Rubbish and Nonsense.

Besides, I said if that is what you call "communication" fine. I now know how you are using that word and the limitations you have put on it.

I guess then, there are no words available for what I am attempting to say. I can't seem to get my point across.

How valuable is 'communication' without comprehension and/or understanding? Also, how many people have meaningful productive communication or satisfying conversations void of human emotion and/or feeling?

I'm sure there are computer programs available that a person could have a conversation with.

People do have feelings. Until you realize how to deal with that, your communication skills are going to be lacking.

I'm not interested in discussing emotions/feelings unless I'm discussing emotions/feelings. Interestingly enough, that is the very subject of a thread that I'm actively involved in on another forum at this time.

Our (side)topic here is communication. Our communication is by and in large successful. We agree on much more than we disagree. Else, we would not be able to understand anything that the other writes.

If asked, I'm also willing to explain why I call something rubbish, at least once. That is because when one enters into a philosophical discussion, one takes on the burden of justifying their own positive assertions.

I’m confused: Are you suggesting that thought is only produced by innate and instinctual faculties? Is there more than one kind of thought process going on?

When does innate & instinct faculty of autonomous physiological sensory perception become a conscious throught process?



Your use of the term “spatiotemporal distinction” is confusing please expound on its purpose or function as part of realization of ‘other’? Also explain what ‘other’ includes .



Is a correlation necessary to invoke thought?

So taken all together – what page are you on because I’m not there.

No. I'm asserting that initial thought/belief formation is limited to the available faculties that are not borne of thought/belief itself. There are different kinds of thoughts. The kinds are categorized by their level of complexity and their content which entails both, the objects of thought, and what the thought/belief necessarily presupposes(what must be already in place, or necessarily presupposed within it in order for it to form in the first place).



Never, on my view. It is but one element necessary for initial thought/belief formation.



All things appear to us in time and space. To consciously distinguish a thing is to set it out(identify it) as 'other', it is to individuate(not Jungian individuation). It is to realize that there is something here or there, and therefore realize the existence of 'other'.



Mental correlation between objects of perception, and/or to oneself constitutes being second-order thought/belief formation. Individuation being first-order.

By the way Di...

This is very rough, and contrary to the confidence that is often portayed in my writing style, I'm not at all confident that this is right, but I am pretty confident that it is on the right path.

The notion of individuation has me troubled...

I mean, on the one hand, to identify is to set something out as 'other'. Prior to being able to correlate something to another, I would think that thought has already formed. On the other hand, individuation necessitates a correlation between an object of perception and the perceiving subject...

So there are some coherency issues here.

Whaddaya think?

Sorry Creative, been busy. I do have a response half written but will have to finish it tomorrow afternoon.

I'll be back.

Notta problem Di, alls I got is time.

Creative:


Di:


Creative:


Example?:

OK, it’s instinctual for a baby to cry … ‘initial thought/belief formation = baby cries (a reflex – instinctual) baby is comforted. Baby (thinks) cry/comfort, cry/comfort --- BEHAVIOR – Baby cries, baby is comforted. Baby has developed a belief – when I cry, I will be comforted. Now when baby is cold, wet, hungry, it cries. Baby is forming thought belief – “when I cry, I will be comforted.”

Does that match what you are getting at?

Creative:


I see these as wants and needs. A baby who is being breastfed soon learns the sensory differences between mother and father or mother and others. Now you have a hungry baby, who know to cry to fulfill its need, but is other than mom picks baby up, baby will not be comforted but will whale louder.

Is this what you mean by ‘categorizing’? I consider that the creation of a construct. Example: MOTHER = …smell, …touch, … sound, … food, … FATHER: has another set of smell, touch, sound, NO FOOD, but maybe more overall warmth..

Di


Creative


I have just shown the progression of how innate & instinct faculty … becomes part of the process which leact to a thought which elicits behavior.

However, since baby does not have language at this point, baby is developing another one our instinctual and necessary ‘sub-conscious’ thought processes: heuristics. The constructs would seem to be a necessary process in order for heuristics to function. For baby, most thought processes are tied to instinct and most new constructs are tied to sensory perception, there is no language until there is a connection that certain sounds/utterances have a specific meaning.

Di:


Creative:


OK – baby playing peek-a-boo is a good game to determine at what age a child understands that a thing has not disappeared into non-existence, it simply needs to be uncovered. So ‘distinguish object’ as well as, find a hidden object would be part of spatiotemporal distinction – correct?

I think baby has already made the connection that it is self-existent and that its needs and wants require ‘others’ in order to be fulfilled. Just try giving a baby who has been breastfed for many months a bottle with formula. That baby knows YOU are a man, and NOT MOM, that the bottle is not a breast and that formula is not food.

The point is, a baby knows that it is separate from other objects that surround it even while it is still functioning mainly on instinct.

Creative:


Di:


Creative:


Most people, even those who are progressive thinkers, have a difficult time merging ‘mind & body’ as one fully functions entity. I don’t think you can separate instinct, perception, and thought in the way you have attempted.

However, I do see the need for ‘correlation’. Correlation involves connecting initial constructs (Mother, Father) with other objects: Mother to breast / bottle / sippy cup… and so on.

At the moment I’m looking at keeping Perception and Correlation but somewhere in there language adds a new element and it leads to more abstract thinking. There is also motivation, which is originally driven by instinct – and some would argue that all behavior ultimately stems from instinct, including the beliefs we form about our values which become a moral model for our behavior.

I see now why trying to define thought might be a fools mission.

So what do you think.

I'm in agreement for the most part, and really see no glaringly obvious conflicts between our accounts. The only thing that seemed odd to me is the attribution of self-awareness at such a young age. I think that that comes from successive events just like you've described.

It becomes very difficult to speak about what a baby may or may not think. They obviously do not begin thought in words. That is why I find it reasonable to only employ the faculties that are present and developing and tie them to the baby's own emotional state of mind, which is there even before s/he becomes aware of it.

Comfort/uncomfort... content/discontent...

Much like you have done here.

thoughts are electric impulses, synaptic firings

from an intentional nervous system rather than an autonomous one (that governs instinctive impulses - like eyes blinking)

though qualitatively different as spoken I am sure

I know that that word "intention" begets tremendous ambiguity. There has to be better ways to describe thought, not that I'm in complete disagreement.

Not all thoughts are intentions.

In fact, most thoughts are not intentions.

I intend to drink this entire glass of tea, but I don't give it much thought.

I may fantasize about Adrian Paul but I don't intend to stalk him.