no gender bias intended (using "man" in a nuetral sense)

a man's heart can be faithful which is revealed in his actions

or unfaithful when his words do not match his actions


but statements aren't necessary - it takes no words to be the judas

only the 30 pieces in the right hands

Interesting question.

A thought?

If I saw a shadow and I thought it was a bear, and it was not a bear, then my initial thought... was it wrong, or false?

And what is the difference?

And most of the time they never actually know the correct number as it changes all the time and they are not that organized to actually have an accurate number so it is unlikely that the number is accurate.

So "true" and "false" mean faithful and unfaithful. I'm certain plenty of folk would understand what that means, however, it is more like poetic liscense rather than philosophy. I mean, if we were to hold to that equation, we would end up with some really strange consequences.

There is no difference in the given context.

Awesome Jb! We have begun this thread being in agreement. Indeed, a thought/belief can be true or false prior to language acquisition. There is a problem here however, because in order for it to be called "true" or "false" we must use language. So, in our discussion here which is talking about what can be true or false, we are attributing those words to the statements that we're making.

I am not a poet knave

true and false mean in keeping or not

I suppose keeping in faith or not is a good way to put it

but no box for to define my thoughts for me

I intend no parameter to the meaning

falsity by lack of faith or infidelity can have infinite descriptions

but in general - yes

Aren't you just saying being true as in keeping one's word? Is that not just saying that one makes promises(statements) that one does not keep? I mean, isn't it the promise that was broken and therefore the statement that was false, or true if the promise were kept?

Yes, and this can be easily accounted for by simply adding a time index on the statement. IOW, we can say that on this date, at this time, the unemployment rate is X.

Yes but it is highly unlikely that even that is an accurate statement.

To make the statement itself more "true" they would have to say that "On this date, according to X source, using this method, the approximate number of unemployed is X.

There is a limit to the amount of doubting that we ought reasonably do. Exact enough numbers are readily available at any given time to say that they're "true". But I do not want to get into that aspect, which is more about criterion for being true than what can be true. Be that as it may, the numbers are a form of a statement about the way things are. Thus, whether true or false, it is the statement that is so, at least in this case.

What of the main topic though, and of the notion that thought can be true/false without language and therefore without statements?

What of it?

What is there to say?

Well, for starters it certainly seems obvious that we form true belief prior to language. Looks can be deceiving though. For instance, when we give an account of such a thing, it is our account that is true or not. How do we give an account of a true thought/belief that exists prior to language without the account itself being a set of statements. Does this cause problems for the udea that thought/belief can be true? I mean, it is not the thought/belief that is being called "true" right? It is the account, which again, is in statement form.

Prior to language thought is in a different form. It is a form that is as clear (to us) as language but it is not a complicated shared vocal language.

Language itself, blooms from wordless thought like a flower blooms from a flowerless plant.

When you look at animals, they communicate with gestures and noises and even color. Communication is all about the present moment. They can't talk about or even think about the future. They prepare for the winter probably from instinct. How do animals know what they know except for instinct?

Two humans with no language can communicate emotions universally via their facial expressions.

But all belief is belief that...

This need to be argued for. Mentalese cannot be known after language acquisition is put to regular use. There are also cases of adults who've grown up without language, and been taught language who give witness that contradicts the assumed clarity above.



I agree that thought/belief ground language. That language emerges from thought/belief.



This is simply not true. Prepping for winter may be instinctual, but we cannot draw such a broad-based conclusion that animals cannot think about the future as a result of that. A cat sits and waits for it's prey, which has yet to have come bak out of the hole it ran into.



Are these human examples speaking humans?

There are certain facial expressions which do not encapsulate the entire line of thinking that is going on. There are also a limited amount of facial expressions and a virtually infinite amount of thoughts possible after language.

#1

In answer to your first question, yes. Or they can be two humans who speak completely different languages.

#2

I did not mean to imply that facial expressions could serve as language. But where in expressing (and reading) emotions, they are (have been found to be) universal and cross all language barriers.

The leading researcher on this subject is Dr. Paul Ekman.



https://face.paulekman.com/face/about.aspx

Unknown persons "Giving witness" is not acceptable (by me) to disprove my claim against my own experience. And of course my above statement is my personal opinion only because I recall memories of thoughts and clarity of them as a toddler before I myself acquired language.

But I have heard that children may be able to understand and even think in language form before they can actually voice the words themselves.

Before language I can imagine thoughts are in the form of feelings, emotions, likes and dislikes.

Sitting and waiting for it's prey is not what I meant when I said that animals don't think about the future. Hunting for prey is a survival event of the present moment that is being driven in the present moment by basic natural instincts and hunger. The thoughts are not about the future. They are about the hunger they are feeling in the present moment that is driving their actions.

When a cat's stomach is full, he usually sleeps in the shade or on a tree branch with no thought of what he will eat tomorrow. His actions are driven to hunt for food when he feels the hunger.

After repeated experience of having his kill stolen by other predators he learns to bury it or hide it for later, or drag it into a tree. That is about as far into the future they probably think.

Of course we can never claim to know for sure.

I'll look for the link.

--

Here we are using statements and attributing "true" and "false" to them. I mean, are we looking at your purported prelinguistic thought, or are we talking about your memory of them using language? How do you know that before language one can imagine anything at all?

Imagination rules the world.

How do I "KNOW?" How does one know anything? I can say I know for two reasons.

1. I remember my own prelinguistic thoughts.
2. Logic tells me that if we cannot think before we acquire language, then we would not be able to acquire language.