Imagine a hypothetical simulacra of a person who has no sense of interiority at all. From the outside you might conclude they are fully capable of conversing with themselves... but would they also be contemplating? Can there be thought without interiority? If so, why does interiority exist at all? — Nils Loc

You are stretching this thread into a more interesting discussion, being less ambiguous and posing better questions but I can't elaborate on my original question without wandering whether it should be a new thread..

Can a computer capable of some "thought" have zero sense of interiority? — Nils Loc

I do talk to bots now and then, trying to find exactly that - thought. I'll be honest with you, I forgot what equivocate means a long time ago. I'm disappointed that no one has responded to your comments as well.

I hope I'm not just talking to myself ;)

I was thinking maybe it belongs in philosophy of mind, i wasn't sure, but I never thought it should live in the lounge.. "Can you really contemplate without having a conversation with yourself?" - it's a serious question.

Can someone tell me why this thread has been removed from general philosophy and planted in the lounge??

We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. — Janus

A thought experiment I've used and tested.. Ask someone if they can imagine a circle, if the answer is yes - and it usually is - then ask them to imagine a circle. Having done that, ask them what colour it is and whether it was that colour before you asked them or if it only became that colour after they thought about it..

In most cases when I've done this, the circle was a particular colour and it was that colour as soon as it was imagined but here's the strange thing.. When I imagine a shape it has no colour until I choose what colour it is. The shape and the colour are like two seperate things that I choose to combine. I rarely imagine anything with specific details, I'm usually asleep.

I'm saying the only form of nonworded contemplation I can imagine would tend to be pretty shortlived. — believenothing

In my experience of contemplation, there always seems to be a narator who just can't keep quiet at least, that's if there isn't really a conversation going on.

Are you saying (or asking if) there is a difference between the back and forth of internal dialogue? — Paine

I'm not really asking about any difference there might be between the back and forth of internal dialogue, or at least that wasn't the primary intention. My main query was about what I would call 'alternative thinking methods'.

What human being does not converse with themselves? — jgill

I was under the impresion that worded contemplation is kind of normal but I was hoping that someone could explain a better method or instigate a debate about alternative forms.

Ok,

Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

Contemplation need not be worded? That had occured to me, but how are we supposed to discuss a lack of discussion? It's not that simple, surely? I can't see how a conclusion could be made from a nonworded contemplation to be honest. Thinking fast without worded contemplation has always seemed like an instictual behaviour to me. I'm not saying it's what I usually do, I'm saying the only form of nonworded contemplation I can imagine would tend to be pretty shortlived.

Can you see ideas and not dream?

Even if you just listen to your thoughts, you are still having a one way conversation.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApJZKTMOKCr7jxnlG5t8lq-OTaCo?

I'm not as tech savvy as i would like to be but this link should show you a snipet of a conversation I'm having with an a.i. about nothing in particular.

What exactly are you being distracted from that you don't want to be distracted from?

I think I spend too much time on autopilot waiting for the next dream.

What exactly are you being distracted from that you don't want to be distracted from? — punos

I really have no specific idea. Just contemplation or meditation or some kind of discovery process maybe.

Maybe ideas are not important until they are made real? But then they just become distractions..? Can someone please enlighten me?

Distractions are everywhere and I could summerise by pointing out that reality is a distraction. All the really cool stuff and important stuff lives in the realm of the unreal and the yet to be and maybe in the past. If it wasn't for the dreamers and the thinkers then we wouldn't really be able to make any progress. I can't stop wandering if there is any meaning for anything, or any ultimate goal that can be reached before the end of everything?

peeps, i didn't read all of this thread but consider my ditty as i penned it a few days ago...
'If only we could learn to be in harmony remaining free, with words so kind they form a bind to heal our minds so we unwind. To make it clear and never fear while danger's near to me you're dear. In love we trust, it is a must and never lust to be unjust.'

Our ideas may be recycled whether we choose to share them or not.

what are you talking about that isn’t covered by this law? Identity is necessary for identifying - the idea of ‘identical’ is pretty much the basis of propositional logic

thanks, i think. I was just telling a friend i might have some reading to do. That was before I logged into this site, spooky eh? I'm not so sure what I do with my time. So called book knowledge was never my forte. Too many alternatives- i mean alternative books and/or sources. I still think too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

By not paying the attention due to the language being used, the replies here amount to nothing.

Like most of philosophy.

It seems I don't really spend enough time contemplating things in order to be able to contribute much to this site. I'm trying to dable though. Whether responses on this site amount to nothing or not, I'm glad this site exists and people still have time to share things on here.

I think I will continue to enjoy reading from my replies as long as I have breath.

I don't understand what two "identical ideas" look like so I can't begin to answer the question.

If you read the same thing in two different books, such as a quote, then let me suggest you have seen the same 'idea' twice or in other words two identical ideas - all be it from different sources. Also 1+1=2 is something that will appear many times, so it's also kind of a repeated idea or identical idea. I'm not sure how to explain my perspective.

Identicality isn't a description of appearances, it is an adopted convention that grants the inter-substitution of two or more distinguishable things in every situation. As an adopted convention, it doesn't make sense to ask whether two things really are identical.

Fantastic, thanks a lot. I often struggle with conventions though. I should say I struggle with language more often. I feel relieved to find I was barking up the wrong tree.

I'm trying to ask about uniquity and originality and that sort of thing, but also trying to learn more about limits.

Can a difference always be established? Or is there a point at which all possible perspectives agree that there is no difference at all?

Thanks khaled, but what about ideas or concepts? I mean not just 'real' objects? Could your observation be identical to what you believe after reading it? If someone can come up with something that can be identical then I would have something else to think about for a while. Do you know what I mean?

Maybe 'nothing' somehow transcends definition?

The concept 'No-thing' presupposes the existence of things, and as all things are mind constructs, the concept comes attached to both a (P) world and an (M) world. Therefore 'nothing' can be correctly defined as the absence of things in a universe that is apriori composed of things, and thinking things. — Marcus de Brun

I can't immediately wrap my head around that, I don't really think the concept of 'No-thing' presupposes anything but I might be stumbling over semantics. I mentioned earlier that 'nothing' only has meaning when compared with something else but I guess the same principle is true of most words and concepts.



2:36 "what you got to lose? you know, you come from nothing, you going back to nothing.. what have you lost? NOTHING..."

The eyes and brain don't actually see the type, since there is no photon output, coming from the type, to stimulate the brain. — wellwisher

"if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you" : Nietzsche

It seems humans have evolved mentally to recognize and manipulate patterns..
In your example of 'nothing' being black or dark text, the text has structure and meaning - it comprises recognizable patterns. I believe most instances of 'nothing' if not all of them can be interpreted in numerous different ways and often they are interpreted or perceived in numerous different ways.

I would say 'nothing' can be observed and there is no guarantee that you would learn nothing.

Nothing is 100% certain, there is always an alternative..

Nothing is worse than hell.

Nothing comes to mind without inspiration or stimulus.

Nothing can be proven to be true.

Nothing has no properties other than being nothing so there can not be more than one of them because they would
have to be indestinguishable. Nothing only has meaning when combined or compared with something else.

I believe literally 'nothing' is unique, just as most words are unique, to enable identification and hence reduce ambiguity.

Nothing is a slippery beast. Nothing is what we are left with when everything else is taken away so I suppose it is
always here.

Nothing is on my mind between other ideas.

Nothing was replaced by this weak attempt to define nothing.

Nothing precedes the origin of all things. Nothing is pure. Nothing contaminates everything else.

Is nothing sacred? ;)

Nothing can replace this crazy rant ;)

Nothing is impossible.

The third option, the universe always existed in one form or another for eternity.

No creation, No magic. — MathematicalPhysicist

I would vote for option 3 or something very similar. I would like to believe however that some kind of cosmos could be created, I just find it hard to believe there was ever a time before anything existed.

If I ask someone "what are you thinking?" and they say "nothing", I suspect what they really mean is "nothing culpable". In order to think nothing at all, I suspect someone would then have no way of communicating.

So, if we stick to the philosophical context, it refers to the absence of Ideas? — Vajk

It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity. — bioazer

As I continue to struggle with finding a good way to answer this question 'what is nothing?', I begin to see that it has a lot to do with grammar, which was never my forte. Strictly philosophically, I would say nothing is a substitute. If you don't comprehend, then perhaps there is nothing where your understanding should be? It seems sensible to describe nothing as an absence of ideas, yes - philosophically.

Nothing is an idea. That's it. That's all it is. "Nothing" is how we conceptualize an absence of a specific thing or things within a given context. The confusion here seems to stem from the paradox of "nothing" being a conceptual "something," (an idea), because perhaps you imagine it to mean "the total absence of all things." It's doesn't. And even if it did, it's a self-defeating definition. It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity. — bioazer

Most ideas are indescribable really, why should 'nothing' be singled out? I like your slant.
Saying something is indescribable is just a (confusing) way to describe it.. Whatever 'nothing' is or isn't, depends on the context - we seem to agree there. When you describe an idea or define it, it somehow loses something in translation. After-all, however simple an idea might seem to one person, any attempt to explain it is always open to interpretations.

The great ineffable unheard of..
Nothing is simply undiscovered I recon.