Words have no Meaning

[sowhatifit'sdark]

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

I was conscious of it. I still saw greenness and the outline. I'll admit that if I was about to evaluate the quality of the apple I wouldn't have done what I did. In fact I would say I was observing it to a degree. But I felt like his generalization was false and I have thought about a much better example.

I used to play catch a lot with frisbees as a teenager. One game we play was to insert a smaller frisbee in a larger and toss both at once at the other person. The frisbees would separate and the challenge was to catch both, sometimes simulataneously. My trick was to focus my conscious concentration on my non dominant hand, my left. My left caught the frisbee, often, then, and my right hand handled the catching of the other frisbee 'on its own'. I went out yesterday with my son. I decided to test whether I could imagine catching a frisbee with my left hand while my right hand did it job. Nice to see age hasn't eliminated something. I could - I could also catch both reall ones simultaneously.

In the instance above I managed to focus on something else and complete a task. I could think about the imaginary object AND successfully interact with a physical one. I could engage in both processes. Somebody was thinking about that right hand frisbee. Someone was doing calculus, considering angles and trajectories.

Glaucon's 'thinking' has seemed to me to mean a kind of brain activity, period. Whatever brain activity is necessary to catch a frisbee was occuring in two different ways simultaneously. I say this because he asserted that if you are engaged in any activity you are thinking, whatever your experience of 'silence' - my paraphrase, perhaps unfair. If he means by thinking awareness, I can certainly be aware of two different kinds of activities at once. I can monitor the movements of a person while worrying about something else.

Perhaps this example is off. I'd be interested in seeing what your two definitions of thinking are. I am not sure they are the same as each other or the same as mine.

 

[glaucon]

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.

You've just made my point.
You had a mental image of a green apple while observing a green apple.

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

I was merely pointing out what I've laid out above: when observing a material object, one always has an attendant mental image of it. However, we do not necessarily have to be observing a material object to form a mental image ( as you've provided above with respect to a red apple..).

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.

...

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

I would posit that yes, that is thinking.

And so, it looks as if we will have to differentiate between pure thinking and elective (active, purposive, etc.) thinking.

 

[glaucon]

...

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

Exactly.

 

[glaucon]

...

Glaucon's 'thinking' has seemed to me to mean a kind of brain activity, period. Whatever brain activity is necessary to catch a frisbee was occuring in two different ways simultaneously. I say this because he asserted that if you are engaged in any activity you are thinking, whatever your experience of 'silence' - my paraphrase, perhaps unfair. If he means by thinking awareness, I can certainly be aware of two different kinds of activities at once. I can monitor the movements of a person while worrying about something else.
...

I think we also need to differentiate between thinking and perceiving (the 'awareness you mention above).
If we can.... (which I suspect is impossible...).

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

You've just made my point.
You had a mental image of a green apple while observing a green apple.

No, I had an image of a red apple. And I also saw the green apple. The image of the red apple was fuzzier and more ephemeral that the green apple.

I would posit that yes, that is thinking.

I'm still not sure what your definition is. To me thinking means I am either having some kind of mental verbal activity 'in my mind' or I am doing something like contemplating where images in my mind's eye are considered. I attend to these. it seems like your definition is much broader. It seems to contain awareness and even functioning. Let me know.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I think we also need to differentiate between thinking and perceiving (the 'awareness you mention above).
If we can.... (which I suspect is impossible...).

Which, I think means, you do not limit the word 'thinking' to the ways in which the word is commonly used. We are always thinking, it seems in your view. In essence thinking and experiencing are the same.

 

[glaucon]

No, I had an image of a red apple. And I also saw the green apple. The image of the red apple was fuzzier and more ephemeral that the green apple.

Note how you say you did have an image of a green apple....
The attendant mental image is always present.
You're failing to distinguish between recollection and perception.

I'm still not sure what your definition is. To me thinking means I am either having some kind of mental verbal activity 'in my mind' or I am doing something like contemplating where images in my mind's eye are considered. I attend to these. it seems like your definition is much broader. It seems to contain awareness and even functioning. Let me know.

Indeed it does.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mental verbal activity", so I can't really comment on this first case. As to the second case, that is not thinking simpliciter rather, it is imaginative or recollective thinking.

Which, I think means, you do not limit the word 'thinking' to the ways in which the word is commonly used. We are always thinking, it seems in your view. In essence thinking and experiencing are the same.

I would agree with that position, yes.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Note how you say you did have an image of a green apple....
The attendant mental image is always present.
You're failing to distinguish between recollection and perception.

I saw both apples simultaneously.

Indeed it does.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mental verbal activity", so I can't really comment on this first case. As to the second case, that is not thinking simpliciter rather, it is imaginative or recollective thinking.

I meant thinking in words. 'Ah, shit maybe I should have...do think if I stare at the apple, hey, look it is....' and so on.

I would agree with that position, yes.

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

I still think I can. I find this odd, that's why I assume we are talking at cross purposes. I can experience seeing my car and notice my thoughts about it at the same time.

Are you saying we cannot be aware of more than one 'thing' at a time?

Please take a look at my frisbee example above. Was not my right hand being thought about? If it was not, then I can be not thinking when I am running.

 

[glaucon]

I saw both apples simultaneously.

No you did not.

One was a recollected mental image purely.

The other was also materially existent.

I meant thinking in words. 'Ah, shit maybe I should have...do think if I stare at the apple, hey, look it is....' and so on.

Ah
Well, I can't really comment then, as I don't do that.

In any case, it's close to abstract reasoning, so it's still imaginative thinking.

I still think I can. I find this odd, that's why I assume we are talking at cross purposes. I can experience seeing my car and notice my thoughts about it at the same time.

Again, you prove my point: while observing it, you do have a thought of it.

Are you saying we cannot be aware of more than one 'thing' at a time?

Define "aware"....

Please take a look at my frisbee example above. Was not my right hand being thought about? If it was not, then I can be not thinking when I am running.

That would be a contradiction. Being thought about is having a thought.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

No you did not.

One was a recollected mental image purely.

The other was also materially existent.

Yes, I make no other claims. But in response to your

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

I find the quote above puts a limit I don't seem to have. I imagined a red appled, or recollected it, AND I saw the green apple at the same time.

Ah
Well, I can't really comment then, as I don't do that.

In any case, it's close to abstract reasoning, so it's still imaginative thinking.

OK. Imaginitive thinking, which would include not vocalized abstract reasoning is what I generally refer to as thinking.

Again, you prove my point: while observing it, you do have a thought of it.

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

Please read those two quotes of yours carefully and see if you can at least see where I am getting confused.

That would be a contradiction. Being thought about is having a thought

What is the contradiction. I think I need fuller answers, because something basic is confusing me about what you have said. The key is those two quotes I juxtaposed just prior to this last one.

 

[glaucon]

...

Please read those two quotes of yours carefully and see if you can at least see where I am getting confused.

I can't see where you're getting confused. They both say the same thing: any observation necessarily entails a mental image.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I can't see where you're getting confused. They both say the same thing: any observation necessarily entails a mental image.

Entails or is.
Can I see my car and think of something else at the same time?
Can I see my car and think of my car being about to need major repairs?
Can I see my car while thinking of my wife's car and gnashing my teeth?
Must I have one image only at a time? (and I would be careful with the word image since it tends to mean visual)
Am I forming images when I am not thinking aobut what I am looking at of the thing I am looking at?

 

[glaucon]

Entails or is.
Can I see my car and think of something else at the same time?
Can I see my car and think of my car being about to need major repairs?
Can I see my car while thinking of my wife's car and gnashing my teeth?
Must I have one image only at a time? (and I would be careful with the word image since it tends to mean visual)
Am I forming images when I am not thinking aobut what I am looking at of the thing I am looking at?

As I said, entails.

 

[Tnerb]

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?

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 meanin

Ag?

Hi Be-here-now:

If you word your words in that manner. You will achieve nothing unless you are forming some sort of an opinion on the matter.

So please. Tell me:
seperate from the individuals trying to find that meaning.
Required.
To find, that, meaning.
Hmmm.
What do you think, Be, here, Now?
Appologies on the vodka;
when one has extreme buisness to attend to he isn't well equiped. You know this more than anyone does:
Yes, Behere, your value attached to that statement makes me consider things. You may say, perhaps, that outside of an individual there exists words. In their words pressented, you have "consideration"; in "consideration", you have "what do they mean."
Perhaps they have an existence "outside" of an individaul


Anyhow that is the necessary requiremssents there Behere now. Do th ey have a sperate existence.
That is a pretty profound question and inspirese insight into many different forms of philsophy. Yeah. Let's do some philosophy!

Let's see how about having... hwoe about i just fucking answer your question to beign with huh. Hah~
\
Seperate, Beherenow, would be having a meaning that is sperate from using the words aquired. Perhaps, they "may." have some form, of existence attached to them. But seperate from and aquired to has a lot of positions to atain to on the scale of how the debate would come forth and as well how one would discuss the debate.

If you had seen eariler, in one of my posts perhps page 6 y ou may find that the post "given" was apporiate to the content given.

In every case "seperate,from" is a question of indifference to me. I wouldn't be sure about the topic concerned here.
I, personally would be more concerned with the other means; the ideas which involve meaning in the individual.

You know, the indiviaul can have many qualities.
Answering your question about soly outside side of the indivudal.
Hmph.

Damnit.



Okay. After some thought then, I decide that meanings would havev their own representation.
Meanings would have their own qualities.

Since the day of mankind we have invinted words to describe th ings. A huh, HURH, would be what the fuck.

Establish this first and then we can perhaps find out what words may actually mean when aquired a definatition in the individual.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

As I said, entails.

Entails, especially since it now seems distinguished from 'is', seems to indicate that the image is a consequence or simultaneous phenomenon but not the same phenomenon.

 

[greenberg]

Ya'll,

I am going to quit this discussion. I'm sorry.

It seems it's just once more the old irreconcilable conflict between
on the hand realism/essentialism/objectivism,
and on the other hand relativism/constructivism/holism.

I've been there several times, and I know the debate forwards and backwards, and I've just had enough of it, at least for a few weeks.


Cheers.

 

[Tnerb]

lol. Greenberg.
Don't leave man. You gotta tell me how stupid I am, remember.

Besides what else could it possibly be about but just words. Fuck it; althought it makes me want to puke as well... sadly;

 

[Tnerb]

Entails, especially since it now seems distinguished from 'is', seems to indicate that the image is a consequence or simultaneous phenomenon but not the same phenomenon.

hehe.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Ya'll,

I am going to quit this discussion. I'm sorry.

It seems it's just once more the old irreconcilable conflict between
on the hand realism/essentialism/objectivism,
and on the other hand relativism/constructivism/holism.

I've been there several times, and I know the debate forwards and backwards, and I've just had enough of it, at least for a few weeks.


Cheers.

Isn't this an essentialist review?
Ah, well. Just joshing.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I should have quietly watched from the sidelines. I am interested in seeing where glaucon and greenberg would have gotten. I think their senses of thinking are different, amongst other things.

Don't ya love reification.