Yet they were able to control their thoughts long enough to shape them into that self-contradicting belief - a belief made up of thoughts of which they chose to think about.
Some people also believe that the earth is flat.
_______
Yet they were able to control their thoughts long enough to shape them into that self-contradicting belief - a belief made up of thoughts of which they chose to think about.
Absolutely NO. The reflex is a special case. The nerve impulse only travels to the spinal chord, and the motor response happens there, by the time the brain figures out you have been struck the knee has already jerked.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:00 am
A little time passes between the effects on nerve endings or organs of special sense, and the cognitive brain. There is no possibility of thought of the event 's happening before the cognitive brain is involved.
Yes. I thought we had already agreed that and passed on to how the cognitive brain gets to know the knee has jerked.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:27 pmAbsolutely NO. The reflex is a special case. The nerve impulse only travels to the spinal chord, and the motor response happens there, by the time the brain figures out you have been struck the knee has already jerked.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HboN--B8wGc/T ... 00/ub.jpeg
I was responding the this sentence "There is no possibility of thought of the event 's happening before the cognitive brain is involved."Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:51 pmYes. I thought we had already agreed that and passed on to how the cognitive brain gets to know the knee has jerked.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:27 pmAbsolutely NO. The reflex is a special case. The nerve impulse only travels to the spinal chord, and the motor response happens there, by the time the brain figures out you have been struck the knee has already jerked.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HboN--B8wGc/T ... 00/ub.jpeg
Prove it!RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:55 pmIt can't think!Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:25 am Finally take a look at any pre-talking human baby and tell me it can't think.
What I mean by thinking is the ability to verbally explain, to oneself or others, what one is thinking and what it means. If your dog or cat can explain what it thinks to you, than it can think. So, you can answer your own question.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:59 pmProve it!RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:55 pmIt can't think!Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:25 am Finally take a look at any pre-talking human baby and tell me it can't think.
So dogs and cats can't think - Is that right?
language is not need to think, as a kid (5 yrs and younger) i thought visually. i assume higher animals do the same.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:56 pmWhat I mean by thinking is the ability to verbally explain, to oneself or others, what one is thinking and what it means. If your dog or cat can explain what it thinks to you, than it can think. So, you can answer your own question.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:59 pmProve it!
So dogs and cats can't think - Is that right?
If you mean something else by thinking, like just anything that goes on in one's consciousness, we do not mean the same thing by thinking.
Language uses symbols which usually have no resemblance to the thing symbolised. Onomatopoeia and other poetic tropes are the exception.gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:14 amlanguage is not need to think, as a kid (5 yrs and younger) i thought visually. i assume higher animals do the same.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:56 pmWhat I mean by thinking is the ability to verbally explain, to oneself or others, what one is thinking and what it means. If your dog or cat can explain what it thinks to you, than it can think. So, you can answer your own question.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:59 pm
Prove it!
So dogs and cats can't think - Is that right?
If you mean something else by thinking, like just anything that goes on in one's consciousness, we do not mean the same thing by thinking.
language serves to catagorize. this is like that
nothing more.
You can call anything you like thinking--imagination, feelings, dreams, day-dreams, or anything else you consciously experience. If you are going to call all those things, or any of them thinking, you will need another word to identify the process of mentally asking and answering questions, make judgments, and creating new concepts verbally, which is what is meant by reason (or thinking) in epistemology.gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:14 amlanguage is not need to think, as a kid (5 yrs and younger) i thought visually. i assume higher animals do the same.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:56 pmWhat I mean by thinking is the ability to verbally explain, to oneself or others, what one is thinking and what it means. If your dog or cat can explain what it thinks to you, than it can think. So, you can answer your own question.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:59 pm
Prove it!
So dogs and cats can't think - Is that right?
If you mean something else by thinking, like just anything that goes on in one's consciousness, we do not mean the same thing by thinking.
language serves to catagorize. this is like that
nothing more.
Informally, I see nothing wrong with visualization being used as way of contemplating some things being call, "thinking," but technically, (epistemologically), I think imagination (which so often accompanies reason when picturing the things our concepts identify) should be kept separate and identifed as, "imagination." Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts, and all real knowledge is held in the from of propositions.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:51 amLanguage uses symbols which usually have no resemblance to the thing symbolised. Onomatopoeia and other poetic tropes are the exception.gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:14 amlanguage is not need to think, as a kid (5 yrs and younger) i thought visually. i assume higher animals do the same.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:56 pm
What I mean by thinking is the ability to verbally explain, to oneself or others, what one is thinking and what it means. If your dog or cat can explain what it thinks to you, than it can think. So, you can answer your own question.
If you mean something else by thinking, like just anything that goes on in one's consciousness, we do not mean the same thing by thinking.
language serves to catagorize. this is like that
nothing more.
I guess your "thought visually" is not symbol but analogue like maps are not symbols but analogues.
I suppose that , besides symbolic thought , we all do analogical thought too.
I try to falsify your "Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts,and all real knowledge is held in the form of propositions." and I cannot falsify your meta-proposition.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:30 amInformally, I see nothing wrong with visualization being used as way of contemplating some things being call, "thinking," but technically, (epistemologically), I think imagination (which so often accompanies reason when picturing the things our concepts identify) should be kept separate and identifed as, "imagination." Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts, and all real knowledge is held in the from of propositions.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:51 amLanguage uses symbols which usually have no resemblance to the thing symbolised. Onomatopoeia and other poetic tropes are the exception.
I guess your "thought visually" is not symbol but analogue like maps are not symbols but analogues.
I suppose that , besides symbolic thought , we all do analogical thought too.
I'm not such a prig as to insist anyone else see it that way, however.
The word, "proposition," has several different definitions, even in philosophy. When I use the word proposition in epistemology I am referring to one explicit definition, "a verbal statement that asserts something about something else." From my article, "Epistemology, Propositions":Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:39 amI try to falsify your "Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts,and all real knowledge is held in the form of propositions." and I cannot falsify your meta-proposition.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:30 amInformally, I see nothing wrong with visualization being used as way of contemplating some things being call, "thinking," but technically, (epistemologically), I think imagination (which so often accompanies reason when picturing the things our concepts identify) should be kept separate and identifed as, "imagination." Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts, and all real knowledge is held in the from of propositions.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:51 am
Language uses symbols which usually have no resemblance to the thing symbolised. Onomatopoeia and other poetic tropes are the exception.
I guess your "thought visually" is not symbol but analogue like maps are not symbols but analogues.
I suppose that , besides symbolic thought , we all do analogical thought too.
I'm not such a prig as to insist anyone else see it that way, however.
What I can do is include in your meta-proposition that maps, poems, pictures, sculptures, novels, motor cars,sparking plugs, trained dogs, wheels, dairy cows ,and vacuum cleaners are also propositions. Any artefact is proposed by at least one active agent for consideration as useful, beautiful, true, or good. I'd exclude from the category of 'propositions' wild animals,wild plants, and human beings.
Joke artefacts such as Heath Robinson machines which portray absurd propositions are funny because of the element of truth they contain.The truth they contain is that some machines are not viable propositions.
Regarding human beings as propositions, if anyone proposes human beings must be for such and such a purpose that proposition is immoral because human beings are not means to ends.For instance the Nazis in Germany proposed women were for Kinder, Kuche, Kirche and the immorality was that women were thus designated as means to ends.
You do not have to mean by, "proposition," what I mean by proposition, but if you are going to question what I say about propositions and knowledge it must be in terms of what I mean by propositions. If you want to question my view of propositions, that's fine too, so long as you understand what I am really saying.The essential form of any proposition consists of three elements, a subject (the something being asserted about), a predicate (the something being asserted) and a copula (which specifies the exact relationship between the subject and predicate). In the proposition, "coffee is a beverage," the terms are, "coffee," "is," and "a beverage." "Coffee," is the subject, "a beverage," is the predicate, and "is" is the copula.
I think we understand the same by 'proposition' : it's predicating something about a subject.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:24 pmThe word, "proposition," has several different definitions, even in philosophy. When I use the word proposition in epistemology I am referring to one explicit definition, "a verbal statement that asserts something about something else." From my article, "Epistemology, Propositions":Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:39 amI try to falsify your "Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts,and all real knowledge is held in the form of propositions." and I cannot falsify your meta-proposition.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:30 am
Informally, I see nothing wrong with visualization being used as way of contemplating some things being call, "thinking," but technically, (epistemologically), I think imagination (which so often accompanies reason when picturing the things our concepts identify) should be kept separate and identifed as, "imagination." Propositions cannot be formed with images, only with concepts, and all real knowledge is held in the from of propositions.
I'm not such a prig as to insist anyone else see it that way, however.
What I can do is include in your meta-proposition that maps, poems, pictures, sculptures, novels, motor cars,sparking plugs, trained dogs, wheels, dairy cows ,and vacuum cleaners are also propositions. Any artefact is proposed by at least one active agent for consideration as useful, beautiful, true, or good. I'd exclude from the category of 'propositions' wild animals,wild plants, and human beings.
Joke artefacts such as Heath Robinson machines which portray absurd propositions are funny because of the element of truth they contain.The truth they contain is that some machines are not viable propositions.
Regarding human beings as propositions, if anyone proposes human beings must be for such and such a purpose that proposition is immoral because human beings are not means to ends.For instance the Nazis in Germany proposed women were for Kinder, Kuche, Kirche and the immorality was that women were thus designated as means to ends.
You do not have to mean by, "proposition," what I mean by proposition, but if you are going to question what I say about propositions and knowledge it must be in terms of what I mean by propositions. If you want to question my view of propositions, that's fine too, so long as you understand what I am really saying.The essential form of any proposition consists of three elements, a subject (the something being asserted about), a predicate (the something being asserted) and a copula (which specifies the exact relationship between the subject and predicate). In the proposition, "coffee is a beverage," the terms are, "coffee," "is," and "a beverage." "Coffee," is the subject, "a beverage," is the predicate, and "is" is the copula.