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