You can only think in the same forms that your experiences of the world take, and it is a fact that the only way you could have learned a language is by having some kind of sensory experience and then store those experiences, or qualia as some call them, for recalling later. — Harry Hindu
What relationship is established with me just closing my eyes and imagining the color green? — Harry Hindu
Words for things that are not open for comparison fail to have content. — unenlightened
My concern is about bad psychology abusing or neglecting the mentally ill. Especially with this idea that you can be an expert in someone else's mind and thus override what they are telling you (hetero-phenomenology)
If someone says to you "I am depressed" you don't know anything about it. I advocate a very detailed phenomenology. But that is not my experience of psychiatrists. If a psychiatrist fully comprehended what happened to me as a child they would recognise the depth of my problems. But only someone who has either had similar situations or a very sympathetic/empathetic person can fully appreciate the situation. People often minimise or misrepresent other peoples problems because they use weak words and weak analogies.
So if you seriously want to "know" someone else's mind you should be prepared to talk to them for hours in a very open minded but probing way. — Andrew4Handel
When I mentioned social anxiety you said "I'm chronically shy and misanthropic; Have I got it?" That sounded derogatory and poor attempt to imagine social anxiety and this is what people with mental health are up against. IT is a mixture of prejudice and a failure of imagination. — Andrew4Handel
I'm sorry. If I hurt your feelings it was unintended. — unenlightened
What relationship is established with me just closing my eyes and imagining the color green? — Harry Hindu
Obviously I'm not talking about something like imagining a green colour, that would be obtained from sensory experience. I'm talking about the relationships which logic is founded on, like opposition, being and not being, or negative and positive, plus and minus, and the relationship between parts and unity which numbers use. — Metaphysician Undercover
How ever much detail I give you (like Temple Grandin's clever lengthy descriptions) can you really imagine what I experienced? — Andrew4Handel
If you had read all of my post from where you got that quote from, then you'd have understood that I said that the mind must have already had the capability to create associations in order to learn a language, and also creates new patterns, most are meaningless (Colourless green ideas sleep furiously), others are copies of experienced patterns (causation, language, etc.), and some new patterns that actually provide some new shared insight into ourselves and our place in reality (Theory of Natural Selection).I'm not referring to "the fundamental aspect of the mind". I've taken exception to your claim that "you can only think in the same forms that your experiences of the world take". What I've pointed out is that this is not true, we think in other forms, relationships which we have not experienced through our sensory perceptions of the world. Whether or not thinking in these artificial, creative, relationships is the fundamental aspect of thinking is irrelevant. What I am arguing is that they are an aspect of thinking, and cannot be so dismissed, as you claimed. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not disagreeing that our mind can create new patterns, or relationships as you call them. My point is that even the new relationships are composed of sensory data. You can still only think in colored shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings - but mostly colored shapes as we seem to think that the world is more how we see it because our sight provides us the most information about the world compared to our other senses. — Harry Hindu
You're simply revamping my own position. To have this idea, of "is and is not", is to already experience distinctions, of different things at once or over a certain period of time. What form do these distinctions take? — Harry Hindu
Thinking wouldn't even be happening, or necessary, if some system that thinks didn't have change to process - change, the degree of which the local environment provides. — Harry Hindu
If all you experienced was blackness since you came into existence, could you say that you would be able to think? If so, what would you think of? — Harry Hindu
Of course there is. As I was saying, when you have an experience, it isn't of just one color across your visual field and nothing else. You have an experience of a plethora of colors, and each color is different, or not the other colors. The colors are also not the feelings and sounds that you also experience, which are different. This is what I mean by differentiation being brute and automatic. This is why I asked the question at the end of my post.No there is no experience of such a distinction, that's the point. What kind of experience is an experience of is not? There's no such experience. The idea of "is not" is not derived from experience, it comes from something else. — Metaphysician Undercover
And you can experience things, like a friend, and then not experience them. What you are saying only holds true if you have the same monotonous experience of the same thing that never disappears. Again, this is why I asked the question.The local environment doesn't provide you with an experience of is not, that's the point. Whatever is not within the local environment you do not experience, so you cannot get this idea of "is not" from experiencing the local environment. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, if you want to call this an experience of nothing, (I'm calling it an experience of something - the color black, as blind people don't even experience the color black. They experience nothing at all visually, kind of like what it's like seeing behind you.), then the question still stands: What would you think of?. Your reply is that they would think of nothing. While my answer is basically the same thing,as the only thing in the mind would be a field of black.If all you experienced was blackness since you came into existence, could you say that you would be able to think? If so, what would you think of? — Harry Hindu
This experience of nothing, which you refer to, might be some sort of experience of "is not". But we do not ever experience this experience of nothing, so you cannot claim that we get this idea of nothing from experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
This seems to agree with what I said about the friend. You experience them and then you don't. That in itself is an experience of "is and is not". You seem to be agreeing with me, but just can't bring yourself to accept it.Nor can you claim that we get the idea of "is not" from experience, because "is not" refers to what is not capable of being experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I was saying, when you have an experience, it isn't of just one color across your visual field and nothing else. You have an experience of a plethora of colors, and each color is different, or not the other colors. The colors are also not the feelings and sounds that you also experience, which are different. — Harry Hindu
And you can experience things, like a friend, and then not experience them. — Harry Hindu
This seems to agree with what I said about the friend. You experience them and then you don't. That in itself is an experience of "is and is not". You seem to be agreeing with me, but just can't bring yourself to accept it. — Harry Hindu
I really don't see how a sensory experience of seeing the colour green can be construed as a sensory experience of seeing not-red. This conclusion must be produced by deduction. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that this is seeing not-red, it is not a sensory experience of not-red, whatever that might mean. Otherwise we could conclude that the sensation of seeing green is a sensory experience of seeing not-cold, or seeing not-big, or seeing not-solid, or any other random conclusion. But these random conclusions are just that, logical conclusions, they are not sensory experiences.
Or is this what your trying to argue, that the experience of seeing colours can be described as the experience of not-hearing sound? That's actually nonsense, because to determine that something is not-sound requires that one have knowledge of what sound is, and this is not prerequisite for seeing colour. So it's obvious that one can experience colour without this colour being not-sound if there were no such thing as sound. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are talking about the difference between what is and what is not. To experience a friend's presence, then to experience that person's lack of presence, is not an experience of "the friend is not". — Metaphysician Undercover
Really? Then what would be an experience of "the friend is not" if you experienced the friend just a moment ago and now you don't after they walked through the door?We are talking about the difference between what is and what is not. To experience a friend's presence, then to experience that person's lack of presence, is not an experience of "the friend is not". — Metaphysician Undercover
When I used the term, "experience", I'm talking about the whole deal - the entirety of all of your colors, shapes, sounds, etc. What you do with those colors (comparing them, etc.) is also part of the experience you are having. I don't recall calling the mental act of comparing a sensory experience. It is simply an experience composed of sensory impressions. What I have said, and I'll say one last time, is that your whole experience, whether it be comparing, imagining, or whatever, is composed of sensory data. To say that you can compare things that aren't within your experience is to say what you just said previously - that it's nonsense.No, I don't agree with you, because I disagree that this is a sensory experience of is and is not. You experience the presence of your friend, and you may conclude, "the friend is". Then, later this experience is replaced by other experiences and these other experiences are not experiences of "the friend is not", they are other experiences. It requires that one compare one experience to the other, to conclude logically that one experience is not the same as the other, and therefore conclude that one is not the other. This is not itself a sensory experience, it is a comparison of sensory experiences, producing a logical conclusion.
The comparison of sensory experiences, which is what some mental activity consists of, is not itself a sensory experience. What you do not seem to be grasping is that mental activity consists of such comparisons, and there is no need that the things being compared are sensory experiences. So mental activity can proceed by comparing things which are not sensory experiences. This is the case when we compare is and is not, these things are logical principles, they are not sensory experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see how this is so difficult for you to grasp. I think you're blowing through my posts without taking the time to actually read it - every word.
Actually, it is you that has been arguing that you can experience opposition without any experiences. This is starting to get to the point of where I get bored of having to repeat myself and repeat your own position that you seem to not understand yourself. — Harry Hindu
When we have experiences of multiple things, that is where we get the idea of opposition - that the sound I experience isn't the same thing as the colors I experience, and even the colors are different. — Harry Hindu
This is why I kept posing the question (and you refuse to answer, while I have addressed every point and question you have made) of what we would think about if all we had was an experience of just one thing - just one color - that's it. — Harry Hindu
Really? Then what would be an experience of "the friend is not" if you experienced the friend just a moment ago and now you don't after they walked through the door? — Harry Hindu
When I used the term, "experience", I'm talking about the whole deal - the entirety of all of your colors, shapes, sounds, etc. What you do with those colors (comparing them, etc.) is also part of the experience you are having. I don't recall calling the mental act of comparing a sensory experience. It is simply an experience composed of sensory impressions. What I have said, and I'll say one last time, is that your whole experience, whether it be comparing, imagining, or whatever, is composed of sensory data. To say that you can compare things that aren't within your experience is to say what you just said previously - that it's nonsense. — Harry Hindu
Here's a definition of experience from Merriam-Webster:No, I read your posts, but we're both on completely different wavelengths. You use the word "experience" in a way which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that opposition is something which can be experienced. You assume that opposition is experienced, and use your words in a way which demonstrates this belief, but this makes your words nonsensical to me. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course it does. Opposition is a kind of difference.So in order to make your words make sense to me, you need to explain to me how you experience opposition. Just insisting that opposition is part of your experience doesn't help me, I need you to describe the experience of opposition. And describing differences does not describe opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover
Black and white aren't opposites?No, that's not true. That one thing is not the same as another does not produce the idea of opposition. Two things which are opposite, like negative and positive, or, is and is not, are exactly the same in every way, except in the way of opposition. They differ in only one particular way, and that is that they are opposite, in every other way, they are exactly the same. So a colour and a sound are different, but they are not at all opposite to one another. — Metaphysician Undercover
Give me a break, dude. Now you're telling me that you have never attempted to imagine what it's like having other experiences that you never had in a sorry attempt to evade a pertinent question.I don't see the relevance of such a hypothetical question. How am I supposed to describe to you an experience which I've never had? Your question is nonsense, it doesn't get us any closer to understanding what opposition is, nor does it make your point, that you can experience opposition. It's just a distraction. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now you aren't making any sense, whatsoever. [/i]What[/i] is it that is in opposition? How does it make any sense to think of opposition without including what it is that is in opposition? Notice how you can't adequately describe opposition without using examples of your experiences - like with numbers and is and is not? How do you know what opposition is without experiencing it? How did you acquire that knowledge, and how do you confirm that knowledge?Clearly, opposition is not part of one's experience, yet we compare is and is not, positive and negative. How do you account for this? If you do not allow that some things being compared in mental activity, are actually outside of one's experience, you'll always have an unintelligible representation of mental activity. Why do you insist that it's nonsense to compare things which are not within your experience? This appears to be an assumption which is totally unwarranted, and unjustified, yet you'll defend it to your wits end, for no apparent reason. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here's a definition of experience from Merriam-Webster:
Experience: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
If you never experienced opposition, how do you even know you are getting it right without having ever experienced it? How is it that you know that you understand opposition? — Harry Hindu
Of course it does. Opposition is a kind of difference. — Harry Hindu
Now you aren't making any sense, whatsoever. [/i]What[/i] is it that is in opposition? How does it make any sense to think of opposition without including what it is that is in opposition? Notice how you can't adequately describe opposition without using examples of your experiences - like with numbers and is and is not? How do you know what opposition is without experiencing it? How did you acquire that knowledge, and how do you confirm that knowledge? — Harry Hindu
So you need to remember my post before you know what it says? How does that make any sense to you? You can know how to do things without remembering how you learned it - like walking. You know that you are walking because you have the experience of walking at the moment - without remembering how you learned it.This question doesn't make sense. How is it that you know anything? To experience something is not sufficient for knowing something, the experience must be remembered. So if you are asking me how I know I am getting opposition right, I might as well ask you how do you know you are getting anything right? — Metaphysician Undercover
You aren't reading my posts again. Look again, I said, "Opposition is a kind of difference." You're confusing types with kinds. Describing what opposition is tells you about a kind of difference.No, that's wrong. If opposition is a certain type of difference, then describing difference does not tell one what opposition is. Does describing colour tell you what red is? — Metaphysician Undercover
.You really don't understand opposition do you? It is purely conceptual. It is not the case that this thing is opposite to that thing, that's just a complete misrepresentation of opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here, in describing "opposition", you even say that these things are the same in every way except in the way of opposition? Aren't you then saying that they are different in some way? What is the opposite of "the same"?Two things which are opposite, like negative and positive, or, is and is not, are exactly the same in every way, except in the way of opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.