I think that you're completely missing the point here. Either way, the child is already in the language process, and justifying how it is that we can claim knowledge of what the child is thinking is what is at stake. How can we know - either way - what it is that the child is thinking? How can we say that a child can think "look at that!", if the child has no idea what "look", "at", and "that" mean?



I so not think that this makes much sense. Learning the difference between asking a question and making a statement requires knowing what both of those things are. I would not say that knowing how to ask and knowing how to exclaim qualifies the child to be able to know what either of those things are, or to know the difference between the two.



Tone and expression are aspects of language. Communication cannot happen unless the meaning is shared/public.



The example is attempting to set out what it is that the child can be thinking void of language. The example is trying to parse out what kinds of true or false thought/belief can exist without language.



If the aforementioned bird thought that the stick insect was a stick, that is an example of false thought/belief.

I do not think that that is a useful definition for "reality" however, even if it is granted, the conclusion here does not follow.



This does not work either. False statements must have meaning in order for them to even be false. "The capital of the US is Shreveport, La." is false. It is not meaningless, for we both know what it means. It is asserting that a certain city in a certain state is the capitol of the US. It is also false because we both know that that is not the capitol of the US.



I would hesitantly agree.

It is meaningless.




"Well the letters exist." is true. There they are.

"They have been properly represented as intended." could be true. I'll take your word for it.

"Each letter typed corresponds to the key I hit to type it, so they are correct and true."

Uh... no. This does not work.

I think that you're using the term "corresponds" in a way that causes confusion rather than adding clarity to what is in question. It is being used in a manner that I am certainly not advocating. The letters typed ARE THE RESULT of the keys that were hit. That sets out a causal relationship between your actions and the results of those actions.

Everything you claim above holds good for the falsehoods that I have typed as well. Thus, our knowing that shows us that you're mistaken in how you've set things out here.



Lies are intentional too Jb. Lies exist too Jb.

Is the mind not a part of reality?

I have not said that statements are simply ideas in the mind. There are no flying pigs. That you can imagine flying pigs does not entail that pigs can fly. It does entail that you can imagine that they can/do. Your imagination exists, and is real. The content of your imagination - the ideas contained therein - are thought/belief based and as such, may or may not, be true.

"True" is a matter of epistemology. "Real" is a matter of ontology.



I do not think that "represent" is helpful.



That's not what I'm claiming, although truth is often equated to reality. I think that that equation fails in some important ways in it's ability to take an account of what makes things true.

Statements are language constructs. We attach the predicate "is true" to statements that we believe. Doing that is actually a redundant use of language/terminology.

"The earth spins on an axis 'is true'" means the exact same thing as "The earth spins on an axis." "Is true" adds nothing here, and is redundant. Thus, we can see that being called "true" is simply a matter of believing the statement in question. Belief is insufficient for truth. Being true is what statements are supposed to do. They are true if, and only if, they correspond to fact/reality; the way things are; the case at hand. A revisiting of the cup on the table shows this clearly...

"The cup is on the table" is a true statement if, and only if, the cup is on the table.

The above is the perfect visual representation of correspondence. The statement about fact/reality is on the left, and they way things must be - in order for the statement to be true - is on the right.

I believe you are wrong, plain and simple. You have to have a little more imagination. If you depend too much on language, you can't imagine how two people can communicate without it.




Two people can communicate without language, although communication would be limited without it.

Yes they are. Lies are usually told intentionally. That means they are truly intentionally misleading, but not true in with respect to what they are meant to REPRESENT.

You said this:



If an intentional lie is not meant to represent a false state of affairs or meant to mislead, then what is it meant to do?

Iff it succeeds in misleading someone, then it has hit its mark. (like an arrow it is "true,") It was successful. It was true in that sense.

True lies. True lies are successful statements that do not correspond to reality.

BUT if a lie was just a ridiculous statement that no one actually believed and it did not succeed in misleading anyone and if it was just ignored, then it is MEANINGLESS.

So a lie is either successful or not. If a lie is successful, then it is true to its mark and intention. If a lie is not successful, then it is meaningless.

Whether or not it corresponds to reality is irrelevant because actual reality cannot be known with certainty. Its all opinion and perception.

Where reality is concerned, what makes things true is that they exist.

This line of argument/reasoning that you are employing is self-contradictory. You can disagree all you want, but doing that while not backing up the claims being made leaves little or nothing to be talked about.

You can also disagree all you want. I said that within the confines of language you are absolutely correct. Is that not good enough for you?

I don't think you get my other points.

So never mind.

Jb, think about what you're claiming here...

If being true is equal to existing there can be no such a thing as falsehood. Every thing would be true because every thing that exists is everything. The logical consequence of holding that that is the case would be having no way to be able to tell the difference between that which is true and that which is not. Are you saying that there is no difference between truth and falsehood?

You can imagine it might be, but you can't really know for certain.

I am saying that in reality, there is only truth.

Holding that something is "false" is an opinion or a mistake of perception.

Everything is what it is. If we cannot see that, it is because of our own limitations and wrong perceptions.

If we could tell when a person was telling a lie, (improve our perceptions) then people would stop telling lies.

There is only truth.

The bird did not have the ability to perceive the truth that the walking stick was indeed a possible meal.

It is what it is.

A walking stick. (A living insect)

The failure was on the part of the bird who did not see the truth.

I've yet to see you make a point that is not within the confines of language. That is my point here. You keep talking about what is possible without language, but everything you've asserted thus far is either a construct of language or utterly depends upon language. You've now gone so far as to claim that communication does not require language?

How in the world can anything be communicated without language? Communication requires at least two 'subjects' who are attempting to convey thought/belief from one to the other. The mannerisms, words, signs, facial expressions, and whatever else is being used all constitute language because they are all symbolic representation of thought/belief. If the meaning of those symbols is not shared, communication cannot happen. The one will have no idea what the other is attempting to convey.

I cannot make sense of what you're trying to say, and saying that I must use my imagination does not help matters at all. I can imagine lots of stuff that you're not intending upon conveying. In order for you to convey what it is that you mean, you are the one who must put your thoughts into some form of shared meaning. As it stands, you've redefined so many commonly held definitions, that I cannot make heads nor tails of what it is that you're trying to say. I've also shown how those definitions have led to incoherence and confusion.

Why not? What good reason is there to possibly doubt that? Saying that we cannot know anything for certain does not cut the muster. There are some things that we can - and do - know for certain.

If the bird took notice of the stick insect, and did not attempt to eat it, then why can we not conclude that the bird believed that the insect was a stick. Birds eat insects. If the bird takes notice of an insect, believes that what is seen is an insect, then the bird eats the insect. Some stick insects get eaten. Some not. Stick insects look like sticks. What reason to we possibly have to deny that sometimes birds mistakenly think/believe that stick insects are not insects at all?

Feeling, touch, and facial expressions are is UNIVERSAL. Nobody has to sit down and tell you what a frown means or what a smile means.

But yes, I am using language to communicate with you.

There is only truth.

If you do not make sense of this statement, there is nothing more that I can say.

You did not read my other post.

The bird simply failed to see the truth.