On language: on controlling and being controlled

Eh? LOL. Nerd Overlord, heh heh...*grunt*
I am gonna go try to understand your shit per all the shit you just posted. You realize it is 4am and I am fucking up at work right? I swear I will make you pay if it is bullshit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and this time I will not leave circularity for easy rebuttal so I can also rebut.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One:

Ditto. I did not want to soil it and point out the verbal gymnastics so typical of modernists but a Greek is a Greek is a Greek.

And the paragraph in this whole thread that was lovely once but screams out to me to keep going despite it all iiiisssss:
Two:
Fountainhed:

Eureka. That's what this thread is all about. It annoyingly seems this idea was lost on some. I cannot be held responsible for the fairy browsings of a thread flirter.

Get something straight here: Abstractions are not rudimentary building blocks. They are concepts hyperbolized. Mind structure taken to higher, theoretical, and hopelessly intagible 'things' divorced from material reality. Language.

Mindless sex is real. Copulation is real. Intercourse is real. Love is a bloody abstract
- gendy

Wes:

Already covered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something's taken the taste out my mouth. Funny statement, this, considering I was in love with Mephurio's thread once.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Abstractions are not rudimentary building blocks. (dankass)

babies conceive the notion that all nipples can be sucked. this is an abstraction presumably on an intuitive level. call it a low level abstraction. language is not present.

boo fucking yahhh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yes or no?

considering I was in love with Mephurio's thread once. (dankass)

women and their flighty hormones. emotions are so passe!

 

Spooky poodle:

So are curly haired poodles.

Babies are drawn by the same forces driving a pupae, a maggot, a Sitaris beetle- instinct. Place a newborn on mother's stomach and he will crawl on his own all the way to her nipple.

An abstraction would be the baby just sitting there describing his thrist for milk.

I've fucking said this a godamned million times.

Edit:
"BOO - ya "

 

wanna do lunch?

 

Spooky:

If its you I'll be cooking and swallowing..........sure.

 

Yeah I know but apparently he missed it because he asserted that I asserted what I wasn't asserting.

I'm a little bloodied from the beatings you fuckers have been dealing out to me. I'll regroup and contribute as my wounds heal. It's straining for me to deal with such seeming hostilities. It wont' be long. Maybe tomorrow or later tonight. Sumthin.

 

Wessy:

Beatings?

Caca. Admit it, old man:I'm bloody fucking intimidating.
Kidding.

Lo que sera, sera senor. There's a little kid in here.................staring at me.

 

/Caca. Admit it, old man:I'm bloody fucking intimidating.
Kidding.

Hehe, you don't scare me Gendy - but I can pretend if you'd like.

You seem to remain aloof by dripping a little boiling oil all over those you consider your subjects. You appear to come from the situation from above. You reside in your castle and we are your minions. You therefore retain your unquestionable superiority.

That's fine, but I am of no use if I'm aloof. I have to be in the trenches or it's pointless. I get a little bruised up from it but in the end I think it makes me stronger. I'm not saying you don't get in there and argue, I'm just saying you do and then climb right back up on your thrown and start with the boiling oil and such.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cruel bastard. LOL

/Lo que sera, sera senor. There's a little kid in here.................staring at me.

Huh?

 

Wessy:

Come come now......how dare you hold me responsible for what you feel I do?

Granted, I go for the jug and deal my opinions a la hardball because no one takes a carpenter seriously unless his hands are scabbed. Follow?

I'll be damned if you pukes think of me with a fucking skirt on.

........t-h-r-o-n-e, fellow, throne.

Translation: Whatever will be, will be sir. There's a little kid in here.......staring at me.

Pointless info because
one)I'm bored and
two) I'm in someone else's home and that someone else happens to be a middle-aged cow with 5 kids. One of them was in the same room I was standing here staring at me. I'd give 100 bucks to see him boiled.

 

Point to ponder: I called some of what you had to say here 'beautiful'. I fail to see precisely what is criminally aloof in that.

Unless of course you generally grind everything that is not ass- kissing down to ~being aloof~. If so, fuck you.

 

/Come come now......how dare you hold me responsible for what you feel I do?

What else do I have to work with? I haven't condemned you, I'm trying to express my impression such that I can get feedback and adjust accordingly. I don't KNOW you Gendy, but I'm getting to know you a bit from our interaction. As my understanding of "where you're coming fromi" increases, so does the efficiency of communication. See? Now why do you see that as me daring something?

/Granted, I go for the jug and deal my opinions a la hardball because no one takes a carpenter seriously unless his hands are scabbed. Follow?

Hehe, yes you seem to enjoy being the cause of scabs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can take it. As I said I've just got to let the scabs heal a little (and it's not just YOU doing it) before getting back to work.

/I'll be damned if you pukes think of me with a fucking skirt on.

LOL.

/........t-h-r-o-n-e, fellow, throne.

How dare you correct me on something so fucking simple as spelling! Trivial bastard!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/Translation: Whatever will be, will be sir. There's a little kid in here.......staring at me.

That's why I asked. I didn't know if "here" was the thread or the physical room you were in.

/Pointless info because
one)I'm bored and
two) I'm in someone else's home and that someone else happens to be a middle-aged cow with 5 kids. One of them was in the same room I was standing here staring at me. I'd give 100 bucks to see him boiled.

How horrifying. You admonish children so profusely, yet uhm, you wouldn't be here if you hadn't been one yourself. Maybe you wish YOU had been boiled before reaching adulthood so as not to have to be so bored and cruel as to wish such a horrible fate on the innocent? You meanie. I have NEVER been able to relate to cruelty. I simply don't feel it. Please though, boil away.

 

Now that is so fucking fucked up beyond fuckedupness. I mean what the fuck? 100 bucks cannot even buy you the fucking champagne bottle needed to get into the freaking VIP room at the Bleu martini! What sick bastard would take such an offer?







Oh shit: Spookz!!!!!!!!:bugeye:



Wes:
I"ll pick on you later, you bum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was watching my oldest daughter today as she at and was trying to formulate sentences to express herself. She's getting quite good. It made me think of the Gendinator.

I can see that in a sense, your assertion is correct but it's important to me that all the bullshit surrounding it is qualified (as I've gone to greatly annoying lengths to show).

Intellect had to be there first, at least the hardwired capacity for it.

Consciousness in the sense of awareness was also there first.

That considered, the typical sense of human self-awareness IS present in an untrained brain but it's like an unrefined resource. Intellect is the only means by which to arrive at "I think therefore I am", and as Gendy proposes (which I've mostly bought from the start, again, trying to put it in perspective) intellect can only really be refined through some form of language. So in a direct and irrifuatable sense one cannot be aware that "I think therefore I am" without the language to dilineate the concepts behind the words.

*hats off to participants*

Interesting discussion, what next?

 

Wes:

I was Christened gendziilla by the laity. But gendinator gets me......hot.

Vainglory. You just had to worm 'bullshit' in there somewhere. I'm hurt, wessy. I never once called your bullshit bullshit.

To end up self concious, yup.

I said this too.

Nope. And its no longer even about just animals anyway. Ferral children and to some measure autistic children don't know that they know either. Think about that.

Yes and abracadabra.

Uh-hu.......

But the point of this thread was exponentially higher: one cannot be aware of the gods and the spirits and the ghouls without langauge. That's it. We would have never ended up religious without language. And the ideas of 'soul' and 'spirit' is a myth. All byproducts of feelings getting mixed up the oddieties of 'abstract' in language. Barring all the watered down testimonies of NDE's and OBES and ESPs that loons in the millions hold up as evidence for sprituality(hogwash).........I can safely say its all a matter of talking bipeds up to their mischief.

Buy me breakfast at Tiffany's. Game?

 

Beginning from the end?

/I was Christened gendziilla by the laity. But gendinator gets me......hot.

I don't suppose lagendilatoriacium does much for you? Eh, I'm married, I don't remember "hot"... remember?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/Vainglory. You just had to worm 'bullshit' in there somewhere. I'm hurt, wessy. I never once called your bullshit bullshit.

That's bullshit! You called my bullshit bullshit a lot, as I yours. I do like bullshit though. In a sense it's all there is.

"That considered, the typical sense of human self-awareness IS present in an untrained brain but it's like an unrefined resource"

/Nope. And its no longer even about just animals anyway. Ferral children and to some measure autistic children don't know that they know either. Think about that.

Dig that, how about this edit: That considered, any potential or partial sense of human self-awareness IS present in an untrained brain but it's like an unrefined resource.

Hmm.. do you think gruntspeak is instinctual? (sidenote: To convey emotion via vocal type noises is a common trait amongst species. interesting) Language must have started becoming formalized into actual words via what? Do you think it could have been a rudimentary sense of self - still outclassing animals but rudimentary compared to us? Hmm.. what about the implications of language on memory. For instance, memory seems dependent on language in that organizational sense discussed earlier. With minimal constrast of concepts to one another, is it even possible to remember 10 years ago? How could you with no way to communicate it to yourself? In my prior context of "abstract space" we can easily constrew that language exists only in it. Can we take that to the extent that language is a property of it? If you can access the ability to abstract, language of some sort begins to creep into mind, thusly altering the very structure therein? Lots of thoughts, not enough time. Must wrap this up for now, pardon my meanderance.

/But the point of this thread was exponentially higher: one cannot be aware of the gods and the spirits and the ghouls without langauge. That's it. We would have never ended up religious without language.

You're right but in a sense it seems like a 'loaded observation' in that the direct concept of spirituality didn't exist until defined formally in a language. As such, the "feeling" of sprituality must be independent of it's direct definition (since he feeling is causal to the need to define it). Bah! It all gets kind of circular. I still think that "space between the concepts" doodad that I was tinkering with has legs.

/And the ideas of 'soul' and 'spirit' is a myth.

Agreed but your argument doesn't entirely preclude such a thing. I would assess it as quite unlikely though. Extremely even.

/All byproducts of feelings getting mixed up the oddieties of 'abstract' in language.

I'm totally with that. As the concepts become more clearly defined, the "feeling" behind spirituality becomes more daunting.

/Barring all the watered down testimonies of NDE's and OBES and ESPs that loons in the millions hold up as evidence for sprituality(hogwash).........I can safely say its all a matter of talking bipeds up to their mischief.

For the most part, yes. I could see some form ESPish kind of bizness as not entirely implausible, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm down with all that.

/Buy me breakfast at Tiffany's. Game?

I'm game.

 

It's almost as if spirituality is the awareness of the complement of one's self ya know? Daunting.

It's intersting how religions use that somewhat undefined awareness to shape the self externally. Manipulating the self like a jello mold in a sense. Eh, just a thought. Probably said it before, pardon. Seemed interesting.

 

***Well, seems to be a popular notion. I'm game I suppose. Let's do this.***
Don't know about others but I pick on you simply because I actually have to think to do so.

***I was trying to say that higher animals have demonstrated the the POTENTIAL for language but don't develop it without training. It's a matter of equipment.***
But this is bullshit. It is simple evolution. Use something long enough and the species will adapt and evolve mechanics to supplement that something.

***Why do we need to communicate? Because we developed the ability to conceptualize - thus allowing us the capacity to have something to say.***

Incorrect Wes. It is highly improbable that the first attempts at communicating were the result of a need to communicate conceptualization. It is however highly probable those attempts at communicating were for the purposes of communicating an emotion. Fear, pain, hurt, etc these precede language when one thinks of them in the fundamental sense--without the casing of language. How can I illustrate this with evidence or an example? Look at animals that share what we call language. What are they communicating? And what is conceptual about that? Dogs have language. So do Chimps and Dolphins. Do you intend to insinuate that language developed independently of each species? That the animals we evolved from did not have language?--be it very very basic. To conceptualize as I already mentioned in my prior post, implies a creation of a thought—outside that which is “hard-wired”.

***What need to communicate? There was no need until it happened unless you're talking about some kind of conscious control on the part of evolution. The brain developed the ability to remember its experience. That led to conceptualization. That led to language, since concepts (the ability of the brain that was allowed by an evolutionary mutation). Correct?
****
Incorrect. Look above. Conceptualization is possible through language.

***LOL. Yeah, I use a lot of customized terminology (very loosely as well I realize) to explain the relationships I think I understand. I'll attempt to straighten out if you tell me what you see, I'll tell you what I tried to make you see and we can fine tune from there until reaching actual communication at which point we should be able to at least agree to disagree.***
Then simply eliminate "customized terminology", verbosity that begs subjectivity, unneeded "floetry", etc. Basically, keep it simple, taut and direct. Comprehensiveness is not an issue. Should I guise what I intend to say in the unnecessary when all I intend is to communicate my idea? No. It is unnecessary for it inhibits effective communication. I reference the Greeks for it was a tactic. Most often than not, as public perception decided who was supposedly the better philosopher, some dressed their ideas in unnecessary complexity to fool the masses--who recognizing their inability to understand something because it is 'complex", immediately attributed greatness to it. It was a poke and an unfair one. But who cares? I am unfair.

***Character assasination is a trick I'd expect elsewhere.***
Where? Timbuktu? This is no character assassination. How many times have you had to repeat yourself to the serious?--those really interested in what YOU have to say? The nitwit will misunderstand, move on.

***I just don't see what you mean there. Chemical releases are all language? Chemical releases instigate communication in instinctive methods of communication? I'd concur, but that is a different and barely touched upon aspect of this conversation: The capacity for will (conscious choice and assertion) which seems nominal in most species.***
Things like tears, laughter, hormonal releases during fertility, hair rises during sexual stimulation, pupil dilations, smiling, etc etc. these are all forms or methods of communication. Evolution works that in a given situation, where a need arises often enough, we shall adapt and develop more fundamental methods to counter this need. The human brain is wired to be able to develop (higher)language simply because our forefathers used language so extensively that they needed a biologically faster way to adapt the technique.

***That's exactly what it meant. In this case I use the term somewhat loosely in the sense that in the typical nodal arrangement I think of the relationship as digital. In the sense I'm referring to it now, it's not. The 'node' in this case represents a concept as formed by abstracting the experience of the individual (not necessarily human) (obviously over their subjective experience of time). You have a conceptual matix kind of thing in your head. Concepts relate to other concept with relate to others and so forth, I would imagine remarkably similar to the 'nodal fashion' that nuerons in the brain tend to connect. If you have no language (due to isolation, but with a normal human brain) and see a rock every day, it's likely that eventually you would become familiar with that in a manner unique to yourself: a concept unique to your experience. It is as such a vague notion in a mess of concepts in your brain. If you add language, tha notion becomes much more crisp, clear and contrasted, categorized, etc. Imagine then in my prior example that the "vague notion" becomes a highly stylized concept and is thusly representative of a much "tighter" nodish thing.***
Fine. I really dislike how you are using conception.

***No need. It all plays into concepts because their construct is experience see? Not JUST language - but the integration of experience into concepts through abstraction.***
These examples facial expressions, chemical releases, etc do not require conception!

***Again - we might debate what life is, but that's probably another thread.***
Fine, start it.

***The way I'm using the teminology, a concept is the resultant of abstraction. You're using abstract like in 'abstract art' and i'm thinking of it as 'that which has no physical form, the stuff of the mind' or something along those lines. A concept is an abstract. The concept of numbers or time or whatever really only exists in your head. Sure the real thing exists, but you only have your interpretation of your enviroment stored in some arrangment in your head (all intermingled up with intinct, emotions, etc.). That's what I mean by abstract.***
You answered to Gendanken on this so I"ll spare you my bullshit. A concept is an abstract Yes. But an abstract is not always a concept.

***Yeah but you still abstract it. You have the experience, it is filed in your mind in the manner your mind has constructed to handle such input. Certainly the instinct system took control your your reactions (this is one of the two memory things, the one that your muscles remembers?, it's got to be part of that or a closely related system), but your other senses catch it as well and integrated it into your experience, however insignificatly it happens. After a while your instinct (and the muscle memory stuff) becomes so honed that your consciousness doesn't even waste your focus on the act, depending on where you have it at the time.***
It is still not a concept.

****Hah, you should review that. You disregard the EXPERIENCE of this. Though it is insignificant to your focus (where your thoughts are), it is still integrated into your experience.***
You miss the most important part; it is not a concept. Like I mentioned in your subjective geometry thread, when the neural net that is the mind learns, the paths it takes are set in stone. This is essentially instinct and we even inherit some of these. Concept implies creation, instinct does not. Get it?

If you do indeed think "remember when that green light happened, that was cool", this is conceptualization and not simple or instinctive association as would be needed in simple recognition. See? The former associated a stimulus with a previous response, Yes. But it also brings into effect, the conceptualization: cool.

:bugeye: What? I will not assume. Explain better. My theory, and I have maintained this since when I first thought of the existence of God, is simply this: Isolated from birth, you will never develop the mechanisms necessary for conceptual thought alone--you will not need to. You will be an animal. This might be different in a garden of Eden, but this another story.

***Quite possible. It's also possible that a human's brain might eventually notice that there is a difference between colors. Actually, this is evidenced directly by the fact that we can talk about the concept in the first place. Someone did notice and it made it's way into language - that wonderful conceptual repository.***
I did not say we shall not notice the difference--simply that it would be irrelevant---lack meaning. Of course you will notice the difference--light enters your eyes and will always provide the same stimulus depending on the wavelength of light. Different wavelengths, different colors. This is nothing, this is instinctive. We talk about the CONCEPTS in the first place because we communicated the instinct--conceptuality.

***All of which are part of experience.***
so?

***I'd agree, but consider that you could not exist without another entity (to have brought you into existence). If you are the last of the species and lived in total isolation I'd agree, but you'd still have concepts though they'd be very undefined in comparison to the conceptual relationships of someone equalivalent (a hypothetical copy of yourself) who has language.***
We are dealing with the hypothetical here. Even then, you are wrong. If you are isolated at birth, it is the same. Language is communication, goddamnit Wes. Without a need for communicating in the first place, there is no language.

***Nope, WE give it that language. It is a system of operating according to the 'laws' or properties of the universe. That does it's thing. There is no "communication" because there is no POV, no abstraction requiring communcation, merely a system functioning according to its properties. Technically even that description is more than it really is because ultimately the "biological language" simply is. Until we abstract it into more than that. Do you see what I mean?***
We give it language if we conceptualize its communication with itself. Besides that, it is simply as you put it "merely a system functioning according to its properties". What are you trying to contradict? The system is within itself. Maybe "biological communication" is a misnomer, but that is outside the original point.

***I asserted that most animals are simply "aware" and that there is some transcendental point along the scale of awareness (how much "experience" a POV experiences in the present) that allows the condition of self-awareness in the sense that I think you mean ("I think therefore I am" kind of stuff). I would hypothesize that maybe some chimps, apes or dolphins are self-aware but I wouldn't argue to hard for lack of data. I would argue though that they are "aware" of themselves as persistent in time to a mild extent at least, which I guess means I'd argue harder than I thought, pardon. Eh fuck, It's a long post. So yeah, I think that it's likely that some animals (not knowing much about brains of chimps though) have the capacity to store their experience that concepts arise in that muddled fashion I've mentioned repeatedly now. They even have the capacity for language (I think it was demonstrated, maybe I was fooled). ****
Potentials, potentials, bal bal bal. We are talking SELF-AWARENESS. Not a muddled kind of sense awareness. Self-awareness is self awareness is self-awareness. To be aware of one's environment to an excessive degree is still awareness of the environment and not the self. Self-awareness, at least to me, is one. It is a state of abstracting ONESELF within one's environment. That's it. This is self-awareness. There are no varying degrees for it is a state that is static. Being able to reason to a higher degree-- more computational ability-- in the conscious sense---ability to intake more of one's environment does not extend or enhance that state. Fuck it, It is another discussion and I will get to it--- When I can sit and type for a freaking hour.

****At this point though I start integrating Gendy's ideas in that I think she's right about this: It's lanaguage that allows of the clarity (or sharpness of conceptual nodes) of focus to formulate the thought "hey I exist, how about that?!" in the first place. I'd guess it's possible but not bloody likely that a human without language could develope such vividly constrasting and organized concepts on his own . He'd have to skip generations of experimentations with grunt speak and logical progression of language all on his own. Not bloody likely.
So on this point and in the context she established and I've embelished upon I think Gendy is exactly right. The awareness of self in the capacity we speak of at this point, mine or yours - is only allowed by the conceptual repository of language. ****
I agree that human language helps us HUMANS formulate our thoughts, bla bla--I got into this with Mephura and I got insulted and I got pissed.... I disagree however that the self-awareness requires language. To be self-aware is to abstract (if human) or whatever spiritual/unknown manner in which one can realize their existence within their environment. See oneself outside oneself if you will. This does not REQUIRE language.

***Then maybe I'm using the word wrong. Of course I think it's you. YOU are using it in completely human terms. Why so focused on humans? hehe. Uhm, think for a second here and then reread it all and think some more. I would not ask this of you without much respect so feel it. Abstraction is the act of taking input into a POV. Please slow and think, this isn't condescension... it's just that it's strange but slow and really think, give it a minute. Take the notion of "abstract". Abstract is the stuff of the mind. Not the brain, the mind. Your voice in your head right now is abstract. It has no physicality yet it exists. All things that exist of only thought are abstract. How do they get there? Abstraction. Experience filtered through a POV into the mind results in the abstract - a relationship of concepts in your head both concious and unconcious. All that comprises your mind.***
I meant to say conceptualization requires language and not abstraction. And it is condescending, and you should have realized what I meant per all the bullshit I had spewed about the difference between abstraction and conceptualization you nitwit!!

***Hmm, good question but you'd have to get really specific about what you mean by 'imagine'. For instance: Do you think it possible that an ape might in some vague fashion think to himself "that was a good banana, damn" without the language or clearly defined concepts to state such a thing. In his mind a fleeting thought of that vein? No? Come on man! A little? Something? Throw me a frickin bone here!****
You see it is a very hard question to answer because we cannot communicate with our fellow animals and thus cannot perceive what it is that would imagine if they did. DO animals have a subconscious state? Do they dream? These are all hard questions. As to my answer to the question i asked: do animals imagine? I say no. Ask me why later. This post is already long.

***I'd swear I've said it twelve different ways (once in this post already), here's another try: think about your YOU right now. How much of YOUR time is in your head at this very instant? Can you in a sense FEEL you entire life? All of your time (depending of the degree of self-awareness), your personal collection of expriences feel just a flick of the mind away. It's not it's conception of time so much as it is the VOLUME of time (experience) that an individual experience or has access to at any given actual time = the present, or right fucking now (as really all other times than the present are abstract)***
Ok you little shithead, let me pick on this notion of yours. You talk about experiencing only the now as the present and the past are abstracts. Did it ever occur to you that the present is an abstract? Or that by virtue of experiencing the present through abstraction you are experiencing the past or future? Of course we all have a personal experience--this is subjectivity!! I am talking of awareness and time. I am unsure what it is that you said previously that prompted the question but I will browse and get back to you.

****LOL. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to son? HEHEH - SHEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIT. You're preaching to the experienced friend. Do not doubt it! ***
Ha ha ha ha ha

****I can't believe that by now you aren't simply conditioned to stretch your mind around what I'm saying before correcting me, especially on shit like that, you know that I know that you know that I knew that fucker. Hehe. I'm almost always right damnit. LOL sorry, that was an amusing relief for me. back to the work.****
No you are not almost always right. You are sometimes right. I will not give you the satisfaction of conscious self denial!!!

****Another good question. My gut feeling about it is difficult to describe so here's more shit you'll call convoluted: Intellect is a combination of skills. First, even among the humans, who have trancended into poentially cogent thought, have quite a distribution regarding their degree of self-awareness. This could also be thought of as it relates to my bullshit in 'conceptual geometry' but that's another story, pardon. Okay, so argh - it's too involved for me to try at the moment. I really do think I get it, but man it's SO buried all of this stuff. Let's come back to it later.****
Where? I do not see. Think about it carefully, how do you differentiate between consciousness and intelligence? The computational power of the brain and awareness? So will the intelligent be more aware of themselves? Consider than the autistic and the "stupid" are abnormal.

***Yeah but I don't think "design" is a good way to look at it lest you err as you have near the beginning (if it helps i had to stop myself from doing the same thing for the reason i'm now mentioning) in that you imply a form of intelligent design or something. Mutate and die, the fittest survive. Ack, nitpicking, pardon. Onward. Of course the fittest survive!***
Design by evolution nitwit.

**Can so.**
Fuck you then

***Boy howdy, but that is another bag of worms. I think I see how it fits but until we get more on the same page it's not worth it to try and explain it.***
Again fuck you! This is the 3rd time I have asked you to relate your theories to intuition, so do it!

***Ya see that depends on some unknowns. One might refute the idea of intuition all together in favor of "perception" that is simply elusive or maybe an emergent property of the complexity at hand.***
Boooo

***Again it depends. You already asked this! ***
I figured you’d dodge, and you did.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

***In a rudimentary sense I think some do - again, language is a limiting factor on the ability to contrast concepts with one another. It also depends on exactly what sense of the word you're using "associate". Yes, any conceptual matixish thing will have associations in terms of inter-relationship within itself. Man I'm starting to wind down.****
The question was whether animals can associate. Of course they can. It is the fundamental principle.

***Maybe the apes that got language could manage primitive induction. Couldn't tell you for sure.***
Unanswered. Fuck you.

***Reference?***
I will answer me: Yes. It is called memory.


***Yes, within the species there is a distribution. Amongst species there is the broader scale. Likely there is cross-over amongst bunnies and donkeys and horses blah blah.****
I obviously disagree.

***Hmm.. yes, if you have the capacity for it in the first place (you must consider the species and the instance of consciousness in question)(you consider the species to get the equipment specs, you consider the instance to see if yours was the good or the bad steak ya know?). Then if stimulous produces an adequate resolution (in terms of contrast and clarity) of conceptual inter-relationships, self awareness takes hold (e.g: you have the capacity to dilineate your self-awareness due to the contrast and well organized (obviously relative amongst instances) relationship of meanings (concepts) in your head. ****
I asked the question and I have no answer. I will take your answer and throw away relativity in self-awareness.

****I have attempted to provide them though I doubt to your satisfaction. I will endeavor to persevere until we understand or understand that we cannot understand.****
LMAO. I want more, better. Of course I understand some of our shit. Some I agree. Others I disagree.

***Oh blow me. You should put in a bit more as well. I know you're a busy student type fucker - but you gotta invest a little thought and consider that it probably at least MOSTLY makes sense in SOME way. TRY TO RELATE before attacking and your attack will be ten times stronger because you'll understand how to speak my language. I'm trying to do the same. There is never any real communication without great effort - especially about crazy bullshit like this. Let's put forth that effort. If nothing else but for the journey. I'm down.****
Now this is bullshit and you know it. If I challenge or question an assertion, answer it. I think you have a problem with accepting that you could be wrong-- as I do; heck as any self professed "intellectual" or "bright" will probably do. 'tis ego, 'tis stubbornness, 'tis a disease of the human psyche. And it sucks and it is brilliant. Conviction begets devotion which can begets expansion or contraction--either way, I am also getting tired....

****Yeah that's right. Sheez man, are you completely inflexible? What is the only way that could make sense? You surely can come up with SOMETHING.****
This was a challenge to your posts. Fine I will post some of my more philosophical concepts in a new thread before the week is over.

****Is there any time other than now that exists in reality? Not even the present - I'm talking about NOW. That fraction of a second after the physical present. (sidebar: hmm.. can you see it from that? I just saw it for a second. Maybe it's this displacement, yes.. the offset in time that starts a loop in time, that loop IS the abstraction. it allows for the doorway to the abstract, anyway nevermind for now that's kind of raw and surely not to your revisionary taste )***
This is good. And really, I was resorting to a petty semantic attack moron. But the above is good. But really all you have simply illustrated is that the brain has a delay; input takes the form of signals. Signals take "time", there is a delay. If you accept that the experience is all that there is as you do, then how can you accept a NOW before the present?

Perhaps there will come a day when we'll be able to discuss it. I hope so.



HED:m:

 

Allright, ditch the Greek speak and riddle me this:

If I have 2 angles, 60 degrees respectively, put together I have a third angle and a triangle.

Does this third angle exist?

:: playing Jeapordy music:::