Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

[Atla]

Well, in the example Miki does, doesn't he. He does not have to know what truth is in order to employ it. You are arguing his mind is too feeble, so he can't use the concept. Sure he can, without realizing it.

My point is: some people really can't process truth. They can't process it without realizing it either. It's not about being feeble, it's probably about having the anterior parts of the neocortex function abnormally for various reasons.

Most people who process truth, have no idea that some people don't, and what that would be like.
Most or all people who don't process truth, have no idea that most people do, and what that would be like.

It's just how the world works. One good example of this is Trump. So many people are convinced that Trump is a deliberate pathological liar, but that's not quite correct. Trump has NO concept of truth and doesn't really understand what lies and truths are.

Though I'm probably using "concept" in a more general sense than how it's normally used. The normal use of the word presupposes that all humans have a fairly standard psychology.

[creativesoul]

My point is: some people really can't process truth. They can't process it without realizing it either. It's not about being feeble, it's probably about having the anterior parts of the neocortex function abnormally for various reasons.

If that is the case, then it must also be the case that either not all thought/belief is existentially dependent upon processing truth, or no creature without the anterior parts of the neocortex thinks and/or believes anything at all.

Most people who process truth, have no idea that some people don't, and what that would be like. Most or all people who don't process truth, have no idea that most people do, and what that would be like.

In order to know that most people who process truth have something in common - such as having no idea that some people don't - one must first know all people who process truth. You don't.

Gratuitous assertions aren't acceptable.

It's just how the world works. One good example of this is Trump. So many people are convinced that Trump is a deliberate pathological liar, but that's not quite correct. Trump has NO concept of truth and doesn't really understand what lies and truths are.

Bullshit. He vehemently argues for his own innocence on whatever he is charged with. People who have no concept of truth do not do that. People who do not process truth do not know when and how to use words to affect change. People who do not understand truth/falsity do not call things "fake".

[creativesoul]

Trump has NO concept of truth and doesn't really understand what lies and truths are.

I would say the same about yourself based upon how you used the terms "truth" and "truths". Adding an "s" to truth indicates a plurality. What exactly do you think/believe that truth is such that it could be more than one?

[creativesoul]

I'm left wondering exactly what counts as 'processing truth'? What is the criterion, which when met by some candidate or other, counts as a case of processing truth?

[creativesoul]

Well, in the example Miki does, doesn't he. He does not have to know what truth is in order to employ it. You are arguing his mind is too feeble, so he can't use the concept. Sure he can, without realizing it.

My point is: some people really can't process truth. They can't process it without realizing it either. It's not about being feeble, it's probably about having the anterior parts of the neocortex function abnormally for various reasons.

Most people who process truth, have no idea that some people don't, and what that would be like.
Most or all people who don't process truth, have no idea that most people do, and what that would be like.

It's just how the world works. One good example of this is Trump. So many people are convinced that Trump is a deliberate pathological liar, but that's not quite correct. Trump has NO concept of truth and doesn't really understand what lies and truths are.

Though I'm probably using "concept" in a more general sense than how it's normally used. The normal use of the word presupposes that all humans have a fairly standard psychology.

Language use doesn't require processing truth. <------------That is another dubious presupposition at work.

[TimeSeeker]

I'm left wondering exactly what counts as 'processing truth'? What is the criterion, which when met by some candidate or other, counts as a case of processing truth?

Epistemology's dirty little secrets are the problems of justification and criterion. They are unsolved.

Justification fails to infinite regress.
Criterion fails to is-ought gap.

And so any claims of knowledge (know-that) or competence (know-how) can only be made in a framework that has SOME pre-suppositions. Some yardstick against one can say "this is knowledge" vs "this is not knowledge".

And so ANY consensus between any two people on ANYTHING under dispute rests on having agreed on at least one thing. There are no exceptions. These limits stem directly from the laws of physics and causality. But the TL;DR is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And so you are right to be doubtful about "processing truth". We have criteria for processing (Turing completeness) - not criteria for 'truth'.

[Atla]

If that is the case, then it must also be the case that either not all thought/belief is existentially dependent upon processing truth

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along (at least based on how I interpret these word). Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by existentially dependent.

or no creature without the anterior parts of the neocortex thinks and/or believes anything at all.

?
No, I can only even make some sense of this if we use some really twisted definition of thinking / belief.

In order to know that most people who process truth have something in common - such as having no idea that some people don't - one must first know all people who process truth. You don't.

Gratuitous assertions aren't acceptable.

How do you think the entire field of psychology works for example, do they examine EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet first, or do they make observations based on some sample size?

Bullshit. He vehemently argues for his own innocence on whatever he is charged with. People who have no concept of truth do not do that.

He vehemently argues for his own innocence BECAUSE he thinks he is innocent. He doesn't actually understand truth and lies, so when people call him a liar, he really doesn't know what they are talking about. All he sees is that these people are trying to do him harm, even though in his mind he IS innocent.

People who do not process truth do not know when and how to use words to affect change.

Quite the opposite. They usually know better how to use words to affect change, than most people. Many of them are adept at using them as tools, weapons etc. And they tend to assume that everyone else does this too, they think most people simply suck at it.

People who do not understand truth/falsity do not call things "fake".

Of course they do. It's an excellent tool/weapon.

Ignorance is bliss. Ok I'm done here.

[creativesoul]

My point is: some people really can't process truth. They can't process it without realizing it either. It's not about being feeble, it's probably about having the anterior parts of the neocortex function abnormally for various reasons.

If that is the case, then it must also be the case that... ...not all thought/belief is existentially dependent upon processing truth...

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along (at least based on how I interpret these word). Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by existentially dependent.

What counts as processing truth, as compared/contrasted to not processing truth? What does the former include that the latter does not such that some people cannot do the former even without realizing it?

[creativesoul]

I'm left wondering exactly what counts as 'processing truth'? What is the criterion, which when met by some candidate or other, counts as a case of processing truth?

Epistemology's dirty little secrets are the problems of justification and criterion. They are unsolved.

Justification fails to infinite regress.
Criterion fails to is-ought gap.

Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded. Hume's guillotine is irrelevant to the way things are. Criterion is about the way things are.

[creativesoul]

How do you think the entire field of psychology works for example, do they examine EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet first, or do they make observations based on some sample size?

Gross overgeneralization is a fallacy of thought. It underlies all stereotype. It underlies racism. It underlies many cases of misinterpretation as well. I was simply pointing out that you made an unjustifiable claim. Pointing out that someone else does it too doesn't help your case.

He vehemently argues for his own innocence BECAUSE he thinks he is innocent. He doesn't actually understand truth and lies, so when people call him a liar, he really doesn't know what they are talking about. All he sees is that these people are trying to do him harm, even though in his mind he IS innocent.

Bullshit. He thinks he's innocent(if he does) because he thinks that he's been accused of doing things that he didn't do. One cannot think that they did not do what others have said that they did without presupposing truth.

[creativesoul]

"The Trump campaign colluded with Russia."

The above statement is one that has been uttered on many an occasion by Trump's opposition. Trump himself has said that it is not true. Everyone knows what would make it true. It would be true if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Trump is saying that that did not happen.

That is a prima facie example of the fact of Trump's having and using a concept of truth/falsehood.

[TimeSeeker]

Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded.

If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.

Hume's guillotine is irrelevant to the way things are. Criterion is about the way things are.

This is a perspective ignorant of the temporal dimension and system dynamics. Things change! Without being explicit about a specific time-frame "the way things are" is a non-sensical perspective. All you can ever say is "the way things were"- sure.

[creativesoul]

I'm left wondering exactly what counts as 'processing truth'? What is the criterion, which when met by some candidate or other, counts as a case of processing truth?

Epistemology's dirty little secrets are the problems of justification and criterion. They are unsolved.

That's not true on either front Time...

The problem of epistemology is conflating what a report of thought/belief requires with what thought/belief requires. That underwrites the problem of justification and criterion. It stems from not drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

[creativesoul]

Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded.

If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.

Being well-grounded doesn't require language. The earlier fire example...

[TimeSeeker]

The problem of epistemology is conflating what a report of thought/belief requires with what thought/belief requires.

You speak of requirements. Then you necessarily speak of values.

Is lying-by-omission still lying? If so - human language is always guilty. How do you justify the things you've LEFT OUT from your report?
On any matter whatsoever. To leave things out is to judge them unimportant to report on.

That underwrites the problem of justification and criterion. It stems from not drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

There is no difference.

In the one case I use thoughts to make decisions and take rational action/make changes in the real world. In the other case I use thoughts to take action/make decisions and make rational changes to my own mind. Which is part of the real world.

The only difference is the object which I am acting upon.