Can we think?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by §outh§tar, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Cole Grey,

    Game? GAME?!
    No game, my friend. While my posts above may have been mostly quote free, they were a rarity.
    I truly find it easier to follow a thread with quotes.
    Consider that threads take time. Sometimes days or even weeks between posts. The quotes refresh the memory and point the mind to the exact phrase that is being responded to.
    While it may also aid in a for of pissing contest, one learns to avoid those people who are so vindictive and don't really desire to participate in a conversation. Unless one feels pissy, that is, and want to flame.

    The quotes are a time-saving device. I could either 'sum up' the statement that I am responding to (in which case I might very well misinterpret and thus fall prey to accusations of 'putting words in mouths'. Or I could just quote what you've said and respond to it directly.

    It's not always just a spiteful back and forth that can be seen as a competition although many do, it can be about clarity and bouncing ideas off each other. One's words sparks words in another which in turn spark words in return. It doesn't need to be antagonistic.

    Anyway, I suggested that you start a thread on posting styles and I mean it. If you're really that set against quotes as a posting style, perhaps we should gather the response of the forums as a whole rather than hijack Southstar's thread.

    Semantics are very important in this discussion because that is where this argument always bogs down. You say that things are obvious, yet they aren't. Not to everyone. You'd be surprised the amount of people who refuse to categorize types of thought in order to 'win' the argument.

    Getting at what you mean by 'interacting with' is also an important term. How do you interact with a thought? What can you do with it on its own without words to rationalize it into a logical and cohesive construction?

    But, that's the thing. I've pointed out time and time again that differentiation must be made on types of thought and the usefulness of types of thought. Southstar is basing his discussion on motor control impulses but is attempting to apply it to cognition. What he's doing is, in many ways, similar to switching frames in physics.

    While people may know that there is more than one way to think, you'd be surprised how many fail to figure this into the equation when discussing the nature of thought and language.

    Because your 'weak-ass joke' echoes arguments made by people who spoke in all seriousness. Again, you'd be surprised at how many people fail to realize basic assumptions required for a cogent discussion on thought.

    And, I never asked if 'all possible communications can be made without words'. I asked how far can one go without words. And the answer is not very far at all.
    This is a central issue to this argument of language of thought. If you see it as funny, then this just shows that you are seeing too many 'obviouslies'.

    Consider this. How far can communications go with only language? We can express quite a few complicated thoughts, but it is far more difficult than expressing thoughts in person where the base communication functions are also added into the equation. Body language. Prosody. Smell. Etc...

    This just goes to show that you don't understand how things are done in a good forum discussion. Again, this is going off-topic, but I'll address it quickly (attempt brevity anyway.)
    Water and I have engaged in numerous conversations and both of us are actually known as being excellent listeners. In this conversation, I must admit to fading out after giving up on getting through to Southstar and only came back in with the unveling of his theory. But, I actually have a very good idea on what Water is saying and has said. I'm not attacking her point by point. I'm discussing with her, point by point. Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I disagree. Sometimes I discuss solely on a point by point basis and sometimes after or before doing thus I speak in a general gestaltian sort of way of the whole picture.
    And, by the way, it was Southstar who I asked what the article had to do with his argument. I read it and it was an interesting paper, but it had nothing to do with the evolution of consciousness as he was referencing it. In fact, it was an argument against a specific type of consciousness, p-consciousness, on evolutionary terms.

    This link actually upset me a bit, because it seems to be a long link that is meant to overwhelm the average person into just assuming that it is pertinent without actually reading it all. I'm not your average person though. Not bragging, just stating fact. I've read the paper and find no relevance. If there was relevance that I missed, I'd appreciate him explaining it to me. I'm not infallible and sometimes I miss things.

    Ha! This should be good. I hope that Gendanken doesn't disappoint.
    Word of advice. Gendanken and I are sort of the brain junkies of this forum. Your condescension is so out of place that it's not even funny (ok. It actually is sort of funny.)
    I can assure you that Gendanken is also speaking of the types of thought that lead to such discussion as we are having now and not the kind of thought that causes your hand to reach down to scratch your nutsack.

    Edit: Errr.. I mean that thought without language is suitable for scum in the toilet bowl. In other words, not human thought. Not the type of thought that most think of when they say thought.

    Interesting conclusions you come to.

    Well, good. There's hope for you yet then.
    Kidding.
    You're hopeless.
    Kidding again.
    Or am I?

    Seriously, I think that you have strong opinions on this matter of posting style and a thread about it might be interesting. I challenge you to create one.
    Perhaps you could even try to make a thread with rules where you can't quote. Or can only quote rarely. Should be interesting to see how quickly people got lost and have no idea what is going on. Think of quotes as a form of placeholder. A bookmark. It might seem confrontational, but it's not. Not when used right, anyway.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Well, NEXUS, I actually only posted in the first place because you were sounding like an asshole (I didn’t say uninformed, just asshole), but now I see you can be civilized when you feel like it, so I will drop the “game”, as I don’t like to play the game anyway, and apparently you are only inclined to play that game every so often, as the mood strikes you.

    I used the word tiresome in response to one tiresome post in which you went, in a tiresome manner, line by line through my post, which I found very, yes, tiresome. Your more recent post was somewhat less tiresome and more informative, so I will refrain from using the word tiresome to describe you unless you persist in going line by line, at which time you will only have added to my complaints about the method, by showing that in using that method the ideas eventually become harder to follow than even using no quotations whatsoever, a method I did not, and would not, recommend.

    Quotes and references are OBVIOUSLY a necessary part of this type of discussion. I was only complaining about people who write detailed, line by line examinations of every word a person uses, thinking that it will discredit the other person’s argument somehow. This is a tactic used by rhetoricians who are not able to synthesize complete ideas, and like to spend a lot of time talking about nothing. (i.e. wasting time)

    As far as GENDANKEN goes, there is no condescending going on in my statement. For the person who knows there are other types of thought, there is only an explanation that I forgot to write “obviously”. I am assuming from what you are saying that GENDANKEN is that type of person, and being one would only feel sorry for any dumb-asses that may have the idea that there is no other way to think than with words. Any negative response would only make me question why GENDANKEN would defend, or associate with, the dumb-asses previously mentioned.

    Also, the question as to whether I am hopeful, or hopeless, is so far out of your control that you trying to make that decision is as futile as a person on earth trying to decide how many miles away they should cause the sun to orbit.
    (by the way, trying to act like you have some say in the matter is something that makes you sound like an asshole, whether you are one or not)
    (another good example of what assholes do would be to, during the line by line examination, point out that “the sun doesn’t maintain a constant distance from the earth at all times, so you couldn’t decide how many miles away to put it if you tried, haha”, to which I would have to waste my time responding, “I know that, asshole. that wasn’t the point.”)

    As requested, NEXUS, here is my thread on posting techniques:

    Question- should people be assholes and go line by line through every single f*ing word of a post trying to discredit an imperfect poster (as though they were a poilitical campaigner digging through their opponent's life story), even though the poster might have a decent idea buried somewhere in their drivel, or should they stick to, at least ostensibly, the ideas?

    Answer- people who are assholes are... full of shit

    All this to say, if going line by line helps you discuss, cool, and if it is just the person being an asshole maybe that is fun for some people, I don’t know, I quit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Cole Grey:
    No, see- now I'm tiffed.

    Because other than the pussy epicures on these forums following you around like a sick puppy, its those funny little newbies that make you want to hit them.

    Your stupidity, your ranting, your useless banter, your getting ahead of yourself yet fucking clueless as to what you're even talking about- all of it is common, sit the fuck back and read:

    Life is how old- 2.5, 3 billion years old?- and for all that gathering, moving, reproducing, killing, living of species required motivated sequence.
    You flash a light on a slide smeared with paramecium and the organisms will scurry to go hide themselves.

    All of this takes consciousness- something self-centered, immediate and instinctual- in other words, the qualia of patchy mold on my toilet, the cockroach, the gnat.
    That said- the difference between a stone falling and my dog knowing that he’s falling is consciousness.

    But ideas, moron, are concrete wholes with a lifespan beyond that of need.
    THOUGHT.
    THINKING.


    They require a categorization of facts taken from the world and shaped by the mind, Kant was stringent on this- no, I haven’t read his Critique but I dare anyone to claim it, I’ve read the Prolegomena- and the point stands: thought requires categorization and subjective interpretation of it into something classified we call logic.
    Which takes words.
    Which leads back to ideas.

    And ideas debut with a certain type of neuronal tissue that is flexible, creative, and astute enough for the sequential complex that’s the phenomena of language.
    That’s the first time anything was ever thought on this planet you idiot, and only possible with a species in possession of a tool made for it: language, and it came with the temporal and frontal lobes of the proto-human.

    That stupid dog of yours?
    He’s conscious of his burying his bone or you hugging him, but he’ll never think a principle for privacy and ownership for bones or love and spiritual bonding for hugs because he can't fucking think.

    To wit- the Indo European languages differ from the Semitic ones and their thinking differs; something else I’ve recently learned- the German word for ‘gift’ is ‘poison’ and that reflects a warrior mentality.
    The world before the zero was invented in contrast with that after it is significant as well- the thinking shifted and math was revolutionized.
    No,no, no- this is waaaay too easy must continue- look at the forums.

    Each member sounds like something straight from kindergarten.
    Their sentences lack gravity, the content is dull, the theories all confused and smeared together- now compare the toddler’s language to that of a college student.
    For that matter, the mind of an American negro to that of a North European, then look at their language.

    For that matter, look at yours.
    Look at you, I can picture you on the shitter with your mouth open "thinking" up theories by the second, you see the shit in your mind, but without words neatly put together to show it to me, which requires skill and actual thinking, tells me you're only an idiot with pretensions.

    Next time, you cunty little Nibelung, read a fucking book or shut the fuck up.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Bringing up the dog again, of course. I know I can't communicate very aptly with a dog. You might have better luck as you are exhibiting a fine ability to bark like one, but that is beside the point.
    Can the dog "think"? Maybe not.

    here is the question-

    Can thought that is not able to be described by language be called thought?

    NEXUS has pointed out in a previous post that it can.
    NEXUS -"The point has been made that a definition of thought must be made as
    there are many types of thought."

    You have come out wearing the jersey of the tenth grade philosopher's team, and say "no". You two can fight that one out because I think you need some time to cool down GENDANKEN.
    Here are a few ideas to help you out-

    If two languages have different words for the same thing, is it a different thing? Well no, but is it a different thought. I guess it depends on how SUBJECTIVE you want to be in your discussion.

    Do dolphins think? I guess babies don't think either, they are just machines until they can use language. So if the baby can say "dada" it can think about daddy, but mommy has to wait a while to enter the child's mental inner sanctum?

    Please don't come back with some half-assed thing like, "Kant says thought requires words, and he's real famous, so...", or I will be forced to laugh at you and point you to all the discussions in the religion forum where self-referential bible bangers are put on the rack.

    after you've worked out the definition of thought, come to me and maybe your brain will have warmed up, or cooled down, enough to have an intelligent discussion...

    I love how GENDANKEN says, Cole Grey rants -
    GENDANKEN, "pussy... moron... fucking...fuck."
    Why are you so angry, are you afraid you'll have to go back to tenth grade philosophy class? Did they make fun of you there? You're bigger now, it will be ok.

    Also, does your use of the word "nibelung" refer to the mythic germanic heroes? I assure you, I am not ahero, I'm just looking for a sensible discussion.
    If it implies some sort of mythical thinking you attribute to me (I'm sure I am giving you too much credit for this abstraction), please be aware that I am as present in this reality as I can take. Sometimes i need to fly away to places where people can speak intelligently and rationally, and not just thoughtlessly hurl epithets like bad talk show guests.
    If it is just some other usage of the language that just goes well with, "cunty", as I suppose it is, well then keep on ranting!
     
  8. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Cole Grey:
    So- how long can you wizz through a post and pretend that you read it? 3 maybe 5 minutes?
    See, the problem with imbeciles is not that they can't, its that they won't.

    Prime example here: I distinguished- a dozen times, maybe- between consciousnesses and thinking.
    Its those tiresome SNL skits with the noxious deafmute pretending he can't hear:
    That's right, my precious friend, it can't.
    Those were Invert's words, should I employ them as my own?

    Tell me, how much 'thought' goes into having a bowel movement, or scratching my ear, or licking my lips, or sneezing?
    Moving my fingers, how much 'thought' does that take?

    Slow your roll- that's not the point.

    Its the looking into a medium and finding something missing in it because it was never there to begin with.
    So tired of saying this- but the Eskimo tongue has no word for war.
    Why?
    They can't even think it.
    Why is the word 'war' missing in their language?

    Absolutely not.

    The monkey that sat at the keyboard and managed to type "A rose by any other..." or "My name is Ishamel"- can he think?

    The dolphin who's been ritualized into repetition, Koko and friends ritualized into a semblance of 'talking', the baby who's just learned to blurb 'dada' - do they know that they know?

    Define thinking, Mr/Mrs/Cole Grey
    No, I'm angry because I was abused and forced to eat crayons soap as a youngling.
     
  9. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    In your post is where you show who the imbecile, as defined by your problem with them, really is.

    I didn't ask you to. If you had READ my post instead of purposefully dissecting it, you would have seen that I clearly was asking for you and INVERT to hash out a definition of the word "thought", because your view that there is only one type of "thought" seems to conflict with his statement, "there are many types of thought".
    That would require you to specifically NOT employ his words as your own, but rather struggle against them to prove your point.

    If the imbecile is the one who chooses not to read the posts then your finger points to... you.
     
  10. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Cole grey:
    No, no no- wait.

    You, sir, are smearing my post and his together.
    There's no need to.
    Forget all that.

    Now, answer the question: define what you mean by 'thinking'.
    I have.
     
  11. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Cole Grey,

    Heh. Imagine that. You're saying that semantics is the issue?

    Alright. Here's what I meant when I said there are many types of thought.
    I was thinking of thought as in brain impulses.
    In other words, lifting your arm is a thought.

    But, the way Gendanken is apparently using thought is to solely use it for higher thought. Abstract thought.

    Gendanken,

    My fault.
     
  12. philocrazy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    234
    ms pornosopher invert_nexus can we really think?(thread)
    my fault is not an excuse!!!!
    pity pity pity
     
  13. philocrazy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    234
    i actually like pornosophers they are so much into porn talk
    mmmmmm oooooooh aaaaaahhhh yyyeeeeaaaaaahhhh (invert_nexus)
    pity you never talk like that here
    i bet miss you talk like that all the time!!!!!!
     
  14. philocrazy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    234
    any time you want to say something to me and all the boys here
    please do, we wont get offended
    thanks to Bill gates i see alot of porn here on the web
    especially on sciforums
    and miss invert_nexus do me a favor
    do say pity more often to me
    i like it
     
  15. philocrazy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    234
    what????????????
    sorry...........miss porfiry
     
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Philocrazy,

    It's a pity that your colon doesn't climb into your throat and strangle you in your own foul excretions.
     
  17. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Gendanken,

    I am sorry, but I am too depressed to go further on the whole "what classifies as a thought" question, right now. It has nothing to with this thread or forum. (although Invert's implication that i over-estimated the amount of basic knowledge people have is a tiny bit sad)

    Although I think your definition is incorrect, and the eskimo thing doesn't prove it to me, I am too full of sadness to get into semantics, or even constructive philosophical discussion. There are things I am thinking about that are too complex to be put into neat phrases in my language, and if I had a language that enabled me to specifically name everything I am feeling it would benefit nothing, change nothing, and these feelings and "thoughts" (and my "thoughts" about them), would be no less pertinent.
    Although I'm not able to conclude that Kant would say that words are our only thoughts, I do know that he wrote a book describing the malady I suffer from, which is the disability of my heart to purely will one thing, and only one thing, for my life.
    You can always feel free to try to dissect my logic, but it is gauranteed to be no more flawed then yours, even if there are two different outcomes.
    I look forward to the time when we can have a hearty discussion about this, or some other matter, without wasting time fighting. I'm sure, if you are as intelligent as you seem once you strip away the ranting and epithets, you'll have time to think about your constricting definition of thinking, even if it is just in your subconscious "thoughts".

    Go ahead and make fun - false accusations of my lack of intelligence, or lack of height (nibelungen?) make me laugh.
     
  18. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

    While life is taking place, parallelly, we cannot make immediate analyses. Maybe for some phenomena that are short enough for our mind to encompass, but otherwise, we are quite lost in our own process.

    In hindisght, so many things that seemed to us so smart or pathetic or inavoidable or crucial while they were happening -- in hindsight, they gain a whole different meaning.


    And this is a large part of the issue in this thread: time perspectives. Always a crux with them.


    Also, we *all* need our apprenticehood. Masters aren't born. As I am sure you know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    * * *

    You have neither seen my whole reaction, nor has none of us so far seen SouthStar's new theory, and we do not know yet what it is going to be like.

    Also, once more there are the seeming drawbacks of my discourse approach. I have the patience of an elephant when I want to -- but many neither know it, nor expect it, and what is worse: don't want it.


    Dude, THINGS TAKE TIME.


    And you dispute it with the subtlety that Godzilla displayed rampaging through Tokyo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Don't get me wrong.
    I don't advocate emotions at the cost of reasonability.

    A scientist ought to, in my estimation, be of good humour and joyous wit.


    Once theories are seen as just that -- theories -- they can be quickly changed.


    No, not at all.

    But I am convinced that once he presents his theory, and faces it, certain things will fall into place. But we cannot force or predict this.


    You need to think bigger, look further: We all need a certain confidence in ourselves, learn to become competent. One cannot do that at the first try, but one needs the experience of at least some tries to become competent.

    You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating the "one mistake and you're out" rule. I don't think this is a good rule.


    I see how you have come to this, but I totally don't want that.

    Ah, whatever happened to the jolly scientist?!
    Instead I see so many grim, so grim, faces who would kill in the name of their theory.
     
  19. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Water:
    Cheese.

    I've admitted to not reading the boy's 'theory' , don't care to, but based on what the Vert says- he's smearing science with religion..
    And Invert is the only one refuting it with biology, everyone else here is fiddling straws with rhetoric.

    What's so grim? I had a dispute once with a pastor concerning Joshua stopping the sun- sure, I wasted my time, but I was not as much grim as uselessly informative.

    Only someone who sympathizes with the pastor would think me grim in trying to correct a baboon ooops Baptist.
    More like with the saner voice of reason.

    I don't get why a person would torture themselves with a theory that guarantees his serfdom.
    Prime motivator?
    What the fuck is that but a nicer word for master or God?
    Agreed.
    Not born but made by Southstar's need for them.
    To some extent- true.
    Yet the most productive scientists were German.

    Patch Adams is cuddly wuddly, but I wonder how he'd cure your genital warts with his wit and humour.

    Cole Grey:
    Classic.

    So, we go from smarmy commentary when you thought I was stupid to backing out and claiming you're too sick or depressed to post when put to the test.

    A piece of work is man.
    Chekmate.
     
  20. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Ok GENDANKEN, I just needed to get some sleep, and I was trying to back out, not because I think you are correct (correct being something which you are not), but because I don't really CARE about someone using an incorrect definition of "thought".

    These are the reasons I entered this discussion

    #1. "biting heels" , or going line by line through a post to try to discredit another person's credibility is a technique which is often used on these forums to try to avoid having to get into the real questions, or just to be an asshole - sometimes it is used in a productive way, but very, very often, it is not
    #2. biased by what WATER says, to NEXUS,
    "Why do you go against SouthStar with such distaste? This is a discussion forum after all, not a place to carry out one's vendettas..."
    COLE GREY decides to point out #1
    #3 COLE GREY also thought it would be funny to point out that these types of discussions can tend towards long-windedness, and arbitrarily chose the phrase 1,000 words, to describe the verbosity level. (now WE know that COLE GREY actually under-estimated by 135 words, as COLE GREY didn't actually count any posts)
    #4. SOUTHSTAR's theory needs some refinement (or a new basis), so COLE GREY threw out a few ideas about "thought" for SOUTHSTAR to mull over.


    THEN--- INVERT had to get all pissed off and start a threadjacking, complete with"heel-biting".

    FAST FORWARD TO--- GENDANKEN throws out "check-mate", as if that is what happens when someone declines a game of chess to be played in a barn with people who fling offal at each other for fun.

    ...
    there is just no quick way to deal with GENDANKEN's fallacious idea. Due to my understanding of the need SOUTHSTAR's theory had of space to evolve, I thought it would be best to let this go so you could get back to the points you had before I came in.

    I will however, play GENDANKEN's reindeer, I mean eskimo, game if that is necessary.
     
  21. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Cole Gray:
    Who's flinging offal?

    Allright, look you.
    A simple definition of thought, from you, to me.
    That's all.

    I'm not asking for marriage, not asking for babies or karrats or cowshit.
    What contrues thinking?
    I'll even concede:
    Yes, yes, yes, ho ho ho, me mi mo, there go them reasons for Cole Gray's participation.

    Now give.
     
  22. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    I'll even clear the air with this post.
    Floor's yours, Paco.
     
  23. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Ok G,

    Against symbolic language being the only accepted "thought"-

    Let's imagine someone from long ago picturing a man moving through the air.
    This someone knows it is not an "angel", or "God", because it is this someone's concept, this someone is making the concept up, and this someone knows the man moving through the air is not moving by spirit or magic. The person imagines that someday, mankind will have figured out how to move through the air. He has no word to describe exactly how, although when the person throws out "bird-man", "angel", etc., and knows that isn't what is being imagined in his/her mind. The someone doesn't even need the word "move" or "air" to have this vision. The vision may come from the experience of swinging from vine to vine like tarzan and imagining what it would be like to just keep going with no vine.

    What do you call the imagining that person did?
    What do you call it when a person uses a word to symbolize some a thought but knows the word is inaccurate, because the word has connotations which don't fit the thought? Does the thought change?

    And don't start in with the "imagine" cracks, because you know what I am getting at. Please, no obfuscating, let's just work to find the answer here, who knows, maybe I will have to go back to tenth-grade. (maybe I could get some tips on how to fling offal)
     

Share This Page