Thread: Definition of truth

It's true that if the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides if the triangle is in a space with the euclidean metric.

It's true that if a system of objects exists, copies of those objects are created, those copies are not always identical to the original, and objects with certain traits have a higher probability of being copied than others, then the ratio of different types of objects in the system will change over time.

EDIT: And those are just truths that are available with your definition of the term. I haven't even questioned that. You should open up a math book sometime. There are tons of truths like that.

That was exactly my thought, that the only real, absolute truth that we can find is in Mathematics. I agree that the truths you listed, having to do with Mathematics should be consistent eternally.

It seems what you're trying to ask is "what is knowledge?" or "what is eternal?" or "what is the nature of reality?"

Truth is not hard to define. It's a statement that corresponds to an objective fact. If a statement is made about the objective world, and the statement describes a fact in the objective world, the statement is true. For example, if I make the statement, "there is a lamp to my right," and there really is a lamp to my right, that statement I made was true. The definition is as simple as that.

I'm personally getting tired of listening to debates in which it turns out the two people agree, and are arguing over mere semantics. Words like 'spiritual', 'love' and 'faith' have become so ambiguous it's difficult to use them. Don't add 'truth' to the list. Truth is a word that means one thing, what I described above, nothing else.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It seems what you're trying to ask is "what is knowledge?" or "what is eternal?" or "what is the nature of reality?"

Truth is not hard to define. It's a statement that corresponds to an objective fact. If a statement is made about the objective world, and the statement describes a fact in the objective world, the statement is true. For example, if I make the statement, "there is a lamp to my right," and there really is a lamp to my right, that statement I made was true. The definition is as simple as that.

I'm personally getting tired of listening to debates in which it turns out the two people agree, and are arguing over mere semantics. Words like 'spiritual', 'love' and 'faith' have become so ambiguous it's difficult to use them. Don't add 'truth' to the list. Truth is a word that means one thing, what I described above, nothing else.

Its actually very interesting as I will show now. So you say that here is one truth that there is a lamp to my right, it could be that you are delusional? Is there a lamp to your right? Or maybe its a book?

When I mentioned truth, I also meant the means by which to prove it, that is where the challenge lies, first is identifying it or hypothesizing, then the part about proving it. Its really a hard thing in my opinion. I agree with PhilosopherStoned, that the most powerful truth is in Mathematics, notice that I said powerful and not absolute as I mentioned above, I am not sure if absolute can ever be found.

Originally Posted by elucid

Its actually very interesting as I will show now. So you say that here is one truth that there is a lamp to my right, it could be that you are delusional? Is there a lamp to your right? Or maybe its a book?

When I mentioned truth, I also meant the means by which to prove it, that is where the challenge lies, first is identifying it or hypothesizing, then the part about proving it. Its really a hard thing in my opinion. I agree with PhilosopherStoned, that the most powerful truth is in Mathematics, notice that I said powerful and not absolute as I mentioned above, I am not sure if absolute can ever be found.

Okay, but I still think my definition stands, and what you're really asking is "what is knowledge?". How do we know that something is true?

In philosophy, according to my philosophy instructor a few years ago, knowledge is defined as a belief that is:
justified - The person has a good reason for believing it's true
true - The belief corresponds to objective facts
obtained through a reliable mechanism - The source from which the person obtained their belief is reliable

But I think there's a problem with the last one, because I think it's really just saying, "the source you got your information from 'knew' the truth," and the problem is just brought back a step, not solved.

Even mathematical truths you can't be certain of. There is nothing you can know for sure, and lately I've been considering that even Descartes' claim that I know I exist is false. Because any possible 'realization' that something is true results from a mental process. And any mental process can go wrong, or be interfered with. I think everyone has had the embarrassing experience of making some faulty logical connection and realizing later that it makes no sense, like momentarily being certain that a cube must have 8 sides. We have no way of knowing for sure that all of our mental processes aren't screwed up in this way, but we can be almost certain.

Originally Posted by elucid

What is truth? This is a very interesting subject because most of our "truths" are not truths based on my definition but assumptions.

So here is my definition of truth.

Truth is something that is or happens and is consistent till the end of world/time and if that is not the case, then truth is something that is or happens for eternity.

This is the reason why it is hard to find the truth, most of the things that we currently know are all assumptions, there is not a single fact that I know of, not even our existence as it is very hard to prove it. Simply saying that I am right here does not do it, you could be in a coma or a dream for all we know.

Does anybody agree or disagree with this definition of the truth. I really dont see how it can be argued against.

I disagree. It was true that I disliked salad, it is no longer true.

So in the past the statement "Matt doesn't like salad" was true, but it is no longer true. However I suppose you could say that it is still true because there is probably some other guy named matt who doesn't like salad at this moment.

This statement is a truth. It is currently a false truth. Someone could hold it to be true if they felt like it, but from my perspective it is false. The fact that something is not always true in every situation does not mean that it is not true, or that it is not a truth.

What is true for eternity aside from constant change? And even that is an assumption. Truth is just a statement that we agree is true, or in other words a statement that reflects reality. I have doubts that there are any absolute truths or constants that are true at any point in reality. You could maybe argue change, though this is an assumption. And you could maybe argue the present is constant. Things can only be experienced now, it is constantly now, but these kinds of truths are much less meaningful in my opinion.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."
— Malaclypse the Younger (Principia Discordia, Or, How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her: The Magnum Opiate of Malaclypse the Younger)

Truth is a property of statements.

In some mystic traditions, Truth(with a capital T) refers to reality beyond words. Things as they are without the coloration of our ideas about them.

Because any possible 'realization' that something is true results from a mental process.

Yes, and this results from our knowledge of the human body, imagine posing this question to someone a few centuries ago, who could not reason like this because this knowledge was not present, in the same way imagine the things that we do not know that can change your reasoning.

I disagree. It was true that I disliked salad, it is no longer true.

Yes, but if you can first prove that you exist, then I would move on to your personality of what you like and dislike.

Even mathematical truths you can't be certain of

Though in a very strict sense, I agree with this, going from a gut feeling, it is very hard to imagine that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can ever change, in a very strict sense you cant tell.

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes, but if you can first prove that you exist, then I would move on to your personality of what you like and dislike.

I posted on this on the internet. In order to post something on the internet I have to exist. Therefore I exist. How could I do anything if I didn't exist, the notion is absurd. Proof<truth anyway. Just because you can prove something doesn't make it true. Christians have proven that I will go to hell for all my pre-marital sex, but that doesn't mean it's true.

You have to use your own intelligence to really know whether or not something is true. Maybe it's impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, but if so then your definition is all the more false.

It doesn't matter if I exist or not thought, this was just an example. And either way whether or not I exist has little to do with the fact that truth is a property of statements.

School buses are yellow is another one. It's true sometimes, not all the time. Truth depends on context.

You might say math is an exception, but in this exception math is the context, so therefore it isn't; math is just more precise than everyday language. In math the meaning of the symbols is very exact and generally the same for everyone in every case, but it does not by any means have to be. Truth is just a way of saying the symbols reflect reality when interpreted in a certain manner.

I could decide that 2=bannana and 4=orange. Under this context 2+2=4 is false. 2 bannanas do not equal an orange.

Good question, I completely agree that everything could just be an assumption, right now we could be living a dream, in the Matrix, a virtual reality.

So what kind of truths can we trust then? I think the only kind of real truths are logical truths. Truths which are arrived by through pure logic. I guess mathematics is one example, but that is more like a system of calculation, not really a truth.

Anyway I while ago I found this book on the net on some ancient egyptian philosophy, the kybalion, and they had 7 hermetic truths on which they based thier logical thinking. These 7 truths would be reflected in every single thing in existence. I don't understand all the truths summed up, but those that I do understand, sure have improved my thinking a lot.
The Kybalion

In order to post something on the internet I have to exist. Therefore I exist. How could I do anything if I didn't exist, the notion is absurd.

Yes, the notion is beyond absurd in my opinion, but that doesnt make it any less of a genuine philosophical subject. Now you are basing your existence on our existence, who do we base our existence on to prove it. This still remains unproven as per my assumption that nothing can be proven.

Maybe it's impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, but if so then your definition is all the more false.

This is where I am lead to as well, that though we might not know something with absolute certainty, we can be a certain percentage sure for practical reasons.

And either way whether or not I exist has little to do with the fact that truth is a property of statements.

I agree with you on this that truth is the property of statements, whether it has no truth or it does, but the finding of the "truth" is what I am talking about.

School buses are yellow is another one. It's true sometimes, not all the time. Truth depends on context.

In a practical sense, yes School buses are mostly yellow. In a strict sense, they just seem yellow. Who knows what their "real" color is.

I could decide that 2=bannana and 4=orange. Under this context 2+2=4 is false.

Yes but my intention was to not change it like that, it wouldnt then be the same as pure numbers 2 + 2 = 4.

right now we could be living a dream, in the Matrix, a virtual reality.

It is my opinion that this is a dream that we are living in. A matrix? I am not sure or a virtual reality? Correct me if I am wrong, but with the Matrix and virtual reality, I get the idea that we are talking about a computer simulation of some type. In my opinion that is highly unlikely as it is very hard to simulate consciousness.

the kybalion, and they had 7 hermetic truths on which they based thier logical thinking.

Exactly, usually when we though logical thinking, we have "logics" that we base them on but those logics down to their core are assumptions. Such as the logic that solids do not go through each other, this is our logic, but it is an assumption. When we try to study the interactions of these two objects we keep this "logic" in mind even though it is an assumption.

So in my conclusion to this, I think that it is very hard to find the absolute truth, but for practical reasons we keep in mind some type of logic we use to study things or to live our life which I have no problem with if we keep this idea in mind that they too are assumptions and that there is a chance of them being wrong. This is a way of keeping our mind open to things. And lastly, I agree that we can know the truth only to a certain percentage.

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes, the notion is beyond absurd in my opinion, but that doesnt make it any less of a genuine philosophical subject. Now you are basing your existence on our existence, who do we base our existence on to prove it. This still remains unproven as per my assumption that nothing can be proven.

Things can be proven, I just gave you an extremely weak half assed proof that I exist. Proof=/=absolute truth. Words are weaker than experience, weaker than reality.

What does my existence have to do with your definition of truth?

Originally Posted by elucid

I agree with you on this that truth is the property of statements, whether it has no truth or it does, but the finding of the "truth" is what I am talking about.

We find truth by using words we know to mirror reality. What exactly do you mean? Are the quotes to denote some special kind of truth?

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes but my intention was to not change it like that, it wouldnt then be the same as pure numbers 2 + 2 = 4.

My point was that even math is not absolutely true.

So therefore your definition, that truth is something consistent until the end of time, is false.

Words can be true, but not for all situations.

Originally Posted by elucid

So in my conclusion to this, I think that it is very hard to find the absolute truth, but for practical reasons we keep in mind some type of logic we use to study things or to live our life which I have no problem with if we keep this idea in mind that they too are assumptions and that there is a chance of them being wrong. This is a way of keeping our mind open to things. And lastly, I agree that we can know the truth only to a certain percentage.

I agree, and I think most people do.

About the question "what can we know with certainty?", I might as well bring up Descartes and how he eliminated both knowledge gained through experience and knowledge gained through reason.

For knowledge agained through experience, it is always possible that we're in a virtual reality of some sort, 'brains in vats'. Yes, it's very unlikely, but the fact that's even the slightest bit possible means that we can't know for sure, and therefore we can't be certain of any knowledge we gain through experience.

For knowledge gained through reason, consider the possibility that there is some 'evil demon' interfering with and changing your thought processes, so that some of your thoughts are irrational even though you feel that they're all rational. Again, because there's even a slight possibility of this, even though it's small, you can't be certain of any knowledge gained through reason.

So, we can't be 100% sure of knowledge gained through reason or experience. Descartes thought that he can be sure that he exists. Because while he's questioning, "do I exist?", there needs to be an 'I' who is doing the questioning, for the question to even be coherent. He doesn't think that he can know for certain that he exists while he's remembering thinking about it before, since the 'evil demon' might have planted false memories in him. He also doesn't think that he can know other people exist, only himself while he is questioning his existence.

From this, he goes on to say that he knows for sure that the 'I' who exists experiences _________, filling in the blank with any experience: an emotion, a perception, etc. So far, to me, it seems he's right in everything I've explained until now. He then goes on to try to prove the existence of God from this, but that part of his argument is more disputable.

I see the importance of this thread, as it would be nice if we knew something for certain. But I agree that, practically, it doesn't matter much. In everyday life, when we use the word 'know', we mean 'almost certain', maybe somewhere around 99.9% sure or more.

Originally Posted by elucid

Exactly, usually when we though logical thinking, we have "logics" that we base them on but those logics down to their core are assumptions. Such as the logic that solids do not go through each other, this is our logic, but it is an assumption. When we try to study the interactions of these two objects we keep this "logic" in mind even though it is an assumption.

So in my conclusion to this, I think that it is very hard to find the absolute truth, but for practical reasons we keep in mind some type of logic we use to study things or to live our life which I have no problem with if we keep this idea in mind that they too are assumptions and that there is a chance of them being wrong. This is a way of keeping our mind open to things. And lastly, I agree that we can know the truth only to a certain percentage.

Yes agreed, all logics we use are based on assumptions. Except for these 7 hermetic principles, they are derived from the fact you can find the principles back in everything. There are some undeniable truths, like for example every cause has it's effect. There is no assuming going on here, this is a truth that can be verified in every single thing in existence. Even if everything was just a dream, this truth would still apply, as you cannot find any cause without an effect.

So I have to disagree with you, there are certain principles, certain absolute truths which are undeniable and do not need any assumptions. These truths are all extremely simple, and at first hand might seem pointless, until you start to see them everywhere you go, then you realize you can apply these truths to everything, from abstract thinking to physical objects, they all contain these truths.

@Dianeva: Very interesting point you made about knowledge gained through reason and how it could be influenced if such a thing as demons existed, however, there are certain truths which can be systematically applied to every single thing. As long as you can apply these certain truths, to everything, without any exception, then these truths, are undeniable. Like the 7 hermetic principles for example.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

As long as you can apply these certain truths, to everything, without any exception, then these truths, are undeniable. Like the 7 hermetic principles for example.

I did a quick search for the 7 hermetic principles. I think I've run across them once before. Honestly, the only one that seems we might be able to 'know' is that all causes have effects, and that's only because having an effect is part of the definition of a cause. It's like "all unmarried men are bachelors" - one of the many logical statements that can be made on the assumption of definitions.

Some others seem possibly true but I see no reason we should think we know them for sure: everything vibrates, correspondence. And others seem complete bs to me, and far from being definite knowledge, seem very unlikely to be true: everything is metal, gender is in everything. I see no reason to think that gender is in anything but sexually reproducing organisms. I might have gotten the definitions of some of these wrong, as I only did a brief search, so feel free to correct me.

"Honestly, the only one that seems we might be able to 'know' is that all causes have effects, and that's only because having an effect is part of the definition of a cause."

Agreed the principle might seem extremely simple, but the implication is huge.

Originally Posted by Kybalion

Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law.

How many times don't we explain something with "chance" or "coincidence"? Explaing something with chance or coincidence is a flaw in logical thinking that can be prevented using this principle of cause and effect. Realizing every effect has it's cause and every cause has it's effect, we no longer explain things with chance or coincidence, they are nothing but a law undiscovered.

When they say gender is in everything, also in rocks, I don't think they mean rocks have a dick or a vagina. I haven't figured this one out either, but one explanation could be that they mean that everything is electromagnetic: a rock is made out of electricity, the male active side, and this electricity is accompanied by a magnetic field, the female passive side. But I don't see how to arrive at this conclusion without science, so I don't think this is a valid explanation for the principle.

Anyway, most of these principles I'm still trying to figure out, but the once I did figure out did improve my thinking a lot. I could explain some of them but I think if you're interested in this subject, you're better off with reading the book yourself as this post is getting too long:
The Kybalion

How can we know for sure that these principles apply to everything? Only by seeing it for yourself, only by the process of deduction. As long as everything follows these principles, they are correct. But ok I guess you're right to say that any moment something could pop up and no longer follow these principles. This certain type of deduction, is called natural deduction.

Originally Posted by Wiki

In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with the axiomatic systems which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning.

Natural deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I definitely agree with the idea that knowledge gained from experience can be criticized using the idea mentioned by Dianeva. Knowledge gained using reasoning can be criticized using other reasoning or the idea that our reasoning could be wrong.

For example, consider this idea; If you propose an idea, if you do not know of the existence of a reason that would counter your idea, then you are not sure of your idea. In this way, even Math fails to become absolute. In my opinion, the above thought makes it so that just about everything is put to doubt, even itself.

For the idea that every effect has a cause, I must admit that this one is a hard one. This in my opinion depends on the origin of the world, if you are of the opinion that this world came from nothing, then that would defeat the idea that every effect has a cause, but if you are of the opinion that this world has always been then the question of where it came from becomes irrelevant. So this idea of every effect has a cause is put to doubt.

Originally Posted by elucid

For example, consider this idea; If you propose an idea, if you do not know of the existence of a reason that would counter your idea, then you are not sure of your idea. In this way, even Math fails to become absolute. In my opinion, the above thought makes it so that just about everything is put to doubt, even itself.

To some extent, but there are many things you don't need to doubt. For example there's no need to doubt if I chop my arm off it will hurt, though this could all possibly be a hallucination and my arm might not even be real. In fact it would be very dangerous to doubt in this way.

You shouldn't go around doubting everything(I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to survive if you actually did this), just don't be so certain things are the way you think they are.

Originally Posted by stonedape

To some extent, but there are many things you don't need to doubt. For example there's no need to doubt if I chop my arm off it will hurt, though this could all possibly be a hallucination and my arm might not even be real. In fact it would be very dangerous to doubt in this way.

You shouldn't go around doubting everything(I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to survive if you actually did this), just don't be so certain things are the way you think they are.

I agree, like I said, this is considering it in an absolute sense or very strict. For practical reasons, I believe in my existense, body, family, etc. For practical reasons, I have confidence in my abilities. The idea I mentioned is considering this whole situation philosophically.

Aside from practical reasons, I really try to not have any world-view and try to follow the thinking that we should develop our abilities or the how of life.

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes, I definitely agree with the idea that knowledge gained from experience can be criticized using the idea mentioned by Dianeva. Knowledge gained using reasoning can be criticized using other reasoning or the idea that our reasoning could be wrong.

For example, consider this idea; If you propose an idea, if you do not know of the existence of a reason that would counter your idea, then you are not sure of your idea. In this way, even Math fails to become absolute. In my opinion, the above thought makes it so that just about everything is put to doubt, even itself.

I agree causality is a really tough problem
For the idea that every effect has a cause, I must admit that this one is a hard one. This in my opinion depends on the origin of the world, if you are of the opinion that this world came from nothing, then that would defeat the idea that every effect has a cause, but if you are of the opinion that this world has always been then the question of where it came from becomes irrelevant. So this idea of every effect has a cause is put to doubt.

I agree causality is a really tough problem. The problem lies in the proposition "every effect has a cause" but the question is "what caused the cause?" this creates the endless regression paradox which in my opinion is not a paradox if you believe that the universe had no origin and has always existed. But is the concept of infinity a metaphysical claim? I mean it is beyond our experience, and how can we comprehend something that is infinite being finite beings?
I agree with your claim that most of the truths we take as a given are just assumptions but I disagree that truth is something that is consistent till the end of time(assuming that time had a beginning). for example when I was 13 I was about 5 feet tall, which was a fact then, but now that Im 18 Im about 6 feet tall. So I dont think truth is consistent and absolute in every instance.

The endless regression paradox of cause and effect can indeed be solved with the following logical proof:

If the present is created from the past, and the future is created from the present, we can conclude that only the present moment exists in time. Or if the past doesn't exist anymore and the future doesn't exist yet, we can again come to the conclusion that only the present moment exists in time.
If only the present moment exists in time, then this moment must be infinitely small.
If the present moment is infinitely small, then it is impossible to figure out which is the cause, and which is the effect.

Basically this argument comes down to our conception of time being linear and representing it as a line being false and that time is more like a dot, so cause and effect will both fall on the exact same point as there is only one point making it impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect.

Conclusion: Cause and effect are interchangeable, solving the endless regression paradox.
Practical application: Do thoughts cause emotions or do emotions cause thoughts? Does the mind generate the body, or does the body generate the mind?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I agree with your claim that most of the truths we take as a given are just assumptions but I disagree that truth is something that is consistent till the end of time(assuming that time had a beginning). for example when I was 13 I was about 5 feet tall, which was a fact then, but now that Im 18 Im about 6 feet tall. So I dont think truth is consistent and absolute in every instance.

But isn't the fact the fact that you were 5 feet tall, when you were 13, a truth that will be always stay true since it's impossible to travel back in time to change your height?

Is the present moment not also infinitely large?

Cause and effect are not interchangeable, though most effects will cause other things to happen. Though I do agree that it is at least currently impossible to pinpoint the first cause. But it is possible to determine specific causes of specific effects, even outside of laboratory settings. For example the water on the stove is boiling, the cause is the fire. It is easy to distinguish between the two. Boiling water does not cause fire.

In the case of thoughts and emotions, the both can cause each other. Emotions come first, at least in my speculative opinion, because babies can't think, at least not right away. They can however have an emotional response(like crying) to something that we might interprate as, "I DON'T LIKE THIS!!!!STOP!!!!". But in the babies consciousness this is only feeling and sensing, not thinking.

The body clearly generates the mind, fetus exist before they have brains.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

But isn't the fact the fact that you were 5 feet tall, when you were 13, a truth that will be always stay true since it's impossible to travel back in time to change your height?

Yes but it is possible to make a statement which was true that is nor currently. Truth is not absolute, or at least not in almost all cases.

Nice argumentation.

Is the present moment infinitely large? What makes you think that? Is it really possible to measure the present moment? If it's not possible, then can't we conclude, that the present moment must be an infinitestimal? I mean try measuring "now", before you can even try, now has already changed into another now.

Fire does not cause boiling water. Fire does not make "boiling water" appear out of nothing, you left out a part of the chain here. Fire causes heat. Heat causes the water the boil. And boiling water causes heat, so the cause and effect are interchangeable.

Babies already learn when in the womb, so must have some kind of thinking process that is similar to thought. It might not be words, but next to emotions babies do have the potential to think logically, how else would they learn a language in the first place?

About the fetus, good point, can't argue with that in that perspective but I was seeing this from another perspective, this one: Brains are not the mind. Brains are the body. The mind is the electromagnetic field generated by the body. Or maybe the body is generated by the electromagnetic field of the mind.

If you say truth is not absolute in almost all cases, then you do agree with me, that in some cases, there is an absolute truth by saying "almost". Which the point I was trying to make, that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Is the present moment infinitely large? What makes you think that? Is it really possible to measure the present moment? If it's not possible, then can't we conclude, that the present moment must be an infinitestimal? I mean try measuring "now", before you can even try, now has already changed into another now.

No, that doesn't follow. If you can't measure something then you don't know it's size, or have no way of representing in terms of size. It doesn;t mean you know that it's size is infintesimal.

Where do you draw the line between one moment and the next? To me there is nearly infinite depth to all moments.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Fire does not cause boiling water. Fire does not make "boiling water" appear out of nothing, you left out a part of the chain here. Fire causes heat. Heat causes the water the boil. And boiling water causes heat, so the cause and effect are interchangeable.

Not really, but I see what you are saying. Try this, chopping someone's arm off. The cause is you swinging a sword, the effect is them losing an arm. The cause and effect are not interchangeable.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Babies already learn when in the womb, so must have some kind of thinking process that is similar to thought. It might not be words, but next to emotions babies do have the potential to think logically, how else would they learn a language in the first place?

About the fetus, good point, can't argue with that in that perspective but I was seeing this from another perspective, this one: Brains are not the mind. Brains are the body. The mind is the electromagnetic field generated by the body. Or maybe the body is generated by the electromagnetic field of the mind.

To me thought is a mental process, it is thinking, it is using words to understand things. Babies don't do this. You don't have to think about it for your hear to beat. Consciousness and learning are not the same as thinking.