Who, or what, determines what sound or scribble is a word
— Harry Hindu

The community of language users using the word 'word' for a shared reason. — Isaac

What would that shared reason be?

The fact that you don't need to focus on it any longer doesn't mean that it no longer points to it. — Harry Hindu

How? — Isaac

Read your own post:

If I say "duck!" just because I've learnt to say that word when a golf ball is flying towards someone, and you duck just because you've learned to do so when hearing the word "duck!", you're claiming the word still points to 'ducking' even though neither party involved thought of ducking. So the word had a property {pointing to ducking} despite the property not being attached to that word in either brain. I may be mistaken, as I thought you were a physicalist, if not, then I'm sorry for having wasted your time, if so, then where is this property, if not in either brain? — Isaac

So the word, "duck" points to what you learned, just as how you use a bicycle points to how you learned how to use the bicycle. Once you master riding the bicycle, you no longer think about maintaining your balance, but then you wouldn't be able to not focus on maintaining your balance without having learned how to do that. Causes/effects point to their effects/causes.

Deflection is not an answer. No one here has said that words never point, so this line of argument is useless, and it still doesn't answer the question. — Isaac

Then I guess you weren't paying attention to StreelightX's posts. If you agree that words do point then I don't know what we're disagreeing about.

Animals can think in the sense they are conscious and can respond intelligently to situations. But the OP was about the evolution of logic. And my point is that it piggybacks on the new semiotic machinery that is grammatically structured speech.

What makes humans different is all the differences that this new habit of structured thought can make. — apokrisis

There are many rules of logic and some are more fundamental than others, like the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity. It seems to me that the very act of having objects of thought is a manifestation of these three fundamental "rules". It's not so much as rules that we make up after the fact, rather they are simply how thinking works. No object of thought breaks any one of these three fundamental laws. And this raises the question why we have rules for thinking in the first place.

What is in question is whether we should count the dog's intuition as a kind of logic, or as logical in a kind of basic sense. It certainly seems that such intuitions must underlie the human capacity for explicit logical formulation; the fact the we are not merely following rules, but that we "get it". — Janus

Isn't what we get is the rules for thinking correctly? What every thinker eventually realizes is that in some cases what they thought was wrong, and you can only try to learn what you did wrong by doing more thinking. Corrective thinking is logical thinking. Learning the proper way to think is the fundamental aspect of logic and this entails learning from one's mistakes. Did the dog instinctively know that 3-2=1, or is it something that was learned by experience - by making mistakes? Isn't that what learning is - making mistakes, remembering them and trying something different?

There lies the rub. The mind seems to be independent of the brain because when we sleep, the brain is still intact inside the head and yet we're not conscious. :chin: — TheMadFool

Yet drugs and damage to the brain causes a change in consciousness.

Why do we need a brain then, or even a body?

When you look at others, why is the only way to perceive their mind is by observing their body?

Apes have a smaller and less powerful version of this area. Hominids evolved a steadily larger one, most likely first for tool making and tool use. Then this became a pre-adaption for the ability to make complex structured vocalisations. — apokrisis

Sounds like thinking occurred before language-use to me. Understanding that there are tools to be used is the precursor to using words as a tool.

Is not learning a type of thinking?

How did you learn a language if you didnt already have the capacity to distinguish certain sounds and scribbles from each other?

It also seems like you'd have to be aware of errors in your thinking and how you make them before coming up with rules to avoid those errors (the formal rules of logic).

And then there is this:
A Man Without Words
Once you hear Ildefonso's story, it will be obvious that he had thoughts prior to learning to communicate them.

The mind can't be the brain because when I die, my brain doesn't go anywhere but my consciousness (mind) is missing. — TheMadFool

Once rhe brain is deprived of oxygen cell death occurs.

Then where does your consciousness go when you're asleep? And how does it come back when you wake up?

Phewee! Ugh! — Isaac

So the sound of someone gagging is a word?

We can use anything to point to something else. We could use a hand gesture of pointing your finger down your throat to symbolize the behavior of gagging. Does the fact that we can use scribbles to point to a sound, or gestures to point to a behavior is just indicative of how our mind establishes correlations and relationships, especially for communicating those things to others.

Is all symbol-use word-use?

Sounds are not 'made into' words, they are sometimes referenced by words, sometimes even byt eh word 'word', but I can't make any sense of them being 'made into' words. — Isaac

You are't going to be intellectually honest either, I see. The question is simple, so stop trying to skew it into something that I did not ask.

Who, or what, determines what sound or scribble is a word, or is it your belief that everything is a word, even the smell and taste of an apple?

Which is all I was saying. If there are circumstances where one doesn't need to focus on the image/concept anymore then there are circumstances in which the use of the word is not pointing to that image/concept anymore. — Isaac

I know what you were saying. What I was saying is that you are wrong. The fact that you don't need to focus on it any longer doesn't mean that it no longer points to it. It seems to me that you believe that when something is out of sight/mind, it no longer exists.

Think about it this way. If I were to write a computer program for a robot to execute a certain behavior when it hears the sound, "Duck!", I'd have to link the sound with the behavior. When the program runs, you might say that the robot isn't conscious at all and is merely performing actions based on stimuli and how it was programmed. What I'm saying is that learning is the same as being programmed. It has to be programmed into you what is expected of you when hearing the sound.

If the sound didn't point to the behavior any longer then the program wouldn't work as expected. You wouldn't behave as expected when hearing that sound. This also shows that some sound can point to some behavior. Behaviors aren't words, but can be pointed to with words.

I asked you what if you used some word and I didn't respond as you predicted? Does that mean you used a word or not?
— Harry Hindu

What else would I have used? — Isaac

Hand gestures? Facial expressions? Are hand gestures and facial expressions words?

No. I'd probably just say it again, but louder. — Isaac

Are you sure that the only possible problem here is that I didn't hear you? How do you know the problem wasn't misunderstanding?

You and Banno are avoiding answering the necessary questions.
— Harry Hindu

Right ho then. You tell me where to look and I'll do the legwork. where do I need to look to find out what sounds constitute a 'word' is? — Isaac

Wow. It appears that you actually DO understand, as you are now asking where to look to find out what makes some sound a word, as you are asking me to point you in the right direction.

:roll: What are you saying - that any sound that you point to with scribbles is a word?

And yet you insist on our providing a definition. One might be tempted to conclude that you have not followed what is going on here, Harry. — Banno

And (I believe) it was my first reply to this thread that words aren't defined by other words, as they can be defined by pictures. I also asked if we were telepathic, would we use words.

So I asked you more than just that. You obviously aren't interested in being intellectually honest here. Maybe if we take baby steps, Banno.

If someone makes a fart noise with their mouth, does that qualify as a word being used? — Harry Hindu

"Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony. — Banno

Then words communicate. What do they communicate, Banno? I would agree that they don't communicate more words. They communicate ideas, which are made up of images, sounds, feelings, etc.

Is making a fart noise communicating? If so does that mean that a word was used. Does that mean that every sensory impression is a word? Is the smell and taste of an apple a word? Does the smell and taste not communicate to me that the apple is ripe vs rotten?

When using language, can I not glean more from your language use than just your use of words? Don't you also communicate to me what your native language is and how well your grasp of it is?

...how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?
— Harry Hindu

At the quantum level? — Dan Cage

Is the quantum level physical, non-physical, or something else?

Experiments have been done to test apes for a capacity to learn simple logic rules. The evidence is they struggle to master more than a step or two of reasoning depth even with training.

This is what we would expect if logic basically piggy backs on the human capacity for language. We have the neurology for syntactic structure - the recursive grammar trick. We can stack up the if/then steps in our working memories. — apokrisis

The limitations of these apes seems to be related more with memory capacity and attention span, not necessarily logic. If an ape were to read a long sentence, would it still remember the beginning of the sentence when it reaches the end of it?

It seems to me that it is the opposite - that language piggy backs on the capacity for logic. The law of identity, excluded middle and non-contradictions are the most fundamental rules of logic and language simply couldn't be conceived of prior to these rules being inherent within the mind - like that some identifying mark identifies something else. Establishing correlations and relationships has to be an inherent mental skill if you are to correlate some sound or marking with something else.

It is a mistake to regard government as something external, as so many like to do. A government is shaped more by its people than vice versa, even though some governments in the past have tried. We see imperfect, authoritarian government, because it is governing imperfect people who require authority to be kept functioning.

Society needs authorities to be kept from devolving into chaos. People need, and in many cases desire (even if they would deny this, it follows from their actions), to be ruled. Therefore, a discussion about anti-authoritarianism cannot be held without regard for what it would require from the people to live as such. A society without laws would rely on people's personal integrity to behave in a cooperative fashion.

In short, the need for authority is a result of mankind's imperfect nature, and living in a society without authority would require mankind as a whole to make significant steps forward in terms of its intellectual development. — Tzeentch

Most governments in history have not been shaped by its people, rather shaped by a select few, or just one person.

Its comes down to how much power should one person, or a group of people, wield over the rest of us when the people wielding the power are just as imperfect as those needing to be ruled.

Once their accumulated power shields them from losing that power after mismanaging that power, then that is when those needing to be ruled should be worried. Life-long politicians like Joe Biden are a great example of this.

Is our voting power an illusion? Is our ability to vote people out of office that are mismanaging their power real and effective in today's political climate? The lack of choices, misinformation in the media, and the ability to buy your way to the top are definite obstacles to the people having real voting power. The divide between the people and those that govern us is becoming wider and wider. In the beginning, the U.S. might have been a government established by the people, but there has been a chasm forming between them for a while now.

"Oi" isn't in the Shorter OED; I'd bet on it being in the full version. The other words here are.. "shhh" is spelled "sh".

Claiming they are not words, for the convenience of a definition of "word", is special pleading. — Banno

And claiming that they are is begging the question, so why don't you and Issac brainstorm and come up with a definition of "word". What makes a particular sound coming from someone a word? Does the sound have to come from their mouth? What about the sound of them sneezing or coughing, or vomiting. What about sound effects? If someone makes a fart noise with their mouth, does that qualify as a word being used? What if people react in some way to those sounds? Does that mean that those sounds were used and therefore that is what qualifies the sound to be a word? But then humans react to all sorts of things that aren't just sounds and scribbles, so what makes some sensory stimuli a word and another not?

Isn't a word both a sound and scribble? Does the sound point to the scribble or vice versa? How did we learn that some sound is the same as some scribble, and that scribbles can be used the same way as some sound?

I didn't say that such responses were.learnt without recourse to mental imagery (that would be a different argument). I only claimed that they are used without such recourse. My use of the word "duck" to someone which has learnt the appropriate response, dies not (in that use) involve any mental imagery or conceptualising in either the speaker of the responder, as such it is false to say that words always point to things. Sometimes they don't.

I should re-iterate, I think, that this aspect of words triggering a Pavlovian response is only one small part of the argument against ostention in general. As StreetlightX has already said, you really ought to read Philosophical Investigations for a broader picture. I'm focussing on something very specific here. — Isaac

Right, and what you learned is what the sound/scribble points to - a behavior. Just as we learn to ride a bike or drive a car, it takes focus to learn something new. Once you learn it and become an expert at its use (which takes time and using it more than once, so using them takes practice and while you are practicing you haven't yet rerouted the information from consciousness through your subconscious yet), then you don't need to focus on it any longer. It is no longer necessary to route the information through consciousness, as consciousness is used for learning, it is the center of attention. Just because you no longer route the information through consciousness doesn't mean that what you learned is no longer the case. It has to still be the case for you to be able to not focus significant mental energy on the process. It can be handed off to the automated sub-conscious.

I asked you what if you used some word and I didn't respond as you predicted? Does that mean you used a word or not? When that happens wouldn't you mentally revisit what you learned and consciously try to re-learn it's use, just as when something new happens when riding your bike or driving your car, you have to refocus your attention on what it is that you are doing and using?

So when are you going to explain what makes some sound or scribble a word? When are you and Banno going to explain what you mean by "use" when using a word if you can use a word in such a way that doesn't include some kind of correlation between the word and some idea or behavior (what it points to, refers to, correlates with or symbolizes)? You and Banno are avoiding answering the necessary questions.

My Mind is not physical. — TheMadFool

What if the mind is the brain, or vice versa? In this sense the mind weighs as much as the brain. By measuring the weight of your brain and nervous system, you are measuring the weight of your mind.

When I look at you I don't see a mind. I see a body with a brain. Does this mean that other minds don't exist?

Mind has a causal effect on the body, therefore the mind is physical. If not then how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?

There's a simple distinction between science and religion. Religion is where you believe stuff without evidence

No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition. — Xtrix

Then apes do science. What's so absurd about that? Humans are apes. :nerd: Integrating observation and logic is what science is. Asserting something beyond what observation shows is religion. Hypothesizing and theorizing something beyond what observation shows is only the first step in science. You have to then perform experiments and have others perform the same experiments and get the same results. This is how apes gradually learned how to put sticks in termite holes to procure lunch.

No, this is completely wrong.

Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.

To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion. — Xtrix

The art depicted humans and their relationship with the world and that is the essence of philosophy.

Harry, that not all of language is pointing does not imply that none of language is pointing. — Banno

So the corollary is that every thing we do is largely pointing? Harry is thus largely correct? — apokrisis

So you're falling back on your prior comments and now disagreeing with Streetlight? Can you please be consistent because if you're not, you're not using words at all, you're just making scribbles on the screen.

No. There's far more going on in Isaac's posts than just pointing. — Banno

Yet you can't say what that is that is going on in Issac's post that is more than pointing and Issac can't answer a simple question about what makes some scribble or sound a word.

But haven't I just given an example where this is not the case. If I yell "duck!" I'm not expecting that you sync my image of you ducking with your image of you ducking. I'm just expecting you to get your head down. — Isaac

Sounds like we're saying the same thing. Strange, that you can say the same thing using different words? Doesn't that mean that the words point to the same thing, just like different scribbles from different languages can point to the same thing and what they point to is what is translated between the different scribbles? What is it that you are translating between languages if not what the scribbles point to?

How am I suppose to know that "duck" means get my head down if I don't already have that notion in my head? What if I didn't duck, and made a quacking sound instead? Did you "use" words if I didn't do what you imagined me doing? Or is it that you used words, and that I just didn't get the gist of what you were pointing at?

he reason I mentioned "Na" was that it is from a class of words which I don't see as ever having indexical meaning - "Shhh", "Oi", "Hey", "Ah"... They're word's which just 'do something' on a very primitive level. — Isaac

And how exactly are we suppose to know what to do when hearing these sounds if not having a mental image of the behavior prior to hearing it? Watching someone else respond to those words is how we learn what those words point to - a behavior.

In fact, I could prove to you with fMRI, that Pavlovian response triggers, even if they're words, pass neither through the ventral pathway of object recognition, nor through the areas of the cerebral cortex where we might expect with some concept recognition, but rather straight to the sensorimotor systems to get you to duck. — Isaac

Ok, but this doesn't happen instantly. I have to learn what the word means, which means that I have to see others react to a sound in such a way consistently, meaning more than once, to know what is expected of me when hearing that sound. And for you to know how to use that word, you had to have a visual and auditory experience at some point in your past of seeing someone put their head down when you heard that word spoken. You had to be able to predict what would happen if you say that word, and predicting involves imagining.

Then you don't actually think, even though you're saying it, that I'm wrong and you're right. Is the state of affairs of you being right and me being wrong just another arrangement of scribbles on the screen or sounds being heard, or is it something else?

is not Issac pointing to some state of affairs like everything falling into a parentheses list, and by doing so isn't he pointing to some relationship between scribbles? Words are just scribbles with an agreed upon referent so that we end up syncing the images in our minds - what images in the mind another image (scribble) refers to.

Would words be useful if we were all telepathic? Why or why not?

The meaning of a word consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between the word(language use) and other things. Hence, the different meanings/accepted uses of the same word arise from the differences between the part(s) of that correlational content that is not the word(language use) itself. — creativesoul

Correlation, pointing - what's the difference? And the fact that what one word correlates with/points to doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone doesn't mean that words don't refer to other things that aren't words. It depends upon the experiences we've had with hearing/seeing the word used, and by "used" I mean used to refer to things that are not other words.

I mean look at your's and Banno's posts. Are they not scribbles attempting to point to my mental state of misunderstanding what the meaning of words are? If not, then what are you actually saying? If I'm not wrong in my understanding, then what are you actually using those scribbles in your post to accomplish? What is your goal in mind when using some word?

Because that's what's often said in situations of parting ways, not the beginning of conversations. "Hello" is a greeting, and it is not always an appropriate/accepted method/means to begin a conversation. Rather, it is often just a pleasantry; just a nice polite way to acknowledge another's presence. — creativesoul

Then "Hello" isn't a word, but a sound we make when greeting someone. Issac just wants to avoid the question, but I'll ask you - what makes some scribble or sound a word other than just some scribble or sound? Do dogs use their bark? Is their bark a word, or just a sound?

I didn't say that. I asked you what arbiter of a word's correct use you'd prefer if not mutual understanding? — Isaac

I wasn't asking about correct usage. I was asking about what makes a word a word? You seemed to think that I understood what "Na" means. I don't, so then you didn't use the scribble, "Na", because there isn't a mutual understanding of the scribble? I do understand the scribble, "word" and that "Na" isn't one.

I didn't expect you to. Your response is what is expected, as that is always how you respond to my pointed questions. You're too predictable.

Hello" is used at the beginning, farewell at the end.; and nothing in that points to pointing. — Banno

If "used" doesn't mean "pointing" then what do you mean by use? If meaning is use and I use words to point, then what's the problem? You seem to think words can only be used how you use them, Emperor Banno.

Probs worth setting out why 'pointing' is so monumentally stupid to anyone who as yet doesn't get it: pointing is woefully inadequate insofar as ostention is radically indeterminate: if one points at a picture of a flower, one could be pointing at it's shape, a certain contour, a certain color, the fact of it's being a picture, a certain arrangement of shapes, the flower qua example of something else, the flower being the first in a series, literally anything. Pointing is utterly incapable of individuating anything on it's own, and doesn't so much explain anything whatsoever other than to demand further explanation. Pointing is the theology of meaning, a shitty stop-gap like saying 'God' and expecting that to satisfy anyone with even half a brain. — StreetlightX

Strange that this wall of scribbles seems to be trying to point to all sorts of stuff that isn't other scribbles, like mental states, pointing at pictures, and the actual, objective relationship between words and what they mean, regardless of what us "stupid" people think.

"Hello" doesn't point to the beginning of a conversation; it doesn't point to anything. It is an act done in speaking. Like "Get fucked!"; but not like "Ouch!". — Banno

Ok, then why don't we say "good-bye" when starting a conversation? Why should it matter whether or not we make the sound, "hello" or "good-bye" when starting a conversation?

You appeared to understand what I meant when I referred to it as a word. Is there some other arbiter of correct language use you have in mind? — Isaac

Then all it takes for a scribble or sound to be a word is for someone to assert it is a word? If that's the case, then "Zeritiustk 1( 4%as buttto----assa1+=++2?1 (tus) s)) a1" is a sentence.

That wasn't the argument you made, that's a blatant ad hoc modification. You said: — MadWorld1

Then you misinterpreted my first statement. It was my assertion all along that humans are not special or different from other species in having unique behaviors that define them as a species. All species possess certain unique characteristics that make the a separate species. If other animals have unique behaviors, and they are products of their physiology and labeled "natural", then why do humans deserve a different term to for their unique behaviors that are the result of their physiology?

This is where you've misunderstood me. I would think that they're unnatural as well, similar to how I would feel about aliens. For example: if humanity went extinct and some population of chimpanzees evolved to be similarly intelligent to us now in, say 20 million years, and they started doing what were doing - mass destroying forest, forcing themselves to be sedentary even though they feel bad from it etc. - i'd be there calling them unnatural. I've been consistent on this. I've been consistent on my subjective understanding of naturalness lol — MadWorld1

You're equating human activity to a natural disaster. Think about the environmental consequences of an asteroid impact, yet it is understood to be a natural disaster. Other species modify their environments, just not on the scale that humans, but this is because of the physiological differences between humans and other animals (large brains and opposable thumbs).

I agree with you that words need (or at least ought) to be used consistently and in an non-contradictory fashion, and I'm not saying that your analytical statement is an invalid one. It's valid just as the statement "all parents have children" is, but it still doesn't say anything descriptive about the world - the validity of the statement stems from the definitions entailing each other. It's really somewhat of a tautology. Your issue is that your statement doesn't refer to things other than what defines the words and their relationship. That's what makes your statement analytical. — MadWorld1

Then you need to come up with a consistent use for "unnnatural". I told you that we could use any term that you want, so I'm not saying anything that is unfalsifiable. What I am trying to get you to refer to is the relationship between humans and the world. What term would you use to describe that relationship, and is it the same type of relationship that every other species has with the world?

This sounds like a fun game. We say a word and Harry tells us what it's pointing to. Can I try one...

The "Na" in...

" Na na na na na na na na na na na na na " - My Chemical Romance. — Isaac

What makes some scribble or sound a word, and not just a scribble or sound?

Hello.

This is a scribble or sound used to point to the start of communication, similar to how computers establish "handshakes" with each other across a network before they actually begin the transfer of data over the network. When the computers are finished with transferring data, they close the connection in a way that is similar to saying "goodbye". These sounds/scribbles that we make are pointing to the opening and closing of an exchange of information.

What other uses does a word have? — Harry Hindu

So questioning whether freedom is a curse or not qualifies as trolling? I find that most "philosophers" can't seem to be consistent from one branch of philosophy to the next. Their ethics/politics often contradicts their metaphysics or vice versa.

For unicorns we can at least point at childrens books and cartoons, which give us uses of the word "unicorn".
Is something like this always the case, though? — jorndoe

Like I was asking Banno, when thinking about unicorns, what are you thinking about- an image of scribbles "unicorn" or the image of a horse with a horn? If its the latter, then the scribble points to the idea of a unicorn which is a mental image of a horse with a horn.

Sure, I've never claimed to objectively know what's natural - quite on the contrary. I thought that was you're position? — MadWorld1

If you actually think you're saying something objective about the real world, then give me a hypothetical, an actual change in the world whereas you're sentence would be falsified without redefining your terms. — MadWorld1

"Natural" and "unnatural" are just words, but words need to refer to consistent and non-contradictory things and relationships for them to mean anything or to be useful. We could use any terms that you like, as long as the terms are applied consistently. That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. What is the relationship between humans and the world - natural or unnatural?

I don't know, and I never said that. I'm saying that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. You seemed to be doubting that. In my view the behaviors listed are natural in a way that sharply contrasts to, say, using a rocket to go to space. If chimpanzees started doing that I would feel the same way. — MadWorld1

No. That was my argument - that humans have unique behaviors, but then I also showed that other animals do to, and that was a link that I tried to show in that humans really aren't different than other animals in that each species has unique behaviors that define it as a species. Chimps building rockets to space would be unnatural in that their biology doesn't allow for those types of behaviors. So "unnatural" would actually mean "impossible" or "imaginary".

No, seriously, you're not saying anything about the world. You said exactly that "Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes.". Go through it step by step; you've defined humans as natural outcomes of natural processes, and then stated that very relationship. — MadWorld1

So saying that humans and other animals possess unique behaviors that define them as a species isn't saying anything about the world? If the processes that created humans and all other animals is natural, and the things that animals do is natural, and humans are animals, then what use is the word, "unnatural"?

If we discovered aliens that also have large brains and opposable thumbs and they also had instances of mass-suicide and practiced philosophy, would you then agree that those things are natural - as in natural behaviors given our biology?

Lemmings have been known to jump off cliffs to their deaths in mass migration. Is a mass-suicide not similar in that the people are trying to mass-migrate to the after-life, but are ignorant of the fact that their destination is real and safe?

Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work. They are carrying bricks in an open field. As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field, they proceed to transport them to the opposite end. This continues without stop and every day of every year they are busy doing the same thing. One day one of the morons stops long enough to ask himself what he is doing. He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks. And from that point on, he is not quite as content with his occupation as he had been before. I AM THE MORON WHO WONDERS WHY HE IS CARRYING THE BRICKS.
From satisfied swine to 'sad Socrates' at the speed of one stray, recurring, thought ... cursed (fuck'd)! — 180 Proof

Strange. I would have thought carrying the bricks would be the curse and finally questioning why you're doing it would be breaking free of that curse. Learning that you have options is the essence of freedom. It seems that you're saying freedom is a curse, not philosophy.

Just replace "moving bricks" with "picking cotton" and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.

Let me clarify: I'm saying that, in my view, what's natural can't be anything and everything humanity do. — MadWorld1

Then what is natural cant be anything and everything any other animal does.

I'm singling out humans because I am human. But yes, I definitely believe - I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt using science and normal categorization - that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. One example would be that we're the only animal doing philosophy on the internet. — MadWorld1

What scientific theory states that philosophy and mass-suicide are unnatural?

Other animals don't have unique behaviors that define them as a species? Are all of these behaviors unnatural?
https://www.science101.com/bizarre-animal-behaviors-prove-nature-metal/

This is my worry with your statement that modern society is natural: it seems non-falsifiable. You're not actually describing the world, you're simply describing relationships between words. You're making, using Kantian terminology, an analytical statement. I'm trying to describe the world. — MadWorld1

How is the statement that modern civilization is unnatural falsifiable? It seems to me that we are simply categorizing the world. It's just that your categorization isn't consistent because it is subjective, and it is subjective because you think humans are special because you're human.

Is mass-suicide by gassing natural? It could be that we are talking about different things and merely using the same word. — MadWorld1

True. We could be talking about different things. You seem to be implying that mass-suicide by gassing is unnatural, as if because humans do something that other animals don't do that makes it unnatural.

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.

Our complex and diverse behaviors are a product of our evolutionary past and natural selection. Opposable thumbs and large brains had an exponential effect on the number of possible behavioral strategies that opened up to homo sapiens, and each culture and religion is it's own example of one type of strategy.

Who says modern civilization is unnatural? Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes. You are doing what you were naturally designed to do.

The idea that what humans do is unnatural stems from the antiquated notion that humans are special, or separate from nature.

SO why not drop pointing and go straight to use. — Banno

Pointing is a use. What other uses does a word have? Does a word ( a sound/scribble) point to its definition (more scribbles and sounds)? If so, then why can't a scribble or sound point to a smell, taste or feeling?

When thinking about democracy what are you thinking about - more scribbles or sounds in your head?

What makes the sound of the word "democracy" usable in the same way a scribble,"democracy" is used? If scribbles and sounds can point to each other, then why can't scribbles and feelings or sounds and smells?

He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state." — Edmund

What does it mean for a quantum state to be both on and off as opposed to saying it is neither on or off? On and off could just be different views/measurements of this state. On and off could be the property of consciousness in how it perceives/views this state, not necessarily a property of the quantum state when not observed.

Stuart Hameroff holds that the brain is a type of quantum computer, therefore his theory contradicts Penrose's theory that consciousness isn't a type of computation (measurement).

Assuming that the identity/essence of something is defined by its purpose: — Unlimiter

It seems to me that two things can have the same purpose yet still be different, so purpose doesn't define some thing's identity. Does defining your purpose define all that it means to be you? What is your purpose?