TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:20 pm
creativesoul wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...
Are you familiar with Rodney Brooks' work? There is no need for symbolic representation of reality and 'truth'.
No.
Who claimed there was a need for symbolic representation of "truth"? More importantly, on what level are you talking about here? Clearly there's no need to talk about "truth" in all sorts of everyday situations for that would be to talk about a linguistic conception and/or the quality/value of our own thought/belief(didn't someone just mention 'qualitative' thought?) Lot's of folk get along just fine with very little 'introspection'. So what?
If one is working from a naturalist framework, then amongst other things, one must be able to take proper account of the origen of thought/belief and how it accrues in it's complexity. The value of any account is determined solely by virtue of how well it corresponds to what's happened and/or what is happening, or what has yet to have happened.
Predictive value, of course, is increased and/or decreased by what has yet to have happened. As a result, none of those statements are truth-apt at the time of utterance. No need to talk about "truth" in that situation, regardless of the fact that verification/falsification methods are looking for precisely that... correspondence to what has yet to have happened.
It's quite clear, and I've set out the grounds, that we form thought/belief long before we ever start to think about it. It's when we start to think about our own thought/belief that we begin to talk about whether or not what we say matches up to the way things are; the case at hand; the universe; the world and/or ourselves; reality; what has already happened and/or what is happening.
So, to drive this nail just a bit further...
So what that someone can intentionally not talk about "truth". It is impossible to not presuppose it, for everything that has ever been thought, believed, known, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered consists if mental correlations drawn between different things, and
all correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(regardless of subsequent qualification).
<----------That is the presupposition of correspondence that is inherently within all thought and belief. It is how and why "is true" is and becomes a redundant use of language. All this having been said...
Some folk
like you...
...do not understand that prediction cannot be true at the time it is uttered, have no idea how that's the case, and/or don't quite care about the commonality between all prediction and all false statements. That line of thinking is very interesting if and when one has thought/belief right to begin with. Suffering from the aforementioned ignorance is an inevitable consequence of attempting to dispense with truth(correspondence). Furthermore, I would wager that you also do not understand the gravity of the situation here. I mean the sheer scope of rightful application of what I've been arguing could not be any broader, and it's not a TOE, not an elaborate argument by definitional fiat, and not a tautology(which is ironic in and of itself given your glorification of 'higher' logic).
This thread is either prima facie evidence of ignorance or feigned ignorance - one of the two - regarding all sorts of neat stuff. Simple stuff. Elemental stuff. Irrevocable stuff. Crucial stuff. I've been explaining in between your episodes of irrelevant shit slinging...