A fine example to use here...



Massage wrote...



I asked this...



The 'gamey' response...



The comment itself is grounded in belief... yours! 'It does appear...' is the same as 'I believe it does appear...'

Given this, it could only appear that way to you IF you think I overestimate the soundness based on *some* prior belief that you hold which grounds that claim.

If you doubt the soundness of my claims, then it is only because that doubt is grounded in your belief... which is grounded by others... which is grounded by others... etc.

Michael, I'm not taking anything personally.

I just don't accept your assertions.

You appear to have a need for a level of certainty in matters that I personally feel cannot be known with certainty. I've offered that I take the same position as Richard Feynman.

You've suggested that such a position is impossible and that to take such a position is to kid oneself. Yet this is the very position of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics takes. So basically all you are saying is that all quantum phsycists who accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM are kidding themsleves.

I certainly see no reason why I should take this personally. Clearly you're making an assertion about a whole community of people.

I'm just in disagreement with your assertion is all. There's no need to even suggest that this has any personal connotations to it whatsoever.

I also disagree with your assertion that bees don't think.

Again, there's nothing personal with that. I'm not even a bee so there's no reason why I would take this personally. I just don't agree with your assertions is all.

I hold nothing personal against you. I don't feel that you have been attempting to insult me in any way. I just disagree with your assertions is all.

You say,...



Personally I don't feel that it's abrasive at all.

I just disagree with the assertion. But here you are again reconfirming it, by saying, "True? Absolutely!"

Well, you may believe so.

I do not.

From my point of view, you are holding up your opinions as though they are some kind of absolute gospel truths.

Fine. Believe what you will.

I just don't accept your opinions as assertions of absolute truth.

Nothing personal intended.

I'll stick with Richard Feynman, thank you.

I want to say why I say what I do...regarding the idea of not being able to know anything for certain.

It is called the assertion/belief/truth triangle, and it applies to everyone, regardless of their admittance of it. For one to make a claim is for one to state that they believe that that claim is true, and must be grounded in a reason/belief. This does not necessarily mean that the reason makes sense, just that it is there, at least unconsciously.

In order for a human to believe anything, they must have grounds, and with those grounds come boundaries - regardless of whether or not the believer is aware of this. That is fact!

Those common language boundaries usually represent the focus of those who do not understand, fail, or refuse to recognize the utter importance of language in the overall intellectual/emotional/physiological development of the human brain and conscious thought. Dismissing the importance of language is to dismiss the entire human civilization's development throughout our history. It is to dismiss the very computer upon which the complaint is 'filed' in today's day and age. None of these things could even be discussed had we not known something! There are things which we cannot know for certain - that is obvious - but that does not constitute logical reason to believe that we cannot know anything for certain. As a matter of fact, one cannot even doubt without a prior belief. Belief comes first between the two!

For instance, regarding knowing one's own name...

We all(normal functioning people) know our name because that is what we have been called by others from birth. There is no contradictory reason to doubt it(assuming of course that it is one's 'given' name. Now this knowledge comes through the faith in those who who did the 'naming'. There is no other grounding, except perhaps records - which also depend upon the one(s) doing the naming. So, that knowledge comes down to a mere acceptance of another's word through pure faith. That faith is all that goes ungrounded.

Now, one could very well refuse to accept this to be the case(and do), and then make the assertion that they really do not know anything, including their own name. The irony lies in the fact that they cannot do this without - at least - knowing how to express it! So, for one to claim that they do not know anything for certain is to blind themself to the utter importance of language itself, while simultaneously using *some* of the certain knowledge that they claim they do not even have. Moreover, how can one deny that they really do not know their own name, without reason(certain belief) to do such a thing? Am I the only one in these threads who finds that claim to be utterly absurd?

That is the same as saying... I understand the words which I am writing, because it is absolutely necessary in order to even attempt to show you what I am saying, but I do not know my own name...

What kind of sense does that even make?

This is not to say, as I have already said many times before, that the term which describes a thing and the thing which the term describes are the same. They are not! I am not my name. That is just what I am called by. That is obvious, but to insist that this property of language represents reason to believe the claim that we cannot know anything for certain is in and of itself non-sensical, especially if that claim is using a known language.

Do you still insist that one cannot know anything for certain?

If one does not know for 'certain' what the letters and terms that they are using mean, then they would not be able to write anything with any sense of meaning. Even if that meaning itself is groundless in substance, they cannot do it without knowing at least the language being used! As I have already said, the claim that we cannot know anything for certain is - in and of itself - a claim of certainty.

Does this mean that I believe that I am absolutely certain in all things that I currently believe?

Of course not, and for one to think(let alone openly state) something like that about me, after not even understanding what I am writing, highlights the very fact that there will be many times in one's life that people will project unwarranted and inaccurate things upon others! I can do nothing but attempt to respond in the best way that I know how...

I do not recognize that reflection.

I am not purposefully degrading anyone on a personal level, at least not this time around... It is just as illogical as 'hell' as far as I'm concerned.

We all have our own reasons James...

That is all it boils down to.



You took that statement the wrong way...

I hope you can forgive my incomplete thoughts, which are copied in writing and lead to misunderstandings at times... I try not to think too openly out loud!

Michael,

I never dismissed the importance of language nor have I dismissed its affect on human development. The only point I was attempting to make is that language isn't the only way we think (especially if thinking includes making decisions).

You prefer to put things in terms of 'beliefs', I prefer to think in terms of 'plausibilities' instead.

Sure, I use the words 'I believe' sometimes. But this is only because these words are commonly used in our culture. When I say, "I believe something', what I really mean is that I feel that a particular explanation is more plausible than another. And I will back that up with 'grounds'. However. I even disagree with you views concerning what constitutes 'grounds'

You say,



Then you go on to say,



I put forth to you that I'm beyond language in my thinking.

However, it is clearly impossible for me to move beyond language in communication.

Language is a symbolic representation of concepts. However, what you appear to be doing is confusing the symbolic representation of these concepts for the actual concepts themselves.

Perhaps this is the foundation of our disagreement (and miscommunications)

You appear to be attempting to make a case that language is the basis of all thought. However, you also appear to recognize that language is nothing more than the symbolic representation of ideas or concepts.

Well, this is precisely what I've been attempting to get at since the beginning of this thread.

Within the brain, we label our ideas and concepts and categorize them with labels, these labels may be words, symbols, or even dynamic motion images. Usually when we attempt to communicate these ideas we reduce them to words, however sometimes we find that a dynamic pantomime can convey our ideas or concepts much better.

When communicating ideas we have no choice but to resort to converting them into some form of symbol that can be communicated to another person. And that is the very basis of language.

However, thought is not always language based. I hold that to make a decision is to think. I supposed that this, in a sense, is the 'grounds' upon which you would say that I am stating my 'belief'.

Clearly I had placed these grounds in terms of language for the purpose of communication. However, the ultimately concept that I'm referring to is beyond language. At least in the sense that it is not dependent upon language in any away.

My position is as follows: (I've already made the case for this in previous posts in an entirely different way, but I'll try it again here)

We choose our linguistic symbolic thoughts via pure awareness.

But pure awareness itself is not driving by linguistic symbolic thoughts.

It cannot be driven by that.

Moreover, it has already been recognized not to be driven by this. We even have a symbolic language words to convey this concept. One such word is intuition. This very word itself refers to an action or feeling that came into being without analytical thought based on logic or symbolic representations.

Therefore I hold from this that non-language thoughts are not only possible, but they are even recognized within our language itself.

We have plenty of words that refer to these non-language type of thoughts.

Pure awareness
Intuition
Insight
Sixth sense
Psychic seeing

Just because we have placed linguistic labels on these concepts for the purpose of communication that doesn't make these concepts language-based or language-dependent.

As far as I can see, all you are doing is confusing the symbols of language for the concepts that they are intended to convey. The concepts are what they are. They symbols that represent them are language.

Does language have a huge affect on what most people believe?

Of course! That should be clearly obvious.

But that wasn't the question of this thread, The question of this thread was,...

Is thought unspoken language?

I would suggest not based on the very simply observation that we can indeed think in non-language terms (i.e. via pure awareness, intuition, sixth sense, or whatever you'd like to label it for the purpose of bringing it into the realm of language for the purpose of communication).

However, the concept of thought via pure awareness exists outside of language.

If you want to put this in terms of a logical argument then I would offer the following logical analysis by counter-example.

You assert, "Thought is unspoken language"

I suggest that I can show a counter-example.

And I do.

Pure awareness is what we use to decide which thoughts to focus on.

A decision certainly qualifies as thinking.

Therefore we have an example of a thought that is non-language based.

This is a counter-example to your assertion that "Thought is unspoken language"

Is that what you are looking for?

This appears to be an air-tight concrete example of absolute truth.

If you agree with it, you must concede that all thought is not unspoken language.

If you disagree with it, then you must explain why it is absolutely false.

What I suspect would necessarily follow is nothing more than an endless stream of semantic arguments concerning "What do you mean by thought, What do you mean by awareness?, what do you mean by language? and so on.

In other words, to attempt to resolve the matter via an argument of language necessarily must result in nothing more than arguments of semantics. And such arguments are an endless circle that can get you NOWHERE.

You either accept my view that pure awareness qualifies as thought or you don't.

It's merely a matter of personally views. Nothing can be PROVEN one way or the other in any absolute sense.

This is what Richard Feynman tried to convey via language when he said,...

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

I personally feel that this is Richard Feynman's way of actually stating why he would disagree with your assertion that 'Thought is unspoken language'.

Language is nothing more than a lame attempt to label our concepts. It holds value in that we are able to communicate ideas. But if you want to attempt to hold it out as some sort of method for establishing the validity of beliefs (as some sort of absolute authoritative way to decide what's TRUE), then I would suggest Michael that you are the one who is kidding yourself.

It can't be done.

You'll just have to accept that whatever you choose to 'believe' is nothing more than what you personally deem to be most plausible.

You can't prove anything. At least nothing as profound as these deep philosophical topics.

You'll probably find it quite easy to prove to people that if you drop a rock on their toe it will hurt.

I personally 'accept' that certainly things about the universe have been 'proven' to be true. I accept the evolution is how we came to be as a species of human. I accept that the Earth is made of start stuff. I even accept that the Big Bang is how the universe came to be. I don't hold any of these things out to be absolutes, I just accept them as being the most plausible explanations we have to date.

As far as making absolute statements about consciousness, I seriously feel that you are in the wrong field of study if you want to make such absolute statements. I personally feel that you would more likely be much happier if you simply entertained a wide variety of ideas and maybe even became a teacher to share this wide array of ideas, rather than attempting to pin everything down to absolute assertions.

Your approach to philosophy doesn’t seem very productive to me. You seem to want to start with conclusions and then prove your case. Like making the assertion that language is unspoken thought, then attempting to establish this as some sort of absolute, and then tuck it away as a proven cornerstone.

I just don't feel that you'll get very far in philosophy with that approach. But clearly this is just my view of things. Our views seem to differ wildly. You seem to want to try to establish proven building blocks upon which to build something solid. I'm just happy with recognizing that this can't be done. At least not in an absolute sense (like Spinoza attempted to do)

I think it can be interesting and entertaining to share ideas of possibilities. But once it crosses over into assertions of absoluteness it’s no longer fun.

I've accepted mysticism. And that very word (once again) is a language symbol that represents a concept that ultimately can't even be known or truly understood. That's why it's so mystical.

I can't explain what pure awareness is. All I can do is accept that it exists and that it is apparently the essence of our true nature. To me it's neither a concept nor a word. It's an experience. It's that I am.

I don't demand that anyone think like I do. If you prefer to think differently more power to you. But why tell me how I must think?

Creative,

Here is a truly meaningless assemblage, aggregegated for those who mistake symbols with meaning:

You ask so many excellent questions. Sadly, I think you mean many of them to be rhetorical - and thereby you miss the value of those questions.

You bring up an interesting point here.

It does appear to me (appear to me), that this is precisely what Michael is doing. Perhaps this is the way that he thinks and this is why he's so hung-up on language.

He seems to think (and again this is just how it appears to me from what he says in his posts), that understanding can only be had via the associations with symbols, etc.

In other other words, this could be his view of what understanding even means to him.

Clearly from such a vantage point langauge would be paramount. Without language there could be no understanding in this sense.

Perhaps that's the bottom line of the miscommunication and confusion right there.

I personally don't think of understanding in this way. Sure, that's one type of understanding. But I feel that there are other types of understanding as well. And those would be the kinds of understanding that I have been attempting to express.

They are the non-linguistic, non-analytical, non-logos types of understanding of pure conscious awareness that so many Eastern mystic attempt to express.

It is that which cannot be put into words.

It's a state of awareness that transcends analytical thought, language, labeling, logic, etc.

Michael could argue that this state of awareness does not equate to understanding, but such an argument would be moot. Because his very argument is based on his criteria for what understanding must mean.

In other words, if he begins by demanding that understanding refers only to associations of concepts with symbols, then obviously that's the only thing that understanding can mean.

Again, it's just another form of circular semantic argument. In fact, if this is held up as the basis of understanding then it should quickly become apparent that no understanding could ever be achieved in this way, because it would all necessarily be circular.

I think this is what Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem drives home. A self-contained system will necessarily forever be circular. (to put it in simple terms)

Hmmm..... the point you see may not be any point I meant, but that probably only matters to me and my pride. There are interesting parallels between your last post (actually, many of your posts in this thread) and thoughts that I have had recently. Ultimately, though, its all conjecture.



Poetry is good.

An Intuitive Thought

I knew a word named “intuition”
but I never understood
until had a premonition
that awareness could be good

I became aware of intuition
and it ceased to be a word
I understood its meaning
through the feelings that occurred

I recognized through feelings
what language fails to bear
and now I know that thought must be
the fact that I’m aware



Abracadabra 7/1/2009

Excellent my friend!

There indeed must be unconscious workings of the mind that inform our awareness in sometimes subtle ways.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< real scientist

Nice poem James... no surprise to me though, as you have been so aptly named...




The word wizard!




I have a whole lot to say about the differences between belief and knowledge, and no time to apply.



There is much to write about 'intuition', and no motivational element.



Much to 'share' about Eastern thought, but no 'listeners' are present.

What about the differences between emotional understanding and intellectual understanding, including their affects upon the conscious/unconscious 'portions' of the mind?

What is the significance that can be 'revealed' between those four things?

What of emotional knowledge and intellectual knowledge?

How are they different from the earlier two features stemming directly from the concept of language?

"When a student is ready the teacher will appear."...

That which goes unnamed loses no value to one's emotional understanding.

I am at a loss for knowing - through my own intellectual understanding - on exactly how to continue this thread.

All knowledge is grounded in faith.



Does that not highlight the importance of the reliability of the information(including the source, if possible to remember) that one places their faith into?

Interesting how some types of faith can have their merit proven while others cannot - the beauty of a broad statement.

Abra,

Not only was your poem excellent on its own terms, its placement is perfect.

James...



There are so many little steps to take.

What I am doing is recognizing that the very identification(the skeleton which supports all understanding) of a concept is a product of human knowledge. Knowledge is inextricably linked with language and belief. Without language, thought, belief, and knowledge there is can be no thought. There can be no correlation of observation and/ or feeling possible.

Intuition is only a feeling which exists absent of any understanding without language. What you think about that feeling - your understanding of it - gives it it's meaning.

If your getting to the skeleton which supports all understanding, I'm thinkin' trial and error would be a huge bone in that backbone of understanding. Language would not be needed on the basis of following an urge. It would only be needed to "define" said urge. The urge could be word defined as curiosity, necessity, etc......

Let's face it Michael, we simply have different views. Why are you so intent on forcing me to accept your labels?

You say, "What you think about that feeling - your understanding of it - gives it it's meaning."

I disagree. What I FEEL about that feeling is my understanding of it. No analytical thinking or association with symbols or labels is required.

So I'm just in total disagreement with your view. I just don't see things the way you do.

I had actually just written a very lenghty post to try to convey my understanding of things. But in truth that post was far too technical and even included mathematical statements as examples. But I've decided not to go there. That would just spark more objections on your part most likely.

The Following is My View

All true understanding is intuitive. Period.

That's my view. I don't need to prove it, or defend it.

However, in the spirit of attempting to share an understanding of it I offer the following, and yes, this is another Feynman quote. I can't help it. Feynman just happens to see things the same way I do and his quotes help to illuminate this.

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard P. Feynman

Now, what could Dr. Feynman have meant by this statement?

Dr. Feynman won his Nobel Prize for his mathematical descriptions of quantum mechanis. Feynman's mathematical description of quantum mechanics has been the most successful theory in all of science.

Yet, what is he saying here? He's saying that no one understands quantum mechanics (not even HIM!)

What could he possibly mean by this? He has just presented a compeltely mathematical picture of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)that describes the behavior of the quantum world in a way that has matched every experienmental observation that has ever been done.

Yet he says, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

What he means is that no one understands it intutively.

And that is what we MEAN by understanding.

You can use langauge until your blue in the face to decribe, organize, and classify all you want. You still won't have one iota of understanding until you've understood the concepts intutivively.

This is what I attempted to convey in my raid of the inarticulate.

An Intuitive Thought

I knew a word named “intuition”
but I never understood
until had a premonition
that awareness could be good

I became aware of intuition
and it ceased to be a word
I understood its meaning
through the feelings that occurred

I recognized through feelings
what language fails to bear
and now I know that thought must be
the fact that I’m aware

What good does it do to know a word?

Understanding doesn't come from language.

Language is merely a way of attempting to put labels on concept that we actually do understand.

Understanding doesn't arise from language.

Language arises from understanging.

This is my view. This is how I view the world.

This is my understanding of understanding.

You're trying to tell me that I'm wrong.

Hey. If you believe that your understanding comes from language, more power to you.

I'm not even going to say that you're wrong. Perhaps this is indeed your view of the meaning of understanding.

I would hold to you though, that if that is the case, then if you simply understanding all the rule of quantum mechanics, then by your meaning of understanding then you understand quantum mechancis.

Cleary neither Richard Feynman, nor I, would agree with your position. From all point of view all you have done is accept a bunch of rules that you truly have no understanding of at all.

Ultimately it's all been reduced to an argument of semantics and what we each mean by understanding.

From my point of view here are my definitions to the terms you've proposed.

Intellectual Understanding - the acceptance of rules that you don't truly understand.

Intuitive Understanding - to genuinely understand something.

Therefore, from my perspective language simply isn't a requirement for what I consider to be true understanding.

True understanding defies language.

That's my view. For whatever it's worth.

If you hold a different view of things, fine.

I just don't see things that way. That's all.

Why is it so important to you that I accept your position that language is paramount to understanding when I don't FEEL that way?