the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Atla]

Yet, you have someone in this thread that has done just what you define a good troll as being in Flash. Flash is good at being a troll, and I'm bad at being a troll, which is another way of saying I'm not a troll.

Just go back and read the responses Flash has provided. His initial responses to both Advocate and I were straw-men and ad-homs. A majority of his posts are short containing no philosophical arguments and only personal attacks, where as mine are philosophical propositions and questions that you seem to be incorrectly interpreting as rhetorical.

None of what you've said is a falsification of anything I've said, and your avoidance of the questions I've asked shows how intellectually dishonest you are. If this thread were a Philosophy class you'd fail.

Oh, and here's another link you can reject for no reason other than you have an emotional attachment to the idea that "TrajkLogik is wrong in everything he says" that supports what I've been saying:
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/scotsman.html

See how the NTS is a sub-fallacy of the Redefinition fallacy? But yeah, keep coming back and digging your hole.

Pretty weak trolling. Of course there is real or pretended redefinition and real or pretended discounting of evidence in the NTS, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If it was, the NTS would be a formal fallacy.

But it isn't, that's why there is nothing to be solved here. The NTS argument is just an informal dick move. But you and Advocate claim to have solved the NTS. So you two don't get it. Or at least he doesn't, and maybe you do by now but the hole you dug is maybe already too deep to get out.

But that is actually perfectly fine. Advocate said he was the Single Greatest Philosopher of All Time, which means that it's normal to not get the NTS. We can only speculate how Flash had a sudden flash of genius that, for a second, pushed his insight beyond Advocate's on this one. Must have been some sort of miracle.

[Age]

Personally I think that people who think in language are disadvantaged in philosophy. It's limited and limiting.

If you look closely enough, thinking in language is thinking in stuff that isn't language. But people are mostly in too much of a hurry to see what's going on in there. And then there's also thinking when no language is present.

I'm not sure, I think there are people who really think in language. Or at least seem to be. Scary..

What do 'you', "atla", 'think in' if NOT 'in language'?

Also, considering the Fact that there is a word or label for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', then WHY would just 'thinking in language' be so-called 'scary', to 'you'?

[Age]

Personally I think that people who think in language are disadvantaged in philosophy. It's limited and limiting.

If you look closely enough, thinking in language is thinking in stuff that isn't language. But people are mostly in too much of a hurry to see what's going on in there. And then there's also thinking when no language is present.

I'm not sure, I think there are people who really think in language. Or at least seem to be. Scary..

This is a question I've pondered quite a lot. Obviously not ALL thoughts are in language,

What are these 'thoughts', obviously, IN, if NOT IN 'language'?

but... I mean, I could see a world where Iwanna is right and even apparently linguistic thoughts first occur in non linguistic ways, but I can also see a world where we do have thoughts that are fundamentally at the level of language to begin with.

I have a strong inner voice, and if there is something non-language beneath a lot of these thoughts, I don't know what it is, I don't know how to access it clearly without the language layer.

[Age]

This is a question I've pondered quite a lot. Obviously not ALL thoughts are in language, but... I mean, I could see a world where Iwanna is right and even apparently linguistic thoughts first occur in non linguistic ways,

I don't experience it as first, as in chronologically first, but what the words/language actually are/is. I spent quite a while working on the phenomenology of language and what I found was actually going on when using language wasn't what I thought it was. I started with new metaphors, from poetry, because there the brain/mind is trying very hard to make sense of these things and what normally happens at an incredibly fast rate is slowed down and 'visible'. Then I moved on to everyday language.

but I can also see a world where we do have thoughts that are fundamentally at the level of language to begin with.

I have a strong inner voice, and if there is something non-language beneath a lot of these thoughts, I don't know what it is, I don't know how to access it clearly without the language layer.

So, it's not quite beneath either, though that's a decent metaphor for it. But I sense we are getting at an emergence issue here. Language had to be made out of portions of the brain that were not intended for language and did other stuff.

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions of the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, nor for so-called 'other stuff'?

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

Motor and sensory (in the broadest sense) and emotional parts of the brain. If you spend time going into what is happening with language, well, at least this is what I found in me and was matched by at least some researchers, you find this, perhaps even frighteningly at first, batching of experiences. You don't find this hard word with nice boundaries around it. The words are eliciting and elicitations of stuff that non-verbal proto-humans experienced, but didn't organize like we do.

Whether it is strong or weak emergence is another topic. But phenomenologically, as far as I can tell, it's barely emergence at all. To keep balance on a bicycle we combine thousands of tiny movements and adjustments without even noticing them. You could sort of think of, taking a slight turning to the left as the word 'bird', metaphorically. We have batched these mixes of sensory, emotional, motor experiencings and they happen as a batch and this happen unbelievably fast, and we don't notice most of the iceberg AT ALL.

When 'you' USE the 'we' word here do 'you' 'TRY TO' speak FOR ALL?

[Age]

If you look closely enough, thinking in language is thinking in stuff that isn't language. But people are mostly in too much of a hurry to see what's going on in there. And then there's also thinking when no language is present.

I'm not sure, I think there are people who really think in language. Or at least seem to be. Scary..

Or they only do, though my point was more about what language really is. And then there are those who only validate the verbal thinky thingie. Like that's who they are and if they think the words I believe X, it means they believe X, as if their body language and feelings and all the rest aren't really them (also). And then there are people who can think, for example, in images. Temple Grandin goes into her thinking quite a bit in her books and compares herself there with animals who she thinks think in images also.

Is 'seeing' 'an image' the EXACT SAME as 'thinking' IS?

And, when "temple grandin" so-called 'goes into "her" thinking' and 'thinks' that 'animals think in images, also', does "temple grandin" do 'this' IN 'images' or IN 'language'?

It's actually an interesting issue in a philosophy forum because I think the identification with words leads to a lot of conflict and confusion in discussion dynamics. Iambigious, I think, is very confused in this area.

Well considering the Fact that there ARE MANY words that HAVE MORE than just ONE definition, with some words having MANY definitions, and even other words having COMPLETELY OPPOSING definitions, combined with the Fact that there are MANY dictionaries with DIFFERENT definitions, and the Fact that 'language', itself, is a CONTINUALLY evolving AND changing 'thing', then there is NO surprise AT ALL that SO MUCH of the CONFLICT, and CONFUSION, which existed, BACK in the days when this was being written, PREVAILED.

In Fact HOW the 'Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious world' comes/came about was partly/mostly WHEN 'you', human beings, come/came TO 'an agreement' ON what the words that 'you' were/are USING ACTUALLY MEAN and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

[Atla]

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

According to your belief system that is.

[Iwannaplato]

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions of the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, nor for so-called 'other stuff'?

It seems possibly that you see language as containing information. A la The Conduit Metaphorhttp://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf.

I see language as eliciting experiences. I had experiences related to language and I used specific types of language to, potentially, elicit experiences in Flannel Jesus.

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

Or perhaps you are projecting the way you use language (and think of language) onto my use of language.

When 'you' USE the 'we' word here do 'you' 'TRY TO' speak FOR ALL?

I am trying to elicit experiences.

[Iwannaplato]

Is 'seeing' 'an image' the EXACT SAME as 'thinking' IS?

It seems to me you are asking if a subset of a category is the same as the category.

And, when "temple grandin" so-called 'goes into "her" thinking' and 'thinks' that 'animals think in images, also', does "temple grandin" do 'this' IN 'images' or IN 'language'?

When she goes into it in her books, language is involved. Elsewhere, when she goes into it, not.

Well considering the Fact that there ARE MANY words that HAVE MORE than just ONE definition, with some words having MANY definitions, and even other words having COMPLETELY OPPOSING definitions, combined with the Fact that there are MANY dictionaries with DIFFERENT definitions, and the Fact that 'language', itself, is a CONTINUALLY evolving AND changing 'thing', then there is NO surprise AT ALL that SO MUCH of the CONFLICT, and CONFUSION, which existed, BACK in the days when this was being written, PREVAILED.

And, it seems whenever/wherever you are from/at.

In Fact HOW the 'Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious world' comes/came about was partly/mostly WHEN 'you', human beings, come/came TO 'an agreement' ON what the words that 'you' were/are USING ACTUALLY MEAN and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

No, that will not/is not how peace comes about. You can never lock down language that way. Yes, you can shift how clear this is on a spectrum, but the process you want to engage in cannot even keep up with the changes that are happening. Further it shows a misunderstanding of what language is.

What you experience in whatever realm, corner of the universe you are in, or that facet of the universe you inhabit/are, is incomplete. It's like a colonist coming to Africa and saying 'I can solve all your problems, just do X'.

Hubris.

[Age]

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

According to your belief system that is.

But IF 'I' AM NOT BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here, which 'I' AM NOT, then WHAT 'belief-system' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY, "atla"?

[Age]

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions of the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, nor for so-called 'other stuff'?

It seems possibly that you see language as containing information. A la The Conduit Metaphorhttp://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf.

But just about ANY 'thing' could seem possible, to 'you', in regards to 'me'.

However, if 'we' all just went ON what 'seemed possible', to 'the me', in regards to "the other", then 'we' would NOT GET ANYWHERE, as 'they' say.

I see language as eliciting experiences.

And NOTHING ELSE?

I had experiences related to language and I used specific types of language to, potentially, elicit experiences in Flannel Jesus.

Okay.

BUT I AM STILL WONDERING, however, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions' of 'the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, (nor for 'other stuff').

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

Or perhaps you are projecting the way you use language (and think of language) onto my use of language.

Do 'you' think that 'you' ARE NOT SHOWING, and REVEALING, HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY?

When 'you' USE the 'we' word here do 'you' 'TRY TO' speak FOR ALL?

I am trying to elicit experiences.

What do 'you' think or ENVISION I am TRYING TO DO when I ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

ALSO, 'your response' here, OBVIOUSLY, CERTAINLY did NOT ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you'.

[Atla]

By the way, what 'you' ARE SHOWING, and REVEALING, here "iwannaplato" is HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY, and especially in relation TO 'the Mind', Itself.

According to your belief system that is.

But IF 'I' AM NOT BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here, which 'I' AM NOT, then WHAT 'belief-system' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY, "atla"?

The only thing you have in life is your belief system apparently. It's unfortunate.

[Age]

Is 'seeing' 'an image' the EXACT SAME as 'thinking' IS?

It seems to me you are asking if a subset of a category is the same as the category.

If 'this' is what seems to 'you', then 'this' is what seems to 'you', correct?

BUT what seems to 'you', can be false or wrong, right?

And, when "temple grandin" so-called 'goes into "her" thinking' and 'thinks' that 'animals think in images, also', does "temple grandin" do 'this' IN 'images' or IN 'language'?

When she goes into it in her books, language is involved. Elsewhere, when she goes into it, not.

So, 'language' can contain 'information', which 'we' can 'go into', and/or 'share', through mediums like books, true?

Well considering the Fact that there ARE MANY words that HAVE MORE than just ONE definition, with some words having MANY definitions, and even other words having COMPLETELY OPPOSING definitions, combined with the Fact that there are MANY dictionaries with DIFFERENT definitions, and the Fact that 'language', itself, is a CONTINUALLY evolving AND changing 'thing', then there is NO surprise AT ALL that SO MUCH of the CONFLICT, and CONFUSION, which existed, BACK in the days when this was being written, PREVAILED.

And, it seems whenever/wherever you are from/at.

WHY would 'it' SEEM 'this way', TO 'you'.

What information/knowledge do 'you', ACTUALLY, HAVE in regards to 'this place', which 'you' talk ABOUT and ARE IMAGINING here?

In Fact HOW the 'Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious world' comes/came about was partly/mostly WHEN 'you', human beings, come/came TO 'an agreement' ON what the words that 'you' were/are USING ACTUALLY MEAN and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

No, that will not/is not how peace comes about.

Okay. AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

You can never lock down language that way.

Okay. So 'you' and "others" can NEVER EVER AGREE on the definitions of words, NOR on what those words are MEANING and/nor ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

GOT 'you'.

Now, If 'I' AGREED WITH 'you' ON 'this', then 'this agreement' would NEVER EVER bring about peace among NOR between 'us' right "iwannaplato"?

Yes, you can shift how clear this is on a spectrum, but the process you want to engage in cannot even keep up with the changes that are happening.

AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Have 'you' TRIED 'this'?

Further it shows a misunderstanding of what language is.

REALLY?

Now, 'this' implies that 'you' ALREADY KNOW what 'language' IS, EXACTLY.

Would 'you' now like to INFORM 'us' of what language IS, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What you experience in whatever realm, corner of the universe you are in, or that facet of the universe you inhabit/are, is incomplete.

What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER example of the BELIEF-system AND 'confirmation bias' at 'its' BEST.

It's like a colonist coming to Africa and saying 'I can solve all your problems, just do X'.

Is IT?

What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one NOT READING, and NOT SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, what I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN here.

It is like the words that I SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to ADD IN do NOT get READ, and SEEN.

Now WHY could this be?

Could it be that a way that the human brain WORKS, in combination WITH the BELIEF-system, does NOT ALLOW 'them' to SEE nor HEAR some, particular, 'things'?

Hubris.

If the earth revolves around the sun, then the earth revolves around the sun. And NO amount of fighting AGAINST 'this Fact' makes 'the Fact' NOT TRUE.

[Age]

According to your belief system that is.

But IF 'I' AM NOT BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here, which 'I' AM NOT, then WHAT 'belief-system' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY, "atla"?

The only thing you have in life is your belief system apparently. It's unfortunate.

'This' IS A TRULY AMAZING 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM. Especially considering what 'it' IS that I have been SAYING and talking ABOUT in relation to BELIEFS, themselves.

Also, AS USUAL, "atla", 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' ACCUSATION and CLAIM here, even though 'it' was SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR.

[Atla]

But IF 'I' AM NOT BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here, which 'I' AM NOT, then WHAT 'belief-system' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY, "atla"?

The only thing you have in life is your belief system apparently. It's unfortunate.

'This' IS A TRULY AMAZING 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM. Especially considering what 'it' IS that I have been SAYING and talking ABOUT in relation to BELIEFS, themselves.

Also, AS USUAL, "atla", 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' ACCUSATION and CLAIM here, even though 'it' was SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR.

I have, one thing you have to understand about normal people is that they tend to remember things that were said in the past. It's difficult to imagine for you I know.

[Iwannaplato]

But just about ANY 'thing' could seem possible, to 'you', in regards to 'me'.

Yes, and in the other direction, seeming possible to you in regards to me.However, if 'we' all just went ON what 'seemed possible', to 'the me', in regards to "the other", then 'we' would NOT GET ANYWHERE, as 'they' say. [/quote]
Ah, let me give you a hint here about social interactions. You could have responded to what I put forward and said 'yes, that is how I view language'. Or you could have said no. Or you could have said that it was partly true or you could have asked for clarification. There are other possibilities.

But, as usual, you chose to not move forward or try to in the conversation.

And NOTHING ELSE?

Same here. You could have given your take on things. But you see conversation, primarily, as requesting that others answer more and more questions. You imply positions, but don't assert them. You judge, but don't offer something. It's our responsibility and we get blamed for the conflicts of our time, all while your attitude leads to conflicts via its judgments.

I had experiences related to language and I used specific types of language to, potentially, elicit experiences in Flannel Jesus.

Okay.

BUT I AM STILL WONDERING, however, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions' of 'the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, (nor for 'other stuff').

And again, it seems like, given the very nature of your question, that you have a philosophy of language that is more fixed and works within the conduit metaphor. I was trying to elicit experiences.

Do 'you' think that 'you' ARE NOT SHOWING, and REVEALING, HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY?

No more or less than you.

What do 'you' think or ENVISION I am TRYING TO DO when I ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

Ah, but that's not all you are doing. I suggest you reread your posts. Once your questions are put in the context of all that you are doing, they include assumptions.

ALSO, 'your response' here, OBVIOUSLY, CERTAINLY did NOT ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you'.

It is very tricky to answer questions that make assumptions about what is going on and what an interaction is, in language or otherwise. You could perhaps go into the ideas of eliciting experiences of others and contrast that with container/conduit models of communication. IOW meet the person whose post it seems you are interested in half way. Then it would seem like you are actually interested. Or you could be interested in what I experienced in the post here your first responded to. What I experienced about language.

It's fine if you are not interested in what I was talking about or what I meant by eliciting or the conduit metaphor. I brought those things up for reasons of creating clarity, but if you are not interested in either my original 'description' of my experiences and attempt to elicit experiences, that's of course fine with me.

But I am not interested in what for me is a tangent that goes in quite a different direction.