This shows a clear lack of understanding what it takes for something to be true. Calling something "true" does not make it so.

On my view, facts are states of affairs, and thus are neither true or false. When we use two conflicting definitions for a word, confusion will surely follow. For instance, a fact cannot be both of those definitions, for we can agree upon things that are not actually true. "Fact" is a word that is used with such looseness that it has been rendered virtually meaningless as a result. If everyone believes that X is true, then everyone would agree that X "is true". Agreement alone, however, is insufficient for X being true.

Also, things that are agreed upon as true are statements. Thus, the first definition equates fact with statements that are agreed upon as being true. That doesn't seem to work. The second would be to call a true thought/belief "fact". That doesn't seem to work either.

I am still waiting to see an example of something that can be true or false without being a statement.

How is perception, conception, and/or assumption true or false?

"The sun gives off light" is a statement.




A person without language cannot possibly understand what being "a truth" could possibly entail. "A truth" is a label that is applied to something by one using language. Thus "that the sun gives off light" cannot possibly be thought of as "a truth" to one void of language.



Of course it is language, if it is symbolic representation. Is it a statement about the sun? I would say that it has something to do with the sun, but without knowing what the symbols mean, I cannot say for sure.

How do you know that false statements exist?
How do you know that a statement is a thing that exists?

How do you know what is true? Or do you?

If you are wanting to make a rule that true and false can only be applied to statements, (which is what it seems you are doing) then within that rule you do need a statement.

But when I say that all things that exist are true, I am talking about a different level of understanding. It is a level that you do not acknowledge or recognize.

Like zeros and ones.

1 = existence = "true"
0 = nothing = "false"

Nothing does not exist.
Nothing is false.
Everything that exists is true.

That's my logic.

Well, your argument does not work. Not everything that exists is true. If that were the case, no thing could be false. False statements exist.

Are you denying that?

I've reviewed this thread looking for some specific inforamtion that was not included.

How are you defining language?

Creative, you have twins - did they ever exhibit 'silent' twin-speak or a moment in which they both seemed captivated by something and then one looks at the other and smiles and almost simultaneously they begin a race for the object. Perhaps they were still crawling at the time or perhaps this occurred prior to their exhibiting any kind of speech patterns.

Were they thinking linguistically? Were they responding to an unspoken true/false statement?

Or do we just attribute the phenomina to wife's tales about twins?

Is it necessary to hear or read such a statement or can the statement be made, understood, and responded to without oralism or written words?

In the normal way, I suppose Di. I mean, any form of symbolic representation that communicates thought/belief. As a result of the necessary element of communication, I would think that there are no such a thing as private languages.



Without language, one cannot think linguistically. And yes, they have their own "twin-speak", still to this day.



Well, I do not think that it is possible to sufficiently ground whether or not that is the case. I mean, it seemed to be the case that they were communicating, or at least attempting to with each other and adults prior to language, but exactly what was trying to be communicated is highly suspect until they learn to say what it is that they want to say.



I would think that any such statement, in order to be meaningfully and successfully communicated(understood), it would need to be rule-based. I mean language works because of explicit and implicit rules that we all follow when using common/shared language.

Name something that exists that is not true other than a statement.

Is a statement to be considered to be a real thing that has existence?

Why? Statements are often false and they exist... clearly so. I mean, you're reading some right now. That suffices. Not everything that exists is true. That much is quite clear.



Yes.

Name something that exists that is not true other than a statement.

What makes a statement false?

If it is so clear, why can't you name something that exists -besides a statement - that is not true?

Are trying to say that "true or false" only applies to statements?

If that is the rule you are attempting to make, I think it is two dimensional thinking.

Can you think beyond that for a meaning of true?

If you can't, then your understanding of "true" is limited to statements.

I would like to know why you would limit the meaning of true.

Why? What would be the point? The claim was that everything that exists is true. Statements exist. Some are false. It only follows that not everything that exists is true.

BECAUSE OF YOUR CLAIM:
" Not everything that exists is true. That much is quite clear. "

My claim is that everything that exists is true.

If statements exist, and are things,
then thoughts also exist and are things.

Correct?

I can, but it does not matter, because the point has been proven already. There is no need to name other things that can be false. It is clear because we both know that false statements exist.





You can think what you may. I'm not making up the rule. I'm following it and so are you. I'm also recognizing it.



Beyond what? What else can be called "true" if not a statement? Give me an example.



Again, all kinds of things can be called "true". Calling something "true" does not make it so. Calling something "false" does not make it so.

Correct. Now, give me an example of a thought that is true that is not a statement.

You first.

You said:
"Not everything that exists is true. That much is quite clear."

And yet, you have not yet given me an example of something that exists besides a statement, that is not true.

If your point is that only statements can be true or false, then why don't you just say so.

Is that the rule you are trying to make?

I've already given answers to those remarks Jb. More than once. I'm not going to do your work for you. I mentioned a while back that the difficulty lies in setting things with language that do not require language for their existence. Thought/belief comes immediately to mind. Earlier you claimed, and I agreed that learning language requires first forming thought/belief. That is a good place to start.

Now, what sorts of thought/belief can be true prior to language, and can be set out with language - by us - in a manner which clearly shows that the content of the pre-linguistic true thought does not need language to exist?

That is the difficulty inherent to the problem at hand.