propositional attitude


i'm wondering what is the big difference between thinking a true thought by reading it written by somebody else, as opposed to thinking that same thought myself ?

Tags

  1. proposition
  2. objectivity
  3. subjectivity
  4. item 17466
  5. propositional attitude
  6. FastblogitArgumentation
  7. MarkFastblogitRefuge

Comments


Mark de LA says

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-06-09 20:17:47 17466
incidentally, notice that it doesn't matter to my question what notion you hold for truth.  Pick whatever notion you want, the question still pretty much means the same to anybody.  The question is about what difference it makes to a person where some thought comes from ... from themselves ... from some authority ... or just somethig to which they got acquainted.  And we are talking here about thoughts that are believed by the person to be true, not fictions or wild conjectures. 
Still in question is how you know you have arrived at the same thought - true or false.
My second idea , no matter what the answer is, is (so what?(so what?(so what?)))


Seth says
Einai 2014-06-09 23:47:19 17466
No matter what you decide, though, I don't see any practical or pragmatic use for it.


It bears on the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the feeling of truth twards some proposition.  Call it a sense if it want, i think that is what GW called it ... the sense of truth ... that is the same thing i am talking about here.  The point being that where the thought comes from will affect how you feel about it.  For example, if I tell you a proposition, or GW tells you a proposition, or your arrive at that proposition independently for yourself, you may feel differently about that same proposition.  Or maybe consider a situation where you have a stake in winning some argument ... if your opponent thinks the thought you are going to have a motive to feel differently about it than if you yourself thought it. 

Now i just think it is important to know what kinds of things might affect this sense of truth outside of the actual proposition itself.  If you don't  ... well fine ... accept that i thought this thought here, and that you had the feelings towards it that you have already expressed ... and let's move on.

Mark de LA says
No matter what you decide, though, I don't see any practical or pragmatic use for it.


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-06-10 07:42:10 17466
Einai 2014-06-10 07:19:53 17466
I don't think thoughts have a true/false charge +/- .... they just are. What you do with them, communicating them, that's where they can turn into lies.

It is not thoughts that have a true/false change ... it is your feeling towards them that have that quality.  And, yes, you can lie about that feeling. 
Need to elaborate a bit.  I never need to put the adjective label true on a thought. Are you munging thoughts & feelings? No distinction? No control?
I don't think the way I feel about a thought has any bearing on the thought.  It is what I do in communicating it - how I represent it - that's where things could turn to lies.


Seth says
Einai 2014-06-10 07:19:53 17466
I don't think thoughts have a true/false charge +/- .... they just are. What you do with them, communicating them, that's where they can turn into lies.

It is not thoughts that have a true/false change ... it is your feeling towards them that have that quality.  And, yes, you can lie about that feeling. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-06-09 17:48:21 17466
seth 2014-06-09 17:40:28 17466
Einai 2014-06-09 17:20:36 17466
How would you know? How would you know you had a true thought, whatever the heck that is? Mathematics is one of the few areas where it might be possible. How would you know you had the right context? Of what value is your sameness between thoughts?

good questions

Well, i don't know about you, but there is a feeling i get when i think a true thought.  That is how i know i think a true thought ... and that is what defines a true thought for me.  In mathematics we prove thoughts by external *methods* that that cannot fail when certain rules are followed ... follow the rules and the thought must be true by necessity ... no intuitive feeling involved ... it is quite a different thing.  The context within which a thought occurs is the "right" one for it, if it feels true within that collection of other thoughts.  Thoughts are the same if they differ only in how they are represented. 


now got one for you ... how do any of those questions and/or their answers get us close to answering the question that i asked above?
They tease out elements which are parameters in answering your question. One of the important ones was passing context on between written material or something that invades your brain. Representation is context. 




i need some actual examples of something that "invades your brain" ... as opposed to just things that you read or hear somebody say.  What is the big difference?

i don' know what you are implying by saying "representation is context" ... to me *related* representations create a context ... how is what you are saying different from that?

Seth says
incidentally, notice that it doesn't matter to my question what notion you hold for truth.  Pick whatever notion you want, the question still pretty much means the same to anybody.  The question is about what difference it makes to a person where some thought comes from ... from themselves ... from some authority ... or just somethig to which they got acquainted.  And we are talking here about thoughts that are believed by the person to be true, not fictions or wild conjectures. 

Seth says
incidentally i am talking here withing the context called by many who have studied it, "propositional attitude".   If you have never heard something and caught yourself saying, "well that is true", or alternatively "that is horseshit", then your mind must be quite different than mine indeed.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-06-10 08:36:55 17466
Einai 2014-06-10 08:27:40 17466
seth 2014-06-10 08:07:36 17466
Einai 2014-06-09 23:47:19 17466
No matter what you decide, though, I don't see any practical or pragmatic use for it.


It bears on the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the feeling of truth twards some proposition.  Call it a sense if it want, i think that is what GW called it ... the sense of truth ... that is the same thing i am talking about here.  The point being that where the thought comes from will affect how you feel about it.  For example, if I tell you a proposition, or GW tells you a proposition, or your arrive at that proposition independently for yourself, you may feel differently about that same proposition.  Or maybe consider a situation where you have a stake in winning some argument ... if your opponent thinks the thought you are going to have a motive to feel differently about it than if you yourself thought it. 


Now i just think it is important to know what kinds of things might affect this sense of truth outside of the actual proposition itself.  If you don't  ... well fine ... accept that i thought this thought here, and that you had the feelings towards it that you have already expressed ... and let's move on.
I don't think GW called anything a sense of truth. That's why Barbara Cubed & logic was produced - cause there isn't one.  There is a sense for thoughts or thinking. Illative force is the results of the mechanics of following logic, but it is still GIGO. One need something that he can demonstrate a priori as true or axiomatic to start the ball going.


but there you just went (bolded above) ... you just expressed your attitude towards my proposition that "GW called it a sense of truth".  You obviously think (feel, sense, whatever) that proposition if false. 

Incidentally it may well be false ... i know he talked about a sense of thought (as have you) ... so what is that? ... a signal that tells me i am thinking a thought ... er, i think that sense must have a bit more of a quality to it than just that.  

Incidentally following the rules to arrive at proof is something entirely different. 
Yeah, I was responding to your bolded comment above. It just wasn't an attitude to a proposition which wasn't propositional, it was simply not true. (Show me otherwise)
Anyway, judging as I am that whatever interest was in this item has faded & is turning into the usual #FastblogitArgumentation - I seek #MarkFastblogitRefuge now.


Seth says
...

Well i dare say that the label on the arrow drawn here from Mark to something that GW said would need to be changed were i to point Mark to the text where GW said that.



Seth says
Einai 2014-06-10 08:27:40 17466
seth 2014-06-10 08:07:36 17466
Einai 2014-06-09 23:47:19 17466
No matter what you decide, though, I don't see any practical or pragmatic use for it.


It bears on the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the feeling of truth twards some proposition.  Call it a sense if it want, i think that is what GW called it ... the sense of truth ... that is the same thing i am talking about here.  The point being that where the thought comes from will affect how you feel about it.  For example, if I tell you a proposition, or GW tells you a proposition, or your arrive at that proposition independently for yourself, you may feel differently about that same proposition.  Or maybe consider a situation where you have a stake in winning some argument ... if your opponent thinks the thought you are going to have a motive to feel differently about it than if you yourself thought it. 

Now i just think it is important to know what kinds of things might affect this sense of truth outside of the actual proposition itself.  If you don't  ... well fine ... accept that i thought this thought here, and that you had the feelings towards it that you have already expressed ... and let's move on.
I don't think GW called anything a sense of truth. That's why Barbara Cubed & logic was produced - cause there isn't one.  There is a sense for thoughts or thinking. Illative force is the results of the mechanics of following logic, but it is still GIGO. One need something that he can demonstrate a priori as true or axiomatic to start the ball going.


but there you just went (bolded above) ... you just expressed your attitude towards my proposition that "GW called it a sense of truth".  You obviously think (feel, sense, whatever) that proposition if false. 

Incidentally it may well be false ... i know he talked about a sense of thought (as have you) ... so what is that? ... a signal that tells me i am thinking a thought ... er, i think that sense must have a bit more of a quality to it than just that.  

Incidentally following the rules to arrive at proof is something entirely different. 

Seth says
To point being that from whom a thought comes does makes a big different to your ego and how your ego will influence the feeling about whether the thought is true or false. 

See Also

  1. Thought Expression vs Replacement with 123 viewings related by tag "objectivity".
  2. Thought Thoughts about ego: The view from inside versus, the view from outside with 2 viewings related by tag "objectivity".
  3. Thought Google NEWS - HA! with 1 viewings related by tag "objectivity".
  4. Thought Bertrand Russell on Intelectual Objectivity and Moral Tolerance with 0 viewings related by tag "objectivity".
  5. Thought #MemeCloud with 0 viewings related by tag "MarkFastblogitRefuge".
  6. Thought Sameness of thought with 0 viewings related by tag "item 17466".
  7. Thought peculiar to each particular mind with 0 viewings related by tag "subjectivity".
  8. Thought about: Wired News: The Secret Cause Of flame Wars with 0 viewings related by tag "subjectivity".
  9. Thought Agreement with 0 viewings related by tag "objectivity".
  10. Thought Proposal on Illegal Immigration with 0 viewings related by tag "proposition".