Because that's how philosophy is done.

You aren't necessarily stating that your premise is 'true', what you are doing is proposing a "What if?" scenario.

In other words, you begin with a premise (assume that it's true) and see where it leads. That's how you make progress.

Often times scienctists and philosophers will begin with premises that clearly aren't true, and they end up with extreme paradoxes or contraditions. Then they have learned something.

Failing is a very good thing to do. This is how we learn.

Premises aren't meant to necessarily be 'true' with respect to anything other than the proposed logic that follows. If it works out and gives predictions that work well, then all is good. If it ends up in a total mess nothing was lost. We simply discard that premise and move on.

Newton started out with the premise that space and time were absolutes and look how well he did.

Einstein started out with the premise that the speed of light is constant for all obsversers regardless of their motion. And look how well he did.

Max Planck started out with the premise that energy must be quantized and look at the monster he created!

None of these people knew if their premises were true or not when they first started out. Newton's premises turned out to be wrong for observers moving relative to each other at speeds near that of light, or for strong gravitational fields. Fortunately for him, those considerations weren't important for the problems he was considering.

Newton also postulated that light is made up of particles. Later it was discovered that light has to be waves. Later still it was discovered that light has to be BOTH particles and waves simultaneously!

And we still can't even begin to phathom how it accomplishes this feat.

Almost every major discovery has been made by starting with an assumed postulate. This is how it's done.

In fact, in logic and mathematics this is a very useful means for proofs by contradiction. Start with a premise that you believe to be false, and you can often prove that it leads to a contradiction thus proving that it must be false. Although in the case of light this didn't seem to work very well because whether we begin by postulating that it's a wave or a particle we end up with a contradiction in both cases. So it must be something totally different, but no one has yet been able to comprehend what that "something different" might be.

But this is how all major work is accomplished. You set out some premises and see where they lead. When you propose a premise you don't claim that it's an absolute truth. You simply propose it as a "What if" scenario and see how far it gets.

Almost all postulates and premises are unproven guesses.

All of the axioms of mathematics are unproven. We just accept them and move on. All of mathematics rests upon unproven axioms.

We have to start somewhere.

Thought is an expression of INNER FLOW, and thus the currents of thought meld and integrate into bigger and more profound amalgamations, and then..........................you summarize it into spoken or written forms, so you can share it without confusing the person recieving the thoughts.
Paolo Freire thought the flow of ideas, thought, life is like the currents of the atmosphere, the oceans and we are just here to observe and partake of this thing called life.
The loudest and most profound voice is actually perfomed with silent actions.

Thanks for the lesson...

I was just thinking about this topic this morning.

This is basically my line of thinking,... and I'm only offering this in an attempt to share where I'm coming from.

When you ask, "Is thought unspoken language?", I automatically think in terms of accept this as a premise and where does it lead? Also, does it make intuitive sense to me? Typically when a person proposes a premise it's based on some idea, hunch, or intuitive feeling. So my first reaction in most cases is to consider premise like HungryBear suggests, "How does it feel in my inner flow?" I just let it rush over me like a wave and see if there are any ripples caused by rocks on the shore of my ocean of imagination.

Well, as soon as I did this I instantly saw the rock of pure awareness protruding from the beach of the ocean of my mind. It didn't appear to be compatible with the wave of this premise. Thus I ask, "Are we speaking about analytical thought here, or all possible thought? This would include pure awareness, in my way of thinking."

Thus my question was not so much a challenge to the premise but rather a question of what the restrictions are.

Consider comparing this with Einstein's ponderings on Relativity. His initial premise was that the speed of light must be constant for all observers independent of their motion. However, this was extremely complex! So complex in fact, that he immediately recognized that he would need to place restrictions on the conditions where his premise should apply.

Thus he came up with Special Relativity by simply accepting that he would only consider linear motion and not consider accelerated motion. He could see immediately that accelerated motion was going to produce extreme problems. This didn't mean that his initial premise should be abandoned. It simply meant that he might be working with a limited case.

However, within this limited case he was able to come up with an entire workable theory that revealed very strange things about time. This was his Special Theory of Relativity. He, then went on to take over a decade to finally workout all the details of the more complex situation of accelerated or non-linear motion. That become his far more complete General Theory of Relativity.

So this was what I was attempting to do here. I was merely attempting to simplify the situation. From my point of view the premise that thought is language looks quite promising in terms of analytical thought, in fact, like Massagetrade had suggested it almost appears to be a tautology in that case.

However, in the case of pure awareness I see major difficulties in keeping this premise alive. That doesn't mean that it can't be true. As in Einstein's General Relativity perhaps there are ways of dealing with this more "all-encompassing" case. However, it would probably be best to whittle it down to the more restricted case of analytical thought only, and see where that leads first. Then, as progress is made, perhaps new insights can be discovered for the more general cases.

It doesn't need to be an "all-or-nothing" proposition.

In fact, what I was truly attempting to raise were the following questions:

1. Does pure awareness qualify as thought, and how does consciousness fit into this picture as well?

This could potentially be an argument of semantics, but even so, these concepts need to be addressed and sorted out. If there are differences between them they need to be made clear. This was what I was attempting to do when I asked if we were speaking of analytical thought only, (i.e. not consciousness or pure awareness in general).

2. If we allow the restricted case of just speaking of analytical thought, then what is the significance of the premise that analytical thought is unspoken language? Again, this almost appears to be a tautology in this case.

Perhaps more important questions at this point would be to ask:

Does language give rise to analytical thought? Or does analytical thought give rise to language? Or are they in fact one in the same thing as the premise seems to imply.

If they are one in the same thing, then what are the implications of this? What is the relevancy to this? What is the epiphany? What insights can be gained by establishing this idea as a premise?

In the case of Einstein's Special Relativity his insight and epiphany of stating his premise that the speed of light must be the same for all observers lead to the fact that time must dilate. That was obviously a truly profound insight.

But what are we gaining by suggesting that analytical thought is unspoken language?

Are we suggesting that language came first? Is that the epiphany? And have we even shown this to be the case?

Well, if we accept that language is nothing more than organized information (if that's our abstract starting definition of language), then perhaps we can suggest that language certainly did exist prior to human brains. We can do this because by this very loose definition of language then surely DNA would qualify as an entire encyclopedia on how to construct a human brain. Again, we're almost lead to a tautology here, based on this very abstract definition of language as nothing more than information.

So in this sense, and by this definition of language, it's clear that language came before analytical thought, as least in terms of thought that is processed via a physical brain. However, if we are asserting an equivalence between language and analytical thought, then we have the added epiphany that analytical thought must have existed prior to the evolution of human brains. In other words, DNA itself would have required analytical thought (or language) to evolve as well.

We've now come to the ancient chicken and the egg question. Which came first, language, or analytical thought? Or, if we are reducing these things to the most abstract concept of mere information perhaps they are one in the same thing, by this definition?

In the meantime, we've got pure awareness lurking in the background. It requires neither language nor analytical thought, IMHO. It just is what it is; Pure Awareness. The real question then becomes; "What is it that is aware? Is a brain aware? Is DNA aware? Is a universe that can manipulate processes of evolution via its own laws of physics aware?"

I hope you see that my concerns here are very genuine. I was in no way attempting to just denounce your premise off cuff, or question the equivalence of thought and language, but rather I was attempting to get at the nuances of precisely what conclusions we might be able to make here.

I would be very interested in hearing your conclusions on the relevancy of the potential equivalence of language and thought. What epiphanies or insights does this lead to for you? Where are you going with this?

If we allow that thought is unspoken language, where does that lead? Why do you feel that this is an important observation or conjecture? Surely you must have some profound conclusions that you feel this insight leads to. Otherwise, why even suggest it in the first place?

I would be interested in hearing why you feel that this is an important insight in the first place. What conclusions do you draw from this proposed equivalency?

James,

A bridge of mutual undestanding is much closer regarding this thread. I am short on time, but that response is well respected from this point of view. This conversation has once again become more fruitful - in terms of gaining a shared understanding.

Don't need to thank me or anything. I told you the ants and bee trick will work

Human understanding, knowledge, belief, language, and thought are all necessarily incomplete. While I know that my hand is my hand, I know that in the sense that that is what it is called. I know that beyond a doubt. However, the thing that the terms 'my hand' describe is not equal to the terms 'my hand', it is merely represented by those. It is that which we have come to know as being a 'hand'. It is whatever it is, and the terms 'my hand' are only a representational understanding which reminds my own mind of what it is thinking about, just like every other subject of thought, all of which are represented in some way in the minds eye.

Can thought exist without an accessible memory? I do not believe that it can, at least not at this moment in time. If that is true, then we have whittled out awareness, because awareness can and does exist without an accessible memory.

I'm in total 100% agreement with what you've just said here. However, I hold that this is indeed the restriction that I am referring to as analytical thought.

Analytical thought requires memory because analytical thought only exists within the realm of comparisons and comparisons aren't truly even possible until things have been categorized, and the very act of categorizing things requires memory.

This was the whole point of my interjections here. From a philosophical point of view though in general as an abstract term is often equated to awareness.

I keep trying to bring this to fuition by the famous words of Descartes.

"I think, therefore I am".

Does that really make any sense if it is written out as,...

"I remember forms and analyize them for comparison, therefore I am"

Personaly that makes no sense to me.

However to day, "I am aware, therefore I am" does make sense to me.

Therefore I conclude that what Descartes actually meant by the word "think" was really to imply that he is "aware".

I believe that he was using the word "think" in a deeply philosopical sense here, and not meant to be limited to merely analtyical thinking.

This is my whole point.

It seems to me that you are indeed restricting thought to mean only analytical thinking.

That was all I wanted to ask in the first place. Why didn't you just say yes?

The key here is the term "accessible memory."

All memory is accessible, it is just not accessible by everyone or perhaps it is not consciously accessible. It would not be memory if it was not accessible by something.

You could be accessing a memory and not be aware of it.

(If a rock could not unconsciously access its memory, it would cease to be a rock.)

Matter itself is stored memory, seemingly unaccessible. But vibration and frequency can access all that is within matter, therefore it is possible to access the information and memory stored in matter, just not by us mere humans at this state of awareness.

On the Importance and Function of Memory

I must confess that you do bring up good concepts though.

I was thinking about the importance of memory with respect to being 'aware' as well as the role of memory with respect to analytical thought.

There is no need for memory to be aware in the present moment. In fact, the whole idea of "enlightenment", especially as taught in the Eastern Mystic sense of the Tao or Zen, is all about being in the 'now'.

Surely there would be no need for memory to simply perceive that present moment. I think that ignoring preconceive notions is a large part of what that is all about. Memory is nothing more than preconceived notions. Memory allows for analytical thought by allowing us to compare something we experience right now with things we have experienced at some previous time.

In fact, I was thinking about this all day as I went through the day. At one moment I looked down at the floor in the store and saw a "circular" mark embedded in the flooring. The first thing that came to my mind was the experience of the circular shape, the first thought that came to my mind was, "Hey I instantly associated that circular shape with the word "circle".

Associating the shape with the word "circle" is analytical thought, this is the thing we have much difficulty letting go of. It is not necessary to associate these forms with words or preconceived notions. In fact, the whole idea of Zen is to avoid doing this. We need to learn to just experience things. Without having to label everything or analyze it to death.

In fact, this goes back to the idea of a baby, or very young child that experiencing things for the first time clearly they have not yet acquired the memory of things yet they still perceive them. We can always perceive things for the very first time. So memory is not a requirement for experience, perception, or being aware.

However, if we want to analyze these things and compare them to a 'catalog' of previous experiences, then we must have a memory in order to produce that catalog.

So memory is not important for experience.

Also, on the way home from the story as I was driving along, I was attempting to imagine all the new scenery being fresh and new. Every time I came upon a house I thought, "Ah, there's a house". But if I had no memory the experience of 'house' would be fresh and new every time.

Also, driving the car down the road requires memory. This is something we almost take for granted. Driving a car down an empty country road is a pretty mindless thing to do. Yet at the same time it requires lots of memory of how the car operates, what side of the road I'm supposed to stay on, or even the concept of the road itself. I would have no knowledge of 'crash' or 'speed', or anything like that.

So memory is indeed required for 'knowledge' but 'knowledge' is analytical thought. Knowledge is remembering things that have been labeled and categorized. Yet, the point that I'm trying to get at is that for pure awareness non of that is required. A baby may not be able to drive a car, or recognize what a house is, or even realize that if it jumps out the window that won't be fun, but the baby can surely ride in the car and experience all of these things even without these preconceived labels.

So the baby is already conscious, even without this kind of thought. Although it surely is beginning to build a memory and catalog of experiences.

However, even animals can remember things. A dog will instantly wag it's tail at people it 'remembers' as being friendly and instantly bark at someone strange.

Typically dogs also seem to have 'intuition' about people in the moment of whether or not they have good or bad intentions. So they aren't working solely from memory, they are working also from instinct.

In fact, humans also work from instinct as well. Again this goes back to the idea of Zen, and the Tao. The idea here being that we have come to put too much reliance in our memory catalogs, and not enough attention to our instantaneous feelings.

This is what Tolle, was talking about when he said, "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking".

Sure, there is value in experience and knowledge. No one will deny that, not even Tolle, I'm sure.

But the point he's trying to make is that thinking is to refer to this analytical catalog, whilst feeling is a reference to the 'now'. Usually if you need to make a quick reaction, feeling is better than thinking.

To feel is to be in the now. To think is to refer to your own analytical catalog which may or may not prove to be relevant for this particular moment. Thus feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are, because you exist right now. If you're making decisions based on past comparisons those comparisons may not be valid for the present moment.

The other thing to realize also, is that every cataloged comparison that you've committed to memory can be changed. And when do you go about changing it, you go about changing it 'now'. But that process right there could not have depended upon memory, because in that process you are actually updating your memory.

On Instantaneous Experience, Imagination, and Creativity

You're greatest asset as a "thinking being" is the very fact that you can generate "brand new" thoughts. Thoughts themselves cannot possibly require memory. If that were true you'd never be able to have a new thought unless you directly experienced it. Yet, we all know that we are all capable of generating brand new thoughts and brand new creations. I write songs all the time that no one has ever heard before. They may never want to hear them again either, but that's beside the point.

The point is that we can generate brand new 'thoughts' and imagine and create brand new ideas and concepts all the time. In this sense, memory cannot possibly be required for the generation of thought in general. Memory is only required for 'analytical thought", (i.e. if you want to make logical comparisons for the purpose of analyzing or building up some kind of train of logic or reasoning).

Memory may be required for "reasoning" since reasoning implies a sense of analytical thinking. But clearly "reasoning" is not required for 'awareness", and awareness is a form of "thought", it's just pure thought in the form of pure experience, or pure imagination, (imagination is surely a "thought").

But imagination cannot possibly require memory because imagination can produce brand new thoughts that have neither been experienced nor imagined previously.

Surely imagination qualifies as thought. But it doesn't need to be analytical thought and it certainly would not require memory to imagine in the now. It doesn't draw from memory at all. Imagination creates spontaneously in the now. No memory or analytical thought required.

James,

I appreciate your time and thought.

Much of that last mresponse I can understand and relate to in some way.



I agree and do not claim otherwise.

I see a couple of things that do not make sense to me, from my perspective... namely what was written towards the end regarding what things are - or are not - necessarily dependent/contingent upon memory.

Although awareness is not dependent upon memory, it is not thought either. If it were, then we would have to conclude that an ant 'thinks'. Ants do not think, but they are aware, therefore, thought and awareness are not one in the same. Awareness is not contingent upon, nor is it a type of thought. It only necessitates being awake and possessing some form of perception. That is what makes something aware.

Conscious thought/representational understanding is contingent upon memory. As is unconscious thought, for it invokes the need for a prior conscious thought which later becomes an unconscious memory. I think that both conscious thought and representational understanding are conjoined twins, born simultaneously.

My first logical objection involves your description of imagination and the subsequent claim that it is free from memory.



I would disagree strongly here James. We all do not know that we are capable of producing something from nothing, which is what must be so in order for your claim to be true.

Imagination requires thought. As a matter of fact, I believe that it is the sum of memory, thought, and volition. Imagination is an emerging property of these things when combined. No thing comes from nothing. That very notion is impossible, and I am sure that you would agree. Imagination comes from something. I have outlined what seems logical in that regard.

I hold that all thought is born from prior knowledge and/or experience, and is dependent upon memory. Humans have no absolutely free thought, it is all but an inference or 'direct' memory from/of prior experience. I would like to change this view, but there has been no reason seen nor read nor heard which effectively dismisses it.

The entire history of human knowledge and tools completely bolster this conclusion.

In order to think of 'A' one must first know of the existence of 'A', or, at the very least, the possibility of the existence
of 'A'.



I believe that I have given enough of an outline above which warrants the belief that this statement is inadequate in the sense that is does not consider enough of the facets required to substantiate this conclusion. There are not enough grounds here for this conclusion to be made.


Regarding changing one's beliefs, you wrote...



Again, I strongly disagree with what these words mean to me. In order to change a prior belief one must also necessarily change what they deem as true in their own memory 'bank', which invokes that dependency, once again, upon memory. It is not as simple as changing it 'now'. That process depends upon many other things to pre-exist before it is even possible, let alone probable. That would make another excellent topic!

This is ridiculous Michael. Especially considering that I clearly asked if you were placing this restriction on what you meant by thought

All you had to do was say yes.

You are clearing demanding that only analytical thought counts as thought.

That's purely your own semantic choice. And that's fine. I won't argue with how you wish to define the words you use. But the least you could have done is acknowledge that this is what you're doing when I specially ask.

I asked about 10 pages ago if you were restricting the word thought to only refer to analytical thought.

All you had to do is say yes.

I was already in agreement with you at that point with that restriction in place.

I agree that analytical thought is basically equivalent to language (especially giving grace to your loose definition of language which I have accepted).

Now it appears that you are just attempting to argue that all thought is analytical thought.

But that's just an argument of semantics. That's ridiculous. All you had to do was conceded that you wanted to make that restriction when I asked.

I use the word 'thought' to mean any awareness that I might perceive, especially if it's imagined.

I also vehemently disagree with the following:



Please note what you have written here. "As a matter of fact, I believe,...".

Fine. So that's your belief. It's not mine. I most certainly do believe that we create brand new and unique thoughts that have never existed before. Where do you think new ideas come from?

You say:



So what are you saying here? That everything that everyone has ever created, designed, painted, or wrote had already existed previously?

No, I'm sorry but I do not agree with this. Especially in terms of human creativity. The alternative would be to believe that no one could ever create anything new. Or to put that another way; everything that anyone ever creates must have necessarily existed previously.

Nope, I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense to me.

Moreover, where does this notion even come from. You say that this would be impossible?

Impossible with reference to what?

The mere fact that the universe exists at all is proof positive that something can come into being from nothing. Unless you want to get religious and claim that it all came from some eternal God who knows everything in advance and that God always existed. But why does that make anymore sense? Based on your same idea that no thing can come from nothing then God must have always had all possible thoughts. Otherwise where would they have come from?

Why does the idea that everything preexisted somehow make it ok? How does that make any sense?

That's just as impossible as anything else as far as I can tell.

Neither scenario is logical in our human way of thinking. Both of these scenarios are equally impossible.

The universe as far as we can tell, is indeed illogical, paradoxical, and impossible. Yet here we are.

Why would you claim that no thing can come from nothing? Especially in the realm of thoughts?

Thoughts have no material existence. It wouldn't be a violation of any laws of physics for arbitrary thoughts to pop into existence.

In fact, according to the lectures of this course I just listened to, no one has ever been able to place any physicality to a thought. Based on the laws of physics you can think about anything you so desire and you couldn't violate a law of physics if you tried.

As far as the "physical laws" of the universe are concerned thoughts don't even exist. They are totally immeasurable in any "physical" sense. We can measure brain waves, but brainwaves aren't thoughts, if anything they are the wake of the ocean where thoughts are making waves.

No, I see absolutely no problem with generating completely new and unique thoughts out of nowhere.

That's not any more impossible than the idea that every thought had to have already preexisted.

Wouldn't that be really weird? And where did all those preexisting thoughts come from then?

Why would that make any sense?

You need to take a break from philosophy for a while. Go out and just be have a drink or three.

James,

You are drawing conclusions that do not follow my words.

There is no original thought because everything we have ever done as humans has been but one of two things. A direct copy from nature, or an inference from previous knowledge which was a direct copy from nature.

Our ability to logically process and infer from that which we observe/know.

What have we ever created from nothing?

Nothing does not exist.

Everything created is created from something. If your requirement for "creating" is that it must come from "nothing" then you are placing an impossible condition upon the creation of anything.

Because nothing does not exist, and never has.

Thoughts are THINGS.
Consciousness is SOMETHING.

But I'm quite sure that will go right over you head.

James,

I still am unsure of what constitutes thought in your view. Awareness is not, as has been shown to be the case. This 'enlightenment' of which you so often speak seems to be but a mere facet of knowledge - by your own use of the term in this thread.

What exactly is ridicuous here? I am at a significant loss to comprehend your meaning or what substantiates warrant for this beief/claim.

I agree that if the responses that you have given necessarily follow from what I write, then it would be absurd. However, your extrapolations have been mis-extrapolations, and clearly do not follow from my claims. An accidental strawman, but a strawman none-the-less. Directly quoting and growing the conversation in a logical manner would benefit this discussion, if only to eliminate the irrelevent and immaterial.

I would rather not believe any of this **** to be honest with you, but I have yet to see a coherent and meaningful refutation of it...

Uh....


Buh....


Buh....





JB,

You should really read and comprehend what the f*ck is being 'talked' about before you attempt to add to it...

I know what is being talked about because you have talked about this same dull concept about how creation has to be from "nothing" many times. (to qualify as creation)

And kindly keep your rude insults to a minimum if you don't comprehend what I am saying.

James wrote...



This seems to be at the root of what is perturbing your understanding of my claims, as it has been mentioned repeatedly. Please know that I have not ignored it, in fact, I have asked you exactly what you meant by it... without an answer.

I can think of thought that is not analytical which does not cause any problems with my claim, so I am at a loss to know why you insist that my claims demand something that is simply not so.

Jb...

Read before you post. It is clear that you did not, because if you had, you would have not written that. Go back and read the content of this page...

Would you?

Quit wasting my time with your emotionally unconscious overloads that are a direct result from a few different things. The first being the fact that you cannot stand that I pick your words apart exposing ignorance to the bone; the second being that you do not like me anyway; and the third being that you cannot stand the fact that you cannot 'win' this battle of wits that you, yourself, openly started with me when you joined this site.

It is all a game... remember?

Isn't there a cockroach in a corner somewhere to talk to?