Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
So you think we don't use words to communicate our ideas?We use words to communicate about our ideas.
EB
That's not very lawful is it. I mean ideas are 'creations of the mind' are they not? I have great difficulty reconciling order and organization with creativity implied in the creation of mind sentiment. That sentiment presumes origination with one, but, fails to explain how that one comes to be an originator. Ideas seem to be an invention of a self-centric rationalization giving meaning before the understanding there is a demonstrable physical explanation for why and how things behave in the world.
I take a more deterministic view on laws of nature. They are laws because they reflect order and organization in nature. Today we have before us measured and repeatable evidence for a theory of the physical world that both explains and provides rules for measurement of that world including the behavior of the human organism. This point of view becomes all the more meaningful as the result of recent insights demonstrating the superiority of, tendency toward dominance by, efficient organized systems in a thermodynamic world as rationale for the inevitability of such as life and self organizing systems as a law of organization.
Back to the nut. For me ideas are the result of plasticity and learning in biological beings expressed as propositions based on what has been experienced and the current circumstances in which one finds oneself. Forming such are due to development of associations from what is at hand to the nervous system, the basic principle of nervous system organizing, as my psychologist training informs me.
The discussion is begun. I have much to explain to counter those who hold the self evidence of mind against that of an orderly physical universe not created by some knowing thing in which a being exists that has capability to divine and communicate it's own design. However since the opposing position has little material evidence to bolster it beyond self evidence I am confident a material evidence based deterministic position will prevail.
You think that I will come to say "horse" if it's just true that there is a horse rather than because I have this idea in mind of whatever I happen to believe is called "a horse", whether or not there is something out there that would be a horse?
Regarding "evidence", I trust that most of us have subjective experience. Now, subjective experience IS evidence. You are free to ignore this evidence though, but this is the real reason we don't have much to discuss about.
Finally, my views do not preclude the kind of physical world you have in mind (er- let's hope you know what I mean here). All I'm saying is that I know the evidence of my subjective experience but I just don't know that there is the kind of physical world people like you are so keen on. I could have made pretty much the same repartie, perhaps about tables and chairs to be understood, to people in the Middle-Ages. You are the true heir of these royal bums.
Thanks anyway for trying to write proper English this once. You seem to be taking lessons somehow.
EB