Communication is possible not via precise terminology, but nonetheless by conversation (dialogue, dialectic?) which is honest and complete enough to establish a set of agreed upon terms or concepts. How 'complete' or thorough it need be depends on the participants (history, education, personality). Once common terms/ideas/concepts/ are arrived at, communication proceeds step by step in logical, rational fashion. At least this is the myth that allows us to function intellectually. Otherwise there would be no communication, no shared values and understanding - and that clearly (empirically) is not the case. It's a similar argument as against Cartesian doubt - I know it happens (communication and experience), I just don't know exactly how it happens, but I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I guess since you leave open the possibility of 'complete understanding,' maybe we agree on this point.Impenitent wrote:perceptions, currently perceived or unperceived, translated or otherwise experienced even previously, inexact perceptions and how one feels about them or otherwise, then again...Wyman wrote:I can't answer that until you say what you mean by a 'thought' or an 'emotional state.'Impenitent wrote:physical body parts holding immaterial emotional states and thoughts...
but the machines show the electrical impulses between synapses as thoughts occur...
-Imp
what did you think I thought? I think you didn't think the same thought either and even if we could find the precise terminology, the termination of said thought in the vacuum of empty terms only prevents complete understanding not communication of vagaries...
"Your truth is not my truth; my truth is not yours" - B. Lee
-Imp
If thoughts are experiences/perceptions, past and present, and emotional states are feelings towards thoughts, I think I understand except for the fact that you use 'thought' instead of just perceptions and also distinguish between 'feeling's' towards thoughts and just thoughts themselves. One guy on this forum, for instance, insists that feelings and thoughts are all just 'experiences' and distinctions therein are meaningless. But I'll focus on thoughts as perceptions:
The automaton points to the red apple and says 'red apple' upon prompting. The human does the same, but the human 'has' thoughts, which are 'intermediary between,' or 'floating upon,' or 'emerging from,' photons causing synapses to fire. I reject this picture of perception, so I will start there as a point of departure from our common set of terms and ideas. I wouldn't say that synapses firing are perceptions, but that we do not agree upon what a 'perception' is. This would entail a long discussion of the activity of perceiving, which, as always, I'm game for, but only if you and/or others want to have another discussion of what perception and consciousness and thoughts and feelings are.