Words have no Meaning

[greenberg]

Greenberg,
do you agree with Glaucon said here:

When considering something, there can be no distinguishing between the thought object and its attendant material object (if there is one..).

Yes, I agree. Only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the thought object and the material object.

There is obviously the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience.

This sounds to me like you are agreeing with me.

On what grounds?

For me, the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience is that they the first seems incomplete in comparison to the other; but for me, this incompleteness is due to poor training (and poor use of imagination/fantasy) and not some other, inherent distinction as you seem to suggest.

If a person doesn't train their imagination very much, then their expectations will, in comparison to their experiences, be incomplete - in that in the expectation/fantasy, much of the sensory input will be absent but which is usually present in the experience.

I don't think even with training it can ever reach parity.

Do you ever get lost in dreams, thinking they are "real"?
Have you ever studied productivity advice and study skills, how one should "visualize" being successful? Ie. painting in one's imagination the situation of when one wins, all the sights, sounds, smells, feelings in the body, ... everything.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Yes, I agree. Only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the thought object and the material object.

So do you have a hard time knowing whether you are with someone you care about or when you are thinking about them?

 

[Enmos]

Only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the thought object and the material object.

Can you explain how you see essentialism connected to this ?

es·sen·tial·ism
–noun Education.
a doctrine that certain traditional concepts, ideals, and skills are essential to society and should be taught methodically to all students, regardless of individual ability, need, etc.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Enmos,
you needed to scroll down a bit.

es·sen·tial·ism (ĭ-sěn'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The metaphysical theory that the essential properties of an object can be distinguished from those that are accidental to it.

Not that that is a great definition, but you can see how it moves the word into this ballpark.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

On what grounds?

For me, the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience is that they the first seems incomplete in comparison to the other; but for me, this incompleteness is due to poor training (and poor use of imagination/fantasy) and not some other, inherent distinction as you seem to suggest.

Do you have sufficient training? How do you know this is true? It does not fit my experience? I would guess my imaginitive abilities are pretty strong and I have worked quite a bit with hypnosis. I experience them differently.

I would assume that a person who finds them the same would see little need for 'reality', going out, and socializing.

Do you ever get lost in dreams, thinking they are "real"?
Have you ever studied productivity advice and study skills, how one should "visualize" being successful? Ie. painting in one's imagination the situation of when one wins, all the sights, sounds, smells, feelings in the body, ... everything.

Yes, I have gotten lost in dreams, but I that is yet another state. I have also trained myself to have lucid dreams where one notices the differences between dreaming and waking states and via checking can become aware it is a dream. The phenomenology is different.

And yes, I have had quite a bit of training in visualization. To me it has a quasi realness to it. It would be a digression, but I do believe one can experience things or realms that are real but are not the same as what we consider reality. But again, the phenomenology is different.

 

[Tnerb]

Not that that is a great definition, but you can see how it moves the word into this ballpark.

Hehe.
I think it's a fine description.
A detailed discription wouldn't do you too well would it?

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
you needed to scroll down a bit.

es·sen·tial·ism (ĭ-sěn'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The metaphysical theory that the essential properties of an object can be distinguished from those that are accidental to it.

Not that that is a great definition, but you can see how it moves the word into this ballpark.

Oh right..
Thanks

 

[greenberg]

Yes, I agree. Only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the thought object and the material object.

So do you have a hard time knowing whether you are with someone you care about or when you are thinking about them?

That's not how I mean it.

I'll whittle things down to the difference I'm trying to point out:

When with someone, there are the thoughts:
"Mary is here in the same room with me."
"Mary is a nice person."

When not with Mary but thinking about Mary:
"Mary is not here in the same room with me."
"Mary is a nice person."

When I am with someone ("Mary is here in the same room with me"), I have thoughts about this person ("Mary is a nice person"); and these thoughts are for the most part the same ("Mary is a nice person") when I am not with someone, except for the thought ("Mary is not here in the same room with me").

The thoughts "Mary is here in the same room with me" and "Mary is not here in the same room with me" are descriptions of circumstance, not of Mary.

For me, the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience is that they the first seems incomplete in comparison to the other; but for me, this incompleteness is due to poor training (and poor use of imagination/fantasy) and not some other, inherent distinction as you seem to suggest.

Do you have sufficient training? How do you know this is true? It does not fit my experience? I would guess my imaginitive abilities are pretty strong and I have worked quite a bit with hypnosis. I experience them differently.

I would assume that a person who finds them the same would see little need for 'reality', going out, and socializing.

I think this depends on a person's priorities.

However, I am sensing that you are trying to pragmatize this whole issue, while Glaucon and myself are arguing along the lines of general principles of thinking.

But, this here might shed more light -

Yes, I have gotten lost in dreams, but I that is yet another state. I have also trained myself to have lucid dreams where one notices the differences between dreaming and waking states and via checking can become aware it is a dream. The phenomenology is different.

And yes, I have had quite a bit of training in visualization. To me it has a quasi realness to it. It would be a digression, but I do believe one can experience things or realms that are real but are not the same as what we consider reality. But again, the phenomenology is different.

We seem to have a different understanding of what is "real", and this difference seems to be key.

I would venture to say that only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the "real" and the "unreal".

 

[Tnerb]

Yeah, hehe.

Whatever an "essentialist" is hehe



Funny. We won't hear that ! hah!

"an essentialist is precisely this.
an essentialist does things precisely with that in mind.
an essentialist is someone who"

And a nice little description written out nicely. Heh.
It's funny how I am dismissed all the damn time here.

Words have meanings.
Maybe they're hard to figure out.
But definately.

 

[BeHereNow]

sisyphus__ Words have meanings.
Maybe they're hard to figure out.
But definately.

Are you saying words exist, and it is up to humans to find them, and figure out their meaning?
Would you say that for every word, there is an objective meaning, that has existence, separate from the individuals who are required to find that meaning?

 

[Tnerb]

Fuck off be shit now.
You're advoided.

 

[BeHereNow]

sisyphus__ Fuck off be shit now.
You're advoided.

News flash!
I started this thread.
Why would a sane mind post where they didn't want to be?

 

[Aivar]

'
For me, the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience is that they the first seems incomplete in comparison to the other; but for me, this incompleteness is due to poor training (and poor use of imagination/fantasy) and not some other, inherent distinction as you seem to suggest.

Uh, sorry, I know this will probably make decent communication harder, but I'll have to say it anyway...

This sounds a LOT like you're trying to justify delusions. Not saying imagination is all bad, but y'know... it sounded lke it.


You can give Mary characteristics. That's what you imagine her as. But like you said, there's a difference in whether she's with you or not. And if she hasn't been with you and you can't access it from memory, you can't even "correctly" imagine yourself with her.

 

[Tnerb]

Anser:

One is not a sane mind.

 

[glaucon]

I have the feeling we are writing at cross purposes somehow. But I will try to find that. I don't confuse my thought of my car with my car.

Confuse, no. But you cannot not have a thought of your car, when observing your car.

Actually I think I am. I can then percieve my thought object, but I do not confuse this experience with perceiving the object.

Again, while you can think of an object in absence of it's attendant material object, the converse cannot be said.

There's brain activity. But I would say I can act without thinking. To me thinking has a meta quality to it which perceiving does not. I am conscious that I am referring.

I would say that it's impossible to act without thinking. If that were the case, it would have to be possible to have no brain activity whatsoever while performing the act. Note that, simply because you're not deliberately thinking on the act, thinking nonetheless must go on. The exception to this possibility could be if it's the case that you beleive bare perception to be a non-thought process (which I suspect is indeed your position..). If that is the case, then we're opening up an entirely new can o worms..

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Confuse, no. But you cannot not have a thought of your car, when observing your car.

I don't think this is correct. I just tested this out. I stared at a green apple and thought about a red apple and, while the images were sort of superimporsed, muttered, mentally to myself about apples.

Again, while you can think of an object in absence of it's attendant material object, the converse cannot be said.

Pardon my dullness, but I need you to lay out the converse.

I would say that it's impossible to act without thinking. If that were the case, it would have to be possible to have no brain activity whatsoever while performing the act.

I think we need a definition of thinking. Are animals thinking when they move? Are they thinking when they roll over in their sleep? if I am thinking about my wife while I am driving does that count? Again, I am sure there is brain activity. There always is. If that is always 'thinking' then I agree.

Note that, simply because you're not deliberately thinking on the act, thinking nonetheless must go on. The exception to this possibility could be if it's the case that you beleive bare perception to be a non-thought process (which I suspect is indeed your position..). If that is the case, then we're opening up an entirely new can o worms..

Noted the answer to one of my questions.

let's open that can of worms and start with a definition of thinking.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

That's not how I mean it.

I'll whittle things down to the difference I'm trying to point out:

When with someone, there are the thoughts:
"Mary is here in the same room with me."
"Mary is a nice person."

When not with Mary but thinking about Mary:
"Mary is not here in the same room with me."
"Mary is a nice person."

When I am with someone ("Mary is here in the same room with me"), I have thoughts about this person ("Mary is a nice person"); and these thoughts are for the most part the same ("Mary is a nice person") when I am not with someone, except for the thought ("Mary is not here in the same room with me").

The thoughts "Mary is here in the same room with me" and "Mary is not here in the same room with me" are descriptions of circumstance, not of Mary.

Do you experience others without the verbal thoughts? I am not quite sure what you are getting at above. I thought this question might help me get it.

I think this depends on a person's priorities.

However, I am sensing that you are trying to pragmatize this whole issue, while Glaucon and myself are arguing along the lines of general principles of thinking.

Yes and no. I raised the issue to see if it held true for you. If it did not then perhaps you to notice a disctinction despite whatever training you've undergone.

But, this here might shed more light -

We seem to have a different understanding of what is "real", and this difference seems to be key.

I would venture to say that only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the "real" and the "unreal".

I probably am an essentialist. On the other hand I have not met anyone who isn't at least in part. But we can explore that. My use of the words with real in them above was more phenomenological. I could have focused on ephemeral, for example. I could speak in terms of saturation and sense of completeness. Also the feeling that it is held up by effort, even if minimal.

 

[greenberg]

But you cannot not have a thought of your car, when observing your car.

I don't think this is correct. I just tested this out. I stared at a green apple and thought about a red apple and, while the images were sort of superimporsed, muttered, mentally to myself about apples.

In that case, you were not observing the green apple.
Unless you think staring equals observation.

 

[greenberg]

Do you experience others without the verbal thoughts? I am not quite sure what you are getting at above. I thought this question might help me get it.

It wasn't important so much whether the thought of Mary was verbal or not.

Like I said, I've tried to whittle things down to point out the difference I was aiming at - that the presence of another person is a matter of circumstance, not of that person per se, and that this difference enables one to distinguish the situation when a person is present from the situation when they are not present, whereas the thoughts about that person might be the same in both cases.

I probably am an essentialist. On the other hand I have not met anyone who isn't at least in part.

Of course. But essentialism is not necessarily an adequate description/explanation of what goes on in the human mind.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It wasn't important so much whether the thought of Mary was verbal or not.

Like I said, I've tried to whittle things down to point out the difference I was aiming at - that the presence of another person is a matter of circumstance, not of that person per se, and that this difference enables one to distinguish the situation when a person is present from the situation when they are not present, whereas the thoughts about that person might be the same in both cases.

In general I agree. It certainly is possible to have the same thoughts while they are present. I think you and I should probably have a definition of thinking also.

Of course. But essentialism is not necessarily an adequate description/explanation of what goes on in the human mind.

Perhaps not. I'd be interested in hearing more here. The reason I confessed to being an essentialist or at least in part one, was so it did not seem like I was contorting myself not to be one - like being a member of the communist party or something.