I agree with your second answer... completely.

Still looking for that link, I'll continue until it is found. It is quite interesting actually. The man, after learning language wondered why anyone would want to know what language-less thought was like. He did not speak too fondly of it.

Language-less thought is/are the thoughts we have, even now, that we do not realize. It is feeling pain, smelling smells, tasting food, feeling emotions, feeling joy and anger and discomfort. It is visualizing and remembering a beautiful scene or pleasurable experience. It is all the things we experience that we don't describe and vocalize with words. These are thought forms. We take them for granted and don't think of them as thoughts. They are thoughts.

Here, you might find this to be of some interest.

Yes, it was very interesting.

What I got from it was that when the language-less man realized that things had names, he then established a common connection to other people who knew the name for those things.

Communication with others brought him into the light from the darkness. Not being able to share and communicate with others had to have been sort of like being in solitary confinement mentally.

Actually I know something else that is both true & false are.

I am of the view that language arises from thought/belief about fact, as it occurs and we witness it, prior to language. However, thought/belief are known to be built upon one another, and after acquiring language, there is tremendous difficulty had in attempting to decipher what thought/belief could possibly be like without it. The studies that I've seen, that link included, do nothing to contradict these things, however, it is quite clear that language(symbolic representation) tremendously expands the complexity of thinking, and thus the depth of understanding, that we are capable of.

In regards to the OP, I think that it can be established that there are pre-linguistic thought/belief that are true, that we can know exist and are true - via observation. As has already been mentioned, one must be thinking in order to learn language, thus it seems apparent that thought/belief are prior to language acquisition. However, the difficulty lies in our ability to set the content of those pre-linguistic thought/belief out with language, and being able to distinguish our language from that which it is attempting to set out. I mean, in our setting out the content of pre-linguistic thought, we cannot attribute things to a pre-linguistic mind that are contingent upon language for their existence. For instance, we cannot justifiably claim that a pre-linguistic child has thoughts about God, or about trigonometry, or about nouns and verbs, etc. All of those things are rather complex and are based upon linguistic descriptions.

Some things to consider here...

When we call something "true", it is a statement. However, being true and being called "true" have different preconditions. A thought/belief can be true without being spoken, and thus without statements. But that is misleading, because after language, we think in language. This is clear because when we express our thought/belief we must do so with language. So, if we want to share our thought/belief with another, we must use language. So, in order for something to be true and not be a statement, we must first understand what being true amounts to.

I'd be interested in reading your account.

Thanks for showing the interest.

It's simple....

both true & false are WORD.



Am I wrong??

CONDITION.

In logic programming & digital electronics,signal conditions are true or false.

OUTPUTS & INPUTS

In boolean algebra are TRUE or FALSE

It seems that you're conflating being called "true" and being true prashant. Truth tables are tools of logic. Logic presupposes truth. If a premiss(P) is true, and the inference is valid, then we call the concusion "true".

I'm not asking what things can be called "true", rather I'm asking what sorts of things can be true. Do you understand this difference?

Are they though? I mean, are you sure? How is a condition true? Can you show this?

"True and false are word" is a true statement, but that does not support your original post that you knew of something that was both true and false. So, yes, you are wrong. You've shown that you know of something that are both words, not something that is both true and false.

Yes. It also supports the notion that meaning is social and depends upon use.

Natural(common) language begins with identity... naming things, and then moves on to further give more names to the features of things being named... such as "red". I think that the point here is that for all intents and purposes, it is via language that we call things "true", and "true" is a language construct and can be used in different ways. However, it is also quite clear that being true, in the sense of corresponding to fact/reality is a different matter altogether for correspondence to fact/reality does not require language, it only requires thought/belief about fact/reality. But, without language to discern things, it is also quite clear that our thoughts are quite limited.

So, JB can you think of an example of true thought/belief that can be set out by us, using language, that does not require language in order to be formed within the thinking subject?

Well I think agreement is required.

If I name a thing "window" and you agree that it is a window, we have connection because we agree.

If I say the window is "red" and you say it is "green" and we are not color blind we do not have agreement on what the color is to be called.

So, if 30 people agree that the window's color is to be called "red" and one person wants to call it "green" or something else, he must change his opinion to be in agreement.

He will change his opinion on what to call the color to be in agreement. Hence it is decided that the color of the window is red and that color matches all other things that are red, then you have agreement.

So the statement that "The window is red." is a true statement and it is agreed upon.

The statement that the "The window is green." is not a true statement.

I agree, but do you think that a pre-linguistic child can form a belief that the window is red?

They can see color and they probably can see that red compared to other things that are red are the same color as the window.

They just don't know how to name it. If they like red candy they might try to taste the window to see if it tastes like the red candy.

They might equate the taste of cherry candy with red and try to taste the window.

So, it seems that meaning requires agreement, and that thought/belief and/or experience does not. So, determining if a statement is true first requires knowing what the statement means. But there is a problem here.

One can know what a statement means, but not know what it takes for the statement to be true.