"Trees" is a word. Trees are not. The tree is not a "tree" in linguistic thought. It is part of a correlation which attributes meaning and as such makes the tree meaningful/significant to the creature. — creativesoul
Nonlinguistic creatures cannot think of "existence" for it is a word. Non linguistic creatures cannot think of existence because it is not directly perceptible. — creativesoul
How about 'non linguistic creatures' don't 'think' ! — fresco
perception is 'active' not 'passive', whan can 'direct experience' mean ? — fresco
Where 'language' might come in (at the crudest level) is as a facility to delay any automatici stimulus response linkage, by allowing for internal 'considering' (aka 'thinking') . — fresco
I have no idea what 'basic thought' can mean other than a state of suspension or interruption of an S-R sequence. — fresco
The second, exmplified perhaps the command 'no' to a dog, merely interrupts or facilitates changes in behavior. It looks like we don't require the word 'thought' at all, unless we take an anthropomorphic view of other species. — fresco
'language' and 'languaging' — fresco
the command 'no' to a dog — fresco
One without language has no such background, and thus cannot think about a thing's "existence". — creativesoul
One without language can have the tree [or existence] in mind in any number of ways without ever having used the term "tree" [or "existence"] simply by drawing a correlation between the tree [or the existent] and other things [things that may or may not exist]. — creativesoul
I do not appreciate the misquote. — creativesoul
One without language can have the tree in mind in any number of ways without ever having used the term "tree" simply by drawing a correlation between the tree and other things. — creativesoul
I'm trying to understand this shit, and I'm attempting to show you that in nonlinguistic thought, existence is just as possible as tree. — Merkwurdichliebe
One without language can have existence in mind in any number of ways without ever having used the term "existence" simply by drawing a correlation between the existent and other things that may or may not exist. — Merkwurdichliebe
You cannot show me that. Existence is attributed to things already named. First and foremost. Existence is thought about by virtue of using descriptive practices. — creativesoul
In non philosophical situations, 'existence' is never attributed except in disputes about the utility of a concept which the word 'existence' is invoked instead of 'utility' in order to suggest the authority of 'an absolute'. That is the whole crux of my thesis.. — fresco
. Existence is attributed to things already named. First and foremost. Existence is thought about by virtue of using descriptive practices.
— creativesoul
Why? — Merkwurdichliebe
Existence is present at all levels of thought, linguistic or nonlinguistic. — Merkwurdichliebe
Wrong question. It's not a matter of why. — creativesoul
Existence is attributed to things already named. First and foremost. Existence is thought about by virtue of using descriptive practices. — creativesoul
I think we can validly conceive of a sequence of 'perceptually receptive states' which are associated with shifting 'physiological needs', for all creatures, which defines for them the nature of their shifting world. Where 'language' might come in (at the crudest level) is as a facility to delay any automatici stimulus response linkage, by allowing for internal 'considering' (aka 'thinking') .
NB One psychological definition of 'intelligence' is 'the capacity to delay a response'. — fresco
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.