Terrapin Station wrote: creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:Does it make sense to say that a recording qualifies as a recording that doesn't literally contain microphones if the content of that recording is existentially contingent upon microphones?
Thoughts don't literally contain anything except correlations, associations, and/or connections drawn between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself.
The analogy rightly applied would be as follows: It makes no sense whatsoever to say that a recording qualifies as a recording without microphones if the content of that recording is existentially contingent upon microphones.
So you're using "without x" to simply refer to "not existentially contingent upon x"?
Well, yeah... It's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, we would say that this or that is possible without X even though the very existence of this or that is contingent upon X. When A is existentially contingent upon B there can be no A if there has never been B. Without B there is no A. What sense then would it make to say that A is possible without B?
I'm using "without x" to refer to whether it contains x (well, or if it's accompanied by x). Something is with x if it contains (is accompanied by) x, and without x if it does not contain (is not accompanied by) x.
And it has led you to think/believe and/or conclude that one can think about musical scales without language simply because the thoughts are unspoken. Being unspoken is not equivalent to being without language. Without language there is no musical scales. Yet when there are scales, one can remember them without speaking. When there are no musical scales, there can be no thought about musical scales, unspoken or otherwise. When there is no language, there is no musical scales. Thus, when there is no language there is no possibility of thought about scales.
Re your comment "Thoughts don't literally contain anything except . . .," would you then say that no thought literally contains language?
I personally would reject the use of the term "contains", especially if it's being further qualified with the term "literally". On my view, literally containing something requires a container and it's contents. I really don't even like to say what I did in response... It's misleading. Thought/belief consists of correlations. All thought/belief does, and there are no exceptions spoken or otherwise. All spoken thought/belief is predication. All predication is correlation, but not the other way around. Thus, thought/belief does not require language. To quite the contrary, language requires thought/belief, if by "requires" I'm talking about existential contingency and/or necessary and sufficient conditions.