoughts are not material; or that mental concepts like jealousy, wishes, wants, thoughts etc map on to brain states, and are tokened by some physical mechanism. Either attempt to resolve the mind/body problem is an intellectual knot tied by language.

Why is no theory of mind needed?

Because there is no need to invoke internal mental states as real entities. A point made by Ben and his jealous actions. And I’m not saying human psychology does not need a theory I’m saying a theory of mind based on words like jealousy, wishes, hate, desires, self, thoughts and so forth is a category mistake.

Whatever goes on behind your eyes and my eyes and, I do not deny feely stuff goes on, but the meaning of words are always social, and what cannot be put into language has no meaning.

What are the allegedly "intractable problems" that such a theory might cause - that are more intractable than the problems caused by your own theory?

I’ve mentioned the mind body problem…..and I ain’t got a theory of mind….I’m just pointing out that attention to our language shows that the mind/body problem is drawn from a conception of mind that is a grammatical mistake.

Does a theory of mind have to be exhaustively detailed and totally mapped out before it can be considered at all?

Not at all. But as a conceptualization it has to be well formed, and the concept of mind as a theory that posits real internal mind states is not well formed.

It seems to me that you are very close to saying that there is no such thing as "mind" at all, only language;

Pretty much, accept the mind is not an internal metaphysical organ, or an internal physical organ, it exists out there amongst us in our social narratives and actions. But really from where you are coming…yes there is no mind.

Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. Perfect sense in fact. What does not make sense is that aspect of me that is not social. So much so that the last sentence is itself nonsense…there is no such aspect that is meaningful…..and if I point you to the meaning of my signature……I’m hoping you are going to get it.

Doesn't the very sentence "the thought is conveyed by language" imply that the two are separate things?

It probably does. But why let grammar dictate a theory of mind? Actually this is itself a paradigm case of the kind of thing I’m on about. We talk a certain way, a way that contours how we think about a subject, and then imperceptibly we find ourselves seeing grammatical distinction as the form of reality, and then we end up positing thought as a distinct entity.

You seem to be saying that language IS thought, but you have just implicitly stated the opposite, no?

Language is thought. Language is also tricky and complicated. There may be a grammatical implication, and avoiding such grammatical implications is difficult, hence why people tend to think on certain lines about the mind.

One thing is conveyed by another. If they were the same, no transitive verb would be needed.

This kind of reinforces my point, you are letting grammar force a picture of mind on to your thinking. We all do this as a very natural way of talking, but as formal theory of mind this is one huge leap that creates the mind/body problem….a problem that is grammatical and not metaphysical or physical.

When we "explore different collections of words," what are we trying to find if there is no thought yet?

The words that best suit the context.

So "start the train" is the thought which is symbolized or expressed by word or gesture or signal. The thought is therefore a separate thing from its communication. QED.

Nope. The meaning of the thought is the action set in context, and both action and context are social. The symbol is the sign RA which elicits an agreed behavior; if I sat there and did not go, that means the sign RA does not symbolize “go�.

Again; a symbol or art can express a thought. Transitive verb. The two are separate things.

Again why are you letting grammar impose a theory of mind on you? Do you think this is a firm foundation for a theory of human behavior and actions?

But according to what you are saying, there can be no "translation." The meaning of a set of words is the only one possible. They represent nothing behind them that can be translated; the words themselves (or the painting or whatever) are the thought, and there is nothing else.

No the meaning of the thought is out there in our social space. To translate one into the other is to translate one social context into another. If the painting offers a view or strikes an attitude, we find our own context in to which we put ourselves and from which we find a translation.

Does this really make sense to you?

Completely

As I said, you yourself seem to have indicated the former. Why you keep trying to make the latter work is a mystery to me.

Excellent…we are getting somewhere.

What about the inarguable fact that the meanings of words are often flexible and ambiguous?

No argument from me there. Language is complex, words fit into different contexts, and it is the context that provides the meaning. Ambiguity means a word is used in more than one way, irony means a word is used more than one way, but all the ways a word may be used can be contextualized and where it cannot then the word has no meaning.

(And as an aside: this is why religious language fails as a metaphor).

Example, one of millions; "The Democratic Party (or Labor, in your world) tends toward socialism."
Do you think that sentence carries the same implications and subtexts for everyone? Is it a positive or negative observation, for starters?

At no point am I saying language and what people think is simple or easily defined, or that language and people are not complex.

So the political slogan shares the same meaning for those who share the same subtext. It has the same implication for those whose share the same circumstances, it is positive or negative for those who share the same views. I’m not saying everyone has to share the contexts, histories, outlooks etc. And I'm not saying people are not able to negiatiate more than one meaning.

If what you say is true, why are there such things as "misunderstandings," and why are they so common? Are they not cases wherein two people attribute different meanings to the same words?

Yes there are. Life and people are complicated and we do not all share the same contexts. As evidence by our little misunderstanding the other day. But so long as we can share context we can share meanings….there may be an understanding but they can be cleared up….tick…..unless there is no shared context. But no one can think something they are unable to share with someone else, though that does not mean they will be able to share it with everyone.

Does this really make sense to you?

O yes.

What about when you can't find the words to express what you are thinking? When you can't make others understand? Is there then no actual thought that you are trying to convey - you are just mistaken to think that you have one?

What you are trying to find is a meaning, and you can’t convey that thought until it is formed and you need language to form a meaningful thought. What I am denying is some physical/metaphysical theory that has thought event prior to expression of the meaning of the thought. The only reason to begin to make that separation is grammatical.

If thoughts are words, why can't I find the ones that fit?

Words are thoughts, I allowing sign language, body language, physical signal systems like road lights… etc as thinking……but anyhow…..maybe the problems and context with which you engage or difficult, the right fit is not easy to find, and it is not like you see the whole problem in one go before you go looking for the right words. Okay metaphor: this metaphor does not demonstrate or prove what I am saying it is just a means to allow you to see where I’m at: thinking is not the lid of a jigsaw box, you see the picture then go looking for the right pieces to make the picture…..thinking is a jigsaw, the picture formed as you put the pieces together, and the context into which you try to fit those pieces tells you if they work in that context or not.

Fit what?" seems to be the answer, and it is inadequate.

The social context.

Does this really make sense to you?

Utterly.

Am I right in understanding that you say there is such a thing as "feeliness," but that it has no significance to thought- and in fact is a result of the words or gestures we use?

Feeliness is a word that is a sign of desperation on my part, it gets close to where language runs aground. What I’m saying is that the feely part of what goes on behind your eyes, is not structured by mental states….because literally there are no mental states of jealousy, lust, wishes, thoughts etc.

Is there no such thing as a state of mind, which is of course what is meant by "internal state"? Is there nothing behind the expression or the gesture, only the gesture itself?

Nothing meaningful and certainly not what you would call a mental state.

Is there no such thing as a mental, aka "internal" state?

Correct.

What about a phony smile that is worn to conceal hatred or anger? According to what you are saying here, there can be no such thing. There is no mental, aka "internal" state, but only the smile. No conflict is possible.

Let's say Bob raises a hand as if to shake Ben’s but then puts his thumb to his nose. Bob knew he was going do that before he put his hand out in fake gesture. I do not deny people have plans of actions, that they appreciate how the jigsaw can be fitted together in different ways and different contexts. But that fore knowledge reveals itself in subtle physical actions that prime us to act one way and not another, maybe words are said silently to oneself. And I am not saying people are not sufficiently sophisticated organisms to mask tells. What I am saying there is no mental engine working all this out prior to the deception…..that is to say a mind structured by emotions, thoughts, intentions etc.

How can they be a "mode" of thinking when they stand alone? If words ARE thoughts, how can there be another "mode" of thinking?

Ok to fill this out a little more:

Words in social context>>>>>>>>Thought
Body language in social context>>>>>>Thought
Sign language in social context>>>>>>Thought

The common factor is that they each express a meaning in a given social context.

If a certain hand signal or a certain color of lantern or a certain sound or certain words can all indicate the same thing - e.g., "stop the train" - is it not clear that the thought is separate from the "mode" of communication, and not identical with it?

The thought is embedded in the social space, and the meaning of the mode of communication. But to negotiate that space and express meaning then you need a language; which means we have agreed behaviors either implicit or explicit that allow the words or sign to convey a meaning. And where agreement we have a language….and only do our words and signs have meaning…..and all this occurs between and amongst us, and not in some internal state of mind.

Ho, hum.... Perhaps you can explain precisely what that certain theory of mind is, precisely how it is the product of the grammar or our language, and most importantly, exactly why it is wrong and in what ways.

It is wrong because it takes what is patently social and is mislead by the grammar of the social language. The mistake starts when we let the grammar of language lead us into thinking our words and concepts signify some internal mind state when they tangibly signify public behaviors set in social contexts. The mistake balloons into a mega mistake when we then invoke either metaphysics or materialism to try and explain how we have internal minds.

Explain what you mean and prove it.

Language is self evidently a social event. I have given example of how language works in social contexts; how a sentence can be rephrased in terms of actions and behavior to alleviate the tendency to invoke an internal state of mind, and this is possible mind without radically changing meaning. The mind/body problem is intractable and demonstrates a conceptual mistake is being made. Taken together these make for a solid position. A position that may be weakened if you can provide a non grammatical reason why we need to invoke a mind.

What is your theory of mind?

I have not got one. But if you push me....we have behavior, actions, social contexts, brain chemistry, a nervous system, and these are sufficient to explain what and who we are……save the feely bit, which can’t be put into language and……….to take us back to the phrase that got us into this pickle……the feely bit is technically speaking meaningless…..and certainly not structured by states of emotions, wants, wishes, desires, thoughts etc.

As nearly as I can tell, you decline to even think about it because it's easier to simply define thought as communication, not because that necessarily reflects reality.

It necessarily reflects how words and signs derive their meaning, and it refuses to create a theory of mind/reality formed out of a misunderstanding of language.

If there is no thought before the words are chosen, how do we know what words to choose?

How many years did it take you to learn how to talk, and then how many years to learn the complexities of language and how words can work different affects in different contexts. How does a gymnast know how to back flip, or a chess player choose the next move……plenty of practice, learnt behavior, memory, and in the case of language use the ability to differentiate contexts of use. So a complex organ like a brain is needed to organize different stimuli and differentiate alternative responses to stimuli. However that answer takes us down a road I don’t have to travel to show where the mistake lies that leads to us posit a mind.

"How are thoughts formed?" and "What comes before a thought that allows a thought to be formed?" are still perfectly legitimate questions even when thoughts are defined as words, are they not?

Well not really, or at least not in the way I think you are thinking. A thought is public and embedded in social behavior, so to form a thought you need a society and agreed (implicit or explicit) patterns of behavior. A thought is not a discrete internal event of an internal mind. There is no need to explain how such a thing might be formed……therein lies the mistake.

Forgive me, but that's nonsense. Zeno's paradox supposedly proves that it is impossible to move from point A to point B in the same way.

Forgiven. An infinite regress certainly is nonsense.

Positing the actual existence of thoughts does not imply the need for prior unconscious thoughts, and certainly does not imply an infinite regression.

So to avoid it you posit….what a metaphysical realm inhabited by thoughts and emotions or you think these are tokened by brain states? And what problem does this try to solve and fail to solve....a real problem or a grammatical problem?

The origin of thought is not the question anyway, but its existence as something distinct from the words used to express it; and as I said, the origin of thought is still a mystery even if thoughts are defined as words.

It ain’t a mystery at all if you go back to language and grammar and see how we invoke the mystery.

Where do the words come from?

Noises or ink on the page that follow regular patters, patterns that are an agreement between language users. The agreement taking place in a public social space.

What precedes them?

No agreement then partial and inconsistent agreement………then a dictionary.

From what I can see here, it is not I who am lost in the limitations of language, but you. You are discarding your own perceived subjective reality in favor of language theory and an insistence on a detailed and coherent structure that may or may not exist.

I am not insisting on any detailed structure….I am however insisting on coherency…..and invoking an internal mind drawn from language whose meanings are inherently social is not coherent. Then you factor in that there is no evidence of such an internal mind, an evidentless thing that brings its own mysterious and intractable problems, and then you might get a better understating of why I’m offering the most consistent and coherent of positions.

[cnorman18]

FB, I think we've reached an impasse. I can't say I really understand your ideas here; from my point of view, they're based on some sort of language theory where language is at once where meaning lies and the source of our ideas about mental states and the existence of the mind. And frankly it makes no sense to me at all.

I am mildly autistic, and so I am more dependent on the literal meaning of words and language than most people. Emotions are both more difficult for me to express, except in words, or sense in others, except when expressed in words. That's one reason I'm very comfortable on the Net, whereas in person communication is more difficult for me. Here, there are nothing but words, and I find that much easier. No body language, gestures, or facial expressions to interpret. Your ideas ought to be something I would embrace and understand instantly - if they worked. I don't think they do.

My ideas and understanding here are not based on any language theory or grammatical misunderstandings or any of that. They are based on my subjective sense of myself and what my thoughts are and how I perceive them. I can no more say that I have no mind, no mental states, and no thoughts other than words than I could say that I have no feet. This is my head; maybe yours works differently, but mine just doesn't work the way you describe here.

You are perfectly free to say that I am too deluded or mistaken or dumb or unreflective or unanalytical to understand how my own mind works, and that your language theory is much more accurate; but I will have to disagree. It doesn't fit what I subjectively know to be true, and that's not going to change. It also seems to me to be a good deal less useful and understandable than the common view, and to have so many exceptions and caveats and rationalizations, that it is not much more than a slightly wacky theory, the only object of which - the ONLY object - is to deny the existence of the mind.

Do these ideas have any references or authorities or sources, or are they your own only?

Sorry, but I think we're done. You are going to convince me that I actually have no mind or mental states at approximately the same time that you convince me that I actually have no hands.