If I follow my aesthetics while gardening, am I using the scene around me to transmit information about my neurological states? — frank
But perhaps all that is going on is not individual but public. It's clear that there are shared activities around our utterances. We might look to these rather than to an inferred private item that is transferred from one to the other. — Banno
A piece of art is like a single child who grows up to be a million different people, each in its own psychic universe. — frank
The implication is that there is something that is the same in each expression. This is an assumed, almost unconscious transcendental argument: You understood the meaning of my utterance, therefore there must be a thing that we call the meaning of that utterance that has been transfered from you to me. — Banno
Initially I missed your point. Yes, I would say the scene around you and your neural states are the same thing. And this is what is so fascinating, and so difficult to get about information, in that it has its origins in, as you say, the distinction, or the perturbations, the distinctive patterns, or that it is "the difference that makes a difference" -Bateson.. — Pop
So you're saying that things like the desire and sorrow of a certain person at a certain time are equivalent to a unique neurological signature, the associated information of which can be transmitted over some (lossy) media.
I think you'd like Integrateted Information theory. Have you read about it? — frank
The issue as I see it, is what makes information integrate? And I postulate the anthropic principle ( the combined laws of the universe ) makes information integrate. So what we feel is those laws making our information integrate. — Pop
I think it must be so. If not, what’s the point in the old adage “think before you speak”. Besides, while thinking is a necessary human condition, language is merely a contingent human invention. — Mww
HA!!! Exactly what I tell the missus when the sauce didn’t turn out quite right. — Mww
If you think before you speak, how could you do so if not rehearsing what you will say — Janus
I question the possibility of abstractive thought absent language. — Janus
By composing what you will say. Can’t rehearse what hasn’t been composed. — Mww
Assuming abstractive thought to mean the understanding of conceptions that have no immediate correlation to concrete things, we must first grant that understanding is an activity in general, without a necessary regard for concrete things. The absence of concrete things is nothing more than the absence of perceptions, hence absence of intuitions, or, phenomena. — Mww
Hence, abstractive thinking, re: understanding concepts belonging to a feeling of beauty, and not to a concrete object in the form of a glass sculpture. All without the necessity for language.
I would certainly need language to tell you about it, but that’s not the same as thinking about it. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.