Wench wrote:



Yes! So apt, on point, and brief. (Like Abra's poem.)

Fair enough, but the concerns you have raised regarding 'shotgun' terminology can come in to play - depending on how careful the thinker (or speaker) is to remember which conclusions were derived from which qualities.

I disagree, I see only a proof for uncertainty.

A thing is what it does, there can be brute facts, we may not be able to acknowledge them all and place them in reference to something else, but nevertheless I see no need to reference the supernatural on account of not being able to have turtles all the way down.

is lust unactedupon massage?

James...



That is exactly what evidence shows, that all thought is had through conscious recognition of observation or the inference thereof. Language identifies those separate elements which simultaneously creates thought... The conscious recognition of correlations existing between different elements of perception.



It contradicts your perception of my claim, not the claim itself.



Read my last post for some clarity on what you think I say.



That distinction has been made already. It is above as well.



If being aware of a thing means consciously recognizing correlation, then it is thought.

If having 'awareness' means being in an experience without consciously thinking about the correlations of and pertaining to that experience - even if it is only a recognition of feeling - then it is not thought.

Thinking is all about consciously identifying and recognizing correlations.

All 'kinds' have this single common denominator... thus that is the only kind.



The conflict exists between what I write and what you read.



If you would read what I write James, you would see that I have not dismissed the meaning behind awareness or it's role in thought. I actually clarified it. We are taking steps here...



Thought is thought. There is only one 'kind'... The conscious identification and recognition of correlation through observation and/or the inference thereof.

That constitutes thought.

JB wrote:

Cognitive dissonance.

I actually agree with you Jeremy. Spirituality is a misleading word. As is the word "supernatural".

It all truly comes down to whether our essence is infinite or finite. That is truly the difference between 'spiritual' and 'not spiritual' in the end from a technical point of view.

One is infinite, the other is finite.

After all what would a word like "supernatural" even mean in a nature that is truly infinite? It would be a totally meaningless concept because it would demand that nature must be finite. In other words, if nature is restricted, then nature can't be infinite. But if nature isn't restricted, then what could 'supernatural' even mean? What could be considered to be supernatural if nature has no restrictions?

As far as we can tell the quantum world is already 'supernatural' (i.e. beyond our ability to explain).

What does supernatural even mean beyond that?

Insert 'God' here...

When it comes to philosophy, if you're seeking an explanion there's really no other choice.

But you've rejected that in the most dramatic way possible in this very thread.

This is the very thing that Feyman was referring to when he said,



But you've rejected this position as,.... "Impossible to think like that. You're only kidding yourself if you think you can think like that."

The bottom line is that you can't define anything precisely with any sense of consistency that doesn't lead to paradox.

You're demanding certainly of explanation and absolute knowledge yet without "inserting God here".

It can't be done.

Feynman gave us his intuitive view on this which you vehemently reject.

Kurt Godel gave us a mathematical proof for it.

What's left to do but either accept that you can never explain it, or "insert God here".

There are no other options left.

You always accuse me of not reading your words, or misinterpreting what you have to say, but I have not taken a stance either way. All I've done was show what the options are based on our current knowledge.

Either we invoke a concept of an undefinable essense (spirit), OR we accept that we can never truly know anything of significance.

Take your choice.

I'm not coming down on either side of the fence. I remain agnostic, although I confess that mysticism is more attractive to me.

Just the same, either we 'insert God here' OR we accept Richard Feynman's realization that we can never know anything precisely. Quantum complementarity doesn't even permit it!

Neither does Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

So you'll either have to 'insert God here', OR 'insert Richard Feynman there'.

Those are your only choices.

Kurt Godel has mathematically proven that you can't make sense of things any other way.

*Referring to invoking the existence of 'God'*,



All explanation invokes 'God'? That neither displays nor seeks logic.



Feynman was directly referring to the seemingly contradictory solutions for - what is known - about the observations in quantum mechanics.

The extrapolation throughout this thread - of his thought - belongs to you.



I have given reasonable and logical grounds which have been acknowledged by you to exist in your own thought that support that claim which - even as of now - stands as true... without negation.



Logically take it one step further... if that is the case, then Godel's inductive theorem is guilty of what it 'proves'... that it is also necessarily incomplete.

So then what does that prove?



It can and has. Wake up. Unknown does not equate to 'God'.

The concept of 'God' is a product of language and 'gaps' in human knowledge. As the gaps close so does the need. I certainly do not need to invoke the existence of 'God' to support my assertions.

You do.



Shotgun? Who.... me? Puh - leeeze!

So then, 'God' must exist because we do not know *something*?

Illogical and irrational.

There are things which cannot be explained by our existing knowledge, as was always the case...



It seems that we have reached the 'end' of your logical grounds... not mine!

I know that that is not the only option(s).

since you can obviously think or say anything
but if you are thinking of pictures, smells,
or touching then it is NOT conversation....

so no, it is not "unspoken talk" basically...

Language is not - in my view - unspoken talk.

That would equate the terms themselves to thought. The concious recognition of correlation simultaneously invokes thought, language, and understanding.

The holy trinity!

I personally feel that thought is thought.

and language is the negotiated user interface that allows us to communicate that which we think to others.

However imperfectally.

I don't think that thought is an unspoken language because language is a form of communication.

It would be if everyone could communicate with telepathy though. But we have not reached that point for the most part. Maybe some day.

Sorry Slow,
but your opinion holds no clout
it doesn't match the premise
of the man who has no doubt

Your views are less than worthless
and unworthy of exertion
the question asked was nothing more
than an arrogant assertion

No answers will be welcomed
lest they match the author's mind
for he's intent to emphasize
that other's views are blind




Sorry Mr. AB,
but your thoughts are thoughtless thoughts
there isn't any maybe
you just missed the author's plots

The question wasn't meant to ponder
it was posed to make his case
he's not accepting answers
and the thread's a gross disgrace

No views can hold a grain of truth
unless the author says it's so
the entire thread's a baited ruse
like a bear trap in the snow



Sorry Jeannie Hatted Bean,
but the word's been redefined
it means whatever Michael says
all other meanings are declined

He says that thought's unspoken language
and this is his decree
no other thoughts will he engage
regardless how you plea

That is stooping pretty low James...

What can I say?

I'm just giving people a heads-up.

Where in this entire thread have you even remotely considered anything other than your point of view?

You start a thread by asking a question and then jump all over everyone who doesn't agree with YOUR ANSWER.

Even to the point of telling them that it's impossible to think the way they do and they are kidding themselves.

My poems above may appear to be rude to you, but they are in fact describing precisely what you've been doing the whole way though this thread.

It's ridiculous.

Why did you even pose this as a question if you were going to asssert it's truth at the expensive anyone who wishes to share an opinion on the question at had.

From my point of view THAT is rude. So I have no sympathy for you at this point in time.

You are acting like a child who has not gotten his way.

I do not need nor want your sympathy...

AB wrote...




Jeanniebean wrote...



As both of these points confirm - because they come from the most common point of view - the meaning usually invoked when the term language is in use is one which involves communication between subjects. I would completely agree that that is a valid and extremely useful way to employ the term. My thoughts, however, too often have found what I call 'the need for expansion' regarding the other known uses of common terms, especially when that also happens to be the name of a very important fundamental concept of human understanding.

Language is the one, thus it is extremely important that it's value is recognized for what is is, and perhaps more importantly... what it can do.

The true value behind language lay in the fact that it has allowed humans to obtain a depth of understanding that no other creature displays. It has allowed us to mentally grasp things in depths that no other single experience can do. It is the experience of concious thought and understanding. Language gives our mind it's very construct, it allows our mind to identify our senses. It colors mental pictures with meaning. To deny this is to continue a grave human error. Language is the conscious mind's system of identification of all things perceived.

Until we see it for what it is and how it affects us, it will forever remain the most underutilized tool that we have.