Imagine a hypothetical simulacra of a person who has no sense of interiority at all. From the outside you might conclude they are fully capable of conversing with themselves... but would they also be contemplating? Can there be thought without interiority? If so, why does interiority exist at all? — Nils Loc
Can a computer capable of some "thought" have zero sense of interiority? — Nils Loc
We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. — Janus
I'm saying the only form of nonworded contemplation I can imagine would tend to be pretty shortlived. — believenothing
Are you saying (or asking if) there is a difference between the back and forth of internal dialogue? — Paine
What human being does not converse with themselves? — jgill
Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi
I think I spend too much time on autopilot waiting for the next dream.What exactly are you being distracted from that you don't want to be distracted from?
What exactly are you being distracted from that you don't want to be distracted from? — punos
what are you talking about that isn’t covered by this law? Identity is necessary for identifying - the idea of ‘identical’ is pretty much the basis of propositional logic
By not paying the attention due to the language being used, the replies here amount to nothing.
Like most of philosophy.
I don't understand what two "identical ideas" look like so I can't begin to answer the question.
Identicality isn't a description of appearances, it is an adopted convention that grants the inter-substitution of two or more distinguishable things in every situation. As an adopted convention, it doesn't make sense to ask whether two things really are identical.
The concept 'No-thing' presupposes the existence of things, and as all things are mind constructs, the concept comes attached to both a (P) world and an (M) world. Therefore 'nothing' can be correctly defined as the absence of things in a universe that is apriori composed of things, and thinking things. — Marcus de Brun
The eyes and brain don't actually see the type, since there is no photon output, coming from the type, to stimulate the brain. — wellwisher
The third option, the universe always existed in one form or another for eternity.
No creation, No magic. — MathematicalPhysicist
So, if we stick to the philosophical context, it refers to the absence of Ideas? — Vajk
It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity. — bioazer
Nothing is an idea. That's it. That's all it is. "Nothing" is how we conceptualize an absence of a specific thing or things within a given context. The confusion here seems to stem from the paradox of "nothing" being a conceptual "something," (an idea), because perhaps you imagine it to mean "the total absence of all things." It's doesn't. And even if it did, it's a self-defeating definition. It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity. — bioazer