I'm right that dogs can't understand the significance of "not", and I think I am, can you see why that would limit its ability to form complex thoughts? — frank
See, when I mentioned this to Constance, she was like, 'Yea, Hegel.'. And I was like, to myself, 'Yea, she understands that without negation, there are no propositions because a P is the negation of a negation.'
So it's not just emotion that makes me silent here, it's that somebody on the planet understood and that's enough? — frank
was simply pointing out what seems to be a fact - animals know what negation is. I'm not sure but doesn't animal training involve a carrot-and-stick (reward-punishment/affirmation-negation) schema? — TheMadFool
If the dog thinks, "I shouldn't stay in the road." then it would appear that the dog is using language.
We were trying to arrive at non-linguistic thought.
As I said, Isaac's non-linguistic modeling is probably our best bet. — frank
Not sure what you mean when you state at the beginning that you are not interested in insight, — Constance
You seem to be of the opinion that negation is limited to human-level languages. — TheMadFool
the dog thinks, "I shouldn't stay in the road." then it would appear that the dog is using language. — frank
I get the feeling you didn't read the post you responded to.
We're trying to arrive at non-linguistic thought.
If a dog uses language, then the dog won't help us with our project. — frank
Well, I can tell you this: I have thoughts which I find hard, sometimes impossible, to articulate. — TheMadFool
Well, I can tell you this: I have thoughts which I find hard, sometimes impossible, to articulate.
— TheMadFool
I don't think that's unusual. — frank
So, does what I said about myself make/break your case? — TheMadFool
I wasn't making a case. But I'm sure someone on this forum is just waiting for a chance to not only disagree with you, but insult the fuck out of you.
Start a thread on it. :up: — frank
Would it be reasonable to guess that a dog, with very similar neuro anatomy and physiology to a human, is modeling without language?
Could that kind of modeling show up in a dog's memories? — frank
Interesting that you read ‘an infinite source of energy’ as ‘eternity’. The finitude/infinity of energy is the paradoxical quality of time, and the qualitative flow of energy is time’s directional logic. Have you read Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’? — Possibility
Yes, there is not just this possible prediction, but also its negation - the impossibility of it all. You’re presuming a ‘perceptual event’ has form: a definable quality to be changed. But any perceptual event is qualitatively variable in itself - it manifests variable observation events according to a predictive relation, but it’s also variably perceivable as such. So it isn’t so much change as a vague awareness of variability - on the periphery of any capacity for perception. That either draws attention and effort (affect), or not. It’s not undeniable - it comes down to an availability of energ — Possibility
My point here is that at this intersection we must embody energy, logic, quality, or some combination, in order to relate to anything at all. You agree that any quest for an unlimited source of energy is one of identity: it assumes that everything has a proper, definitive relation to everything else, and if we somehow manage to complete this process of identification, then the source must reveal itself. It’s an issue for ethics because to do this we assume that our perspective embodies a proper, definitive relation to everything else. — Possibility
Some games invoke the modification of their own rules. That's not necessarily a termination. — Banno
My model of the table just takes the various inputs (visuo-spatial, locational, sensory, proprioceptive...) and generates a set probability function of a known result — Isaac
What else could it be?
Definition of "speech" by Oxford LEXICO: "The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds." Aren't sounds material? — Alkis Piskas
No, I din't say that. I only said the "Word" ("logos") as "speech" doesn't make sense in ths famous Christian quote and I just tried to give a better explanation by considering the meaning that word "logos" acquired with time, and that was "reason" ("logiki"). This is much more plausible since reason is beyond any borders imposed by languages (speech), religions and civilizations. And this because its nature is mental, spiritual and not material. The expression "conscious thought" which you are using is very close to it. The word "Consciousness" that I used, is also very closely connected to "Thought". — Alkis Piskas
Yet, as plausible as this "version" may be, I cannot claim anything more about it, since I have not has any realization about Consciousness being "the beginning of all things" as you say. A lot of thinkers calim or believe that, though. — Alkis Piskas
So you want to do philosophy of language, but vaguely back it up and give it a sense of authority with references to the Bible (and other assorted scriptures)? — baker
I really wonder why haven't they translated the Greek quote at least as "In the beginning was the Reason" ... This would have saved us a lot of time in discussing it! — Alkis Piskas
What proposition, exactly? — Banno
So you are saying that the cat being on the mat is one thing, the proposition "the cat is on the mat", a different thing? And yet "the cat is on the mat" is true only if the cat is on the mat.
Of course the world is always, already interpreted. Your reaching for, talk of, an uninterpreted world is a conceptual mistake. — Banno
No, it certainly isn't. But I am talking about speech itself, not the concept or faculty of speech. And as I see now, this is not clear from the definition I brought in. Sorry about that!But is a concept material? — Constance
Certainly.Sure, saying a word, using lips and larynx and the rest is material, as a classificatory term, but ideas, logic, language and meaning, and so forth, these do not fit the category — Constance
Are you talking about "One is all, All is One", the alchemist belief? Or, maybe the mystical "Everything is One?" If so, such things do not belong in my reality. Mixing physical objects and non-physical elements do not fit in my reality either. So I can't think, and much less talk, about that.We want to say all things are one ... — Constance
Well, I actually said that it makes much more sense. But even if I accept this, it's only a hypothesis, and it is not part of my reality. I don't have any such realization neither have I given it much thought. So fact is I'm really not interested in it at all! We can talk of something else if you like ... :smile:So instead of "in the beginning the was the word" is should be "there was reason" — Constance
Your views are quite interesting.The beginning of all things — Constance
Do not think. Thinking involves past and future. Just be there. Be aware. Observe. Perceive. This is the only way to be in the present.how do I get to the present when the past is the very essence of "knowing" it is there at all? — Constance
It may be. But Metaphysics are involved only when you think about and try to describe "present". You don't need them to experience the "present"! :smile:I claim that the "metaphysics of the present" is a real possibility. — Constance
I did and found them quite interesting. But as I said a little earlier, one way or the other, I m not really interested in that quote furthermore. It was just an "intellectual" exploration of the subject and maybe egotistical in a way from my part! :smile:Take a look at my later comments. I — Constance
↪Valentinus Seems to me to be the same point. All talk occurs within language games; all language games are embed in -constitute - the world, what can be said. Constance is puzzling over ways to talk about the world without using language. You can't. But you might act in the world - do something; paint a picture, demonstrate a kindness, make a sacrifice. — Banno
My dog definitely understands "no." — Hanover
thought: no, your dog does not understand "no". Understanding what another says means there is agreement between both parties, and a dog's received meaning has no conceptual contextualization. — Constance
A thought: no, your dog does not understand "no". Understanding what another says means there is agreement between both parties, and a dog's received meaning has no conceptual contextualization. Humans say this word, and the prohibition is wrapped a body of associated thought. Not so with Rover. Rovers "no" does not register symbolically because she has no language. She does have, you could argue, associated experiences that make the "no" familiar and is conditionally connected to punishment and reward, the same as us. But "to understand" the word, well, dogs don't have words. — Constance
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.