Miscellaneous Philosophy

[rousseau]

Here's a new thread for those thoughts we get that warrant discussion but maybe not their own thread, more like a general philosophy chat, where thinkers can shoot the shit about whatever comes to mind.

 

[untermensche]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8[/YOUTUBE]

An interesting debate.

Foucault does not seem persuaded by Chomsky's arguments that humans have a specific nature.

 

[rousseau]

I have to admit, I'm not inclined to watch Chomsky and Foucault talk about Human Nature for an hour, but I found this summary of the debate to be a nice read:

http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.ca/2009/07/before-analyzing-1971-debate-between.html

More interesting and relevant than I expected.

 

[fromderinside]

Eyup. A lot of integrating in the knitting. Still it all comes apart at the end.

Chomsky and Foucault do not provide a satisfactory solution to the problem they set out to discuss, even though they create a path of possible exploration. It's imperative that we revisit this idea again with a view to the greater good of human beings.

Not its not imperative. The greater good is obvious in the nature of existence in those who survive. Still hate Chomsky for his purpose of man thinking.

 

[untermensche]

You hate Chomsky because he is right.

Either humans are angels or they have a nature.

You cannot be constructed from genes and not have a nature.

 

[fromderinside]

Neat little circle there. Care to break it down? Or are you just going to let it run like an impossible Dean drive.

Purpose in an anathema to understanding. Think about it. Does evolution have a purpose? How did that get there? Really? God did it? You're kidding right?

 

[Under the Rose]

I would argue from the platform that humans DO have a nature that is inherited and that nature is shaped further by what they experience.

The nature we possess is not much different from the nature of other mammals save that we have evolved the ability to shape our physical and virtual environments, thereby enabling us to experience things that other
living creatures do not although many of them are exposed to and impacted by our expansion and developments.

Why we as a species tend to ponder upon the purpose of our existence I tend to think of as the ultimate irony of life. The question which defies answer provides the impetus that gives purpose to our otherwise short tenure of this plane.

 

[untermensche]

I would argue from the platform that humans DO have a nature that is inherited and that nature is shaped further by what they experience.

The nature we possess is not much different from the nature of other mammals save that we have evolved the ability to shape our physical and virtual environments, thereby enabling us to experience things that other
living creatures do not although many of them are exposed to and impacted by our expansion and developments.

Why we as a species tend to ponder upon the purpose of our existence I tend to think of as the ultimate irony of life. The question which defies answer provides the impetus that gives purpose to our otherwise short tenure of this plane.

Some would say that language creates a nature unlike the nature that exists without language.

In this humans are like no other animal.

 

[untermensche]

Neat little circle there. Care to break it down? Or are you just going to let it run like an impossible Dean drive.

Purpose in an anathema to understanding. Think about it. Does evolution have a purpose? How did that get there? Really? God did it? You're kidding right?

Nothing I said had anything to do with purpose.

A nature is both a scope of behavior and a limit to behavior.

There is no purpose in any of that.

 

[Under the Rose]

I would argue from the platform that humans DO have a nature that is inherited and that nature is shaped further by what they experience.

The nature we possess is not much different from the nature of other mammals save that we have evolved the ability to shape our physical and virtual environments, thereby enabling us to experience things that other
living creatures do not although many of them are exposed to and impacted by our expansion and developments.

Why we as a species tend to ponder upon the purpose of our existence I tend to think of as the ultimate irony of life. The question which defies answer provides the impetus that gives purpose to our otherwise short tenure of this plane.

Some would say that language creates a nature unlike the nature that exists without language.

In this humans are like no other animal.

Many animals demonstrably have quite an elaborate 'language" though humans have multiple modes and means of expression. Our ability to contemplate past/present/future and to model and extrapolate decisions based upon such contemplation is one attribute that may be a distinguishing attribute of our nature.

 

[untermensche]

Some would say that language creates a nature unlike the nature that exists without language.

In this humans are like no other animal.

Many animals demonstrably have quite an elaborate 'language" though humans have multiple modes and means of expression. Our ability to contemplate past/present/future and to model and extrapolate decisions based upon such contemplation is one attribute that may be a distinguishing attribute of our nature.

It depends on what you call language.

Language is not just communication.

Part of it is communication, but the biggest part is thinking. Most of our use of language is in our thoughts, not our communications.

And human language has scope that no other animal has. It is a quantum leap in scope over all other animals.

 

[Juma]

Many animals demonstrably have quite an elaborate 'language" though humans have multiple modes and means of expression. Our ability to contemplate past/present/future and to model and extrapolate decisions based upon such contemplation is one attribute that may be a distinguishing attribute of our nature.

It depends on what you call language.

Language is not just communication.

Part of it is communication, but the biggest part is thinking. Most of our use of language is in our thoughts, not our communications.

And human language has scope that no other animal has. It is a quantum leap in scope over all other animals.

Thought is definitely communication. Why else would it be needed to "hear" what you think?

 

[Togo]

It depends on what you call language.

Language is not just communication.

Part of it is communication, but the biggest part is thinking. Most of our use of language is in our thoughts, not our communications.

And human language has scope that no other animal has. It is a quantum leap in scope over all other animals.

Thought is definitely communication. Why else would it be needed to "hear" what you think?

I'm not convinced it is needed to hear what you think. I certainly don't hear everything I think.

 

[Juma]

Thought is definitely communication. Why else would it be needed to "hear" what you think?

I'm not convinced it is needed to hear what you think. I certainly don't hear everything I think.

I never said "everything". I just noted that sometimes I "hear" myself thinking in words and wondered why I do that if it isnt communication.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not convinced it is needed to hear what you think. I certainly don't hear everything I think.

I never said "everything". I just noted that sometimes I "hear" myself thinking in words and wondered why I do that if it isnt communication.

Is it communication if it is rehearsal? Does it matter? My point has been that if it is within one that it doesn't matter unless it is externally measured. Then it's obviously communication. Seems to me that is the whole idea of public presentation in science. It isn't evidence (communication) until it is publicly reported. We are finding we do such things because we are communicating among our awarenesses. This is also an argument against a unitary mind or consciousness.

 

[Juma]

I never said "everything". I just noted that sometimes I "hear" myself thinking in words and wondered why I do that if it isnt communication.

Is it communication if it is rehearsal? Does it matter? My point has been that if it is within one that it doesn't matter unless it is externally measured. Then it's obviously communication. Seems to me that is the whole idea of public presentation in science. It isn't evidence (communication) until it is publicly reported. We are finding we do such things because we are communicating among our awarenesses. This is also an argument against a unitary mind or consciousness.

Yes. Seems very reasonable.

 

[Togo]

I never said "everything". I just noted that sometimes I "hear" myself thinking in words and wondered why I do that if it isnt communication.

Is it communication if it is rehearsal? Does it matter? My point has been that if it is within one that it doesn't matter unless it is externally measured.

Certainly asking subjects to mentally repeat things over and over again has a measureable effect on their task performance and learning speed. So we can know that something is actually going on in there, even if it isn't communicated.

 

[untermensche]

It depends on what you call language.

Language is not just communication.

Part of it is communication, but the biggest part is thinking. Most of our use of language is in our thoughts, not our communications.

And human language has scope that no other animal has. It is a quantum leap in scope over all other animals.

Thought is definitely communication. Why else would it be needed to "hear" what you think?

I used the word communication in the common sense. The transmission of information between two or more people.

Thought definitely uses language, but it transcends language and doesn't need it.

Is a dream communication?

 

[Juma]

Thought definitely uses language, but it transcends language and doesn't need it.

Then why do I use it? I am pretty sure that the part of me listening needs the words to understand what another part of me is saying. I dont think I am unique in this matter... There are other ways of communicating in the mind/brain: forms/shapes, more or less vague "sounds" etc
But without language it would be hard to think about intellektual matters.

 

[untermensche]

Thought definitely uses language, but it transcends language and doesn't need it.

Then why do I use it? I am pretty sure that the part of me listening needs the words to understand what another part of me is saying. I dont think I am unique in this matter... There are other ways of communicating in the mind/brain: forms/shapes, more or less vague "sounds" etc
But without language it would be hard to think about intellektual matters.

First of all, little of what you say addresses much of what I've said, but I don't think we have any choice in the matter.

It is just what we do.

Constant self-talk, with language, but not necessarily the same language, in terms of structure, I use when communicating. Ideas flash in an instant. Concepts become whole in an instant. While outward communication takes time.