Let's just say that there is no external world and continue to live our lives as if there is one. Then this silly debate would finally come to an end, and we'll do what we do in any case. — Ciceronianus
I understood the first time. I agree, but that is a trivial point to make. We all know that much. Do you object to either claim in the quote at the top of this post? — creativesoul
There is no denying that thinking about words is a kind of thought that needs words. Otherwise, there would be nothing to think about. — creativesoul
We're considering whether or not any thought needs words...... — creativesoul
......any and all meaningful coherent answers to that particular question are based completely upon what counts as thought that needs words, as well as what counts as thought that does not. — creativesoul
It seems to me that the difference between thought that needs words and thought that does not is one of existential dependency. The former is existentially dependent upon words, and the latter is not. — creativesoul
Here we face a 'problem' though. If we claim that simple thought existed prior to the first words...... — creativesoul
......and we aim to set out that kind of thought, then we are taking account of that which existed in its entirety prior to our taking it into account. — creativesoul
Thus, we can get it wrong! — creativesoul
if we're using the term as a means to take account of that which exists in its entirety prior to our taking it into account...... — creativesoul
......then whatever we say about such thought must not only be consistent with the ability to exist in its entirety prior to words, but our account must set out how it can/does. — creativesoul
True enough, but is it not therefore logical, and rational, to claim that thinking about anything except words, would not need them? While it is true every thought must have its object, it does not follow that ever object must be a word. — Mww
In the complete absence of light and leaves there cannot be any experience of seeing them. In the complete absence of the biological machinery, there cannot be any experience of seeing them..
Do you object to either claim..? — creativesoul
Sure I agree, but I see those claims as being more obvious, more trivial,.. — Janus
Thus, the experience consists of both internal and external things. It most certainly follows that the experience is neither internal nor external for it consists of elements that are both.
symbolic thought requires symbols, and symbols are mostly words. It's true that things like love or hate or anger can be symbolized by images, but how could non-verbal images be used to symbolize abstract notions like generality, specificity, pattern, from, form, about, content, exception, logic, rationality, fundamental, absolute and countless others? — Janus
Perfect. Do you object to what's directly below?
Thus, the experience consists of both internal and external things. It most certainly follows that the experience is neither internal nor external for it consists of elements that are both. — creativesoul
...there is no fact of the matter concerning whether experience is internal, a combination of internal and external or neither internal nor external... — Janus
In the complete absence of light and leaves there cannot be any experience of seeing them. In the complete absence of the biological machinery, there cannot be any experience of seeing them. Thus, the experience consists of both internal and external things. It most certainly follows that the experience is neither internal nor external for it consists of elements that are both. — creativesoul
All thought and perception is symbolic in the sense of signifying something. Complexes of sound , image and sensation signify recognizable things. Music signifies complex ideas and feelings. Words are just specialized forms of signification. Many abstract ideas can be signified better by feelings( which are forms of conceptual meaning) than by words. — Joshs
Now my claim has just been that a complex argument or train of thought involving abstract concepts cannot be followed except in symbolic language terms — Janus
Never claimed otherwise. — creativesoul
There are better approaches. — creativesoul
I put it to you that whether or not experience is external, internal, and/or both is something that is not up to us any more than whether or not our biological machinery, the tree, leaves, and light are. Would you agree with that as well? — creativesoul
There is no denying that thinking about words is a kind of thought that needs words. Otherwise, there would be nothing to think about.
— creativesoul
True enough, but is it not therefore logical, and rational, to claim that thinking about anything except words, would not need them? — Mww
If some thought needs words, and some does not, then claiming that thought does not need words is false. — creativesoul
If some thought does not need words, then the proposition "thought does not need words" is true. This is true, regardless of the fact that some thought needs words. That's the way inductive reasoning works. — Metaphysician Undercover
I put it to you that whether or not experience is external, internal, and/or both is something that is not up to us any more than whether or not our biological machinery, the tree, leaves, and light are. Would you agree with that as well?
— creativesoul
No, I think it's just a matter of definition, nothing more. — Janus
If experience is defined as the sensing, feeling and thinking processes of an individual, which are obviously not open to public scrutiny, then on that definition experience is internal. So, it is up to us how we choose to think about it. — Janus
What - exactly - is a matter of definition, and nothing more?
Whether or not a tree is inside or outside my head? — creativesoul
According to you, the content of that toddler's experience depends upon how we define the word "experience". — creativesoul
When dichotomies are used as a means to divide everything up into stuff that fits into one or the other, then the inevitable result is a failure to be able to properly account for that which is both — creativesoul
There are no such things in those accounts. — creativesoul
According to you, the content of that toddler's experience depends upon how we define the word "experience".
That cannot be right. — creativesoul
According to you, the content of that toddler's experience depends upon how we define the word "experience".
— creativesoul
You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't said anything about content. — Janus
...It seems quite normal to say that our definitions determine the content of those defined concepts. — Isaac
Let's just say that there is no external world and continue to live our lives as if there is one. Then this silly debate would finally come to an end, and we'll do what we do in any case. — Ciceronianus
The toddler's experience is what it is regardless of how we define it. — Janus
...It seems quite normal to say that our definitions determine the content of those defined concepts... — Isaac
Those and many other experiences existed in their entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices. — creativesoul
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.