|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I remember discussing that thoughts might not be physical. But a deduction is not a thought, it's an action. It's not a thought? How can that be? Aren't we using the term in its most general sense to refer to what the mind does? It thinks. That includes deductions. We're also using "mind" in the very broad sense of including all the incorporeal parts of our selves. The *I* or the self or the soul. It also includes imaginations and daydreams and whimsies. All these things are "thoughts" in the general sense it's been used in this thread. Or so I thought. Anyway, how does it make sense to talk of an "action" that has no physicality, no impact on physicality, no substance, no body, no extension in space, no identifiable existence in itself except through recognition by other sentient beings? What does it act upon? It seems to me this idea does violence to language and to sanity. What is the source of this idea? Parasomnium said something similar, but it just makes no sense. Never mind. I just blurted this out, but I'm going to bow out of this thread as it's getting close to the end -- except eventually to answer some posts that were addressed to me earlier. This message has been edited by Faith, 01-27-2006 07:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I remember discussing that thoughts might not be physical. But a deduction is not a thought, it's an action. It's not a thought? How can that be? Aren't we using the term in its most general sense to refer to what the mind does? It thinks. That includes deductions. The problem with "thought", is that it is a kind of abstraction that we invent to meet the needs of language. It is because it is some kind of abstraction, that it is not made of stuff. Compare driving (as with your car). That's an action. As a result, we say that there was a ride. The linguistic usage requires that "ride" refer to a thing, rather than an action. But the thing "ride" refers to is an abstraction, not made of stuff. The problem with "thought" is similar to the problem with "ride". Both words are invented to satisfy a linguistic role, and then we invent abstract things that we say those words refer to. There isn't a corresponding problem for deduction. A deduction is an action, and example of thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thinking is clearly an action. Neuroscientists can observe the physical activity of the neurons during thinking. Deduction is an example of thinking, so is also physical action. Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking.
The problem with "thought", is that it is a kind of abstraction that we invent to meet the needs of language. It is because it is some kind of abstraction, that it is not made of stuff. This is nonsense, nwr. The term "thought" is necessary to describe the experience we all have of thinking thoughts, not an invention to meet the needs of language. Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need. Nobody gives a rap about the "needs of language" for pete's sake. If it doesn't serve our practical needs, begone with it. But I said I wouldn't answer. I've got to stop making promises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Thinking is not synonymous with the activity of neurons no matter how consistently that activity can be found accompanying thinking.
Driving isn't identical to the motion of the gears and the cranshaft either. Nevertheless, driving is physical action and thinking is physical action.
The term "thought" is necessary to describe the experience we all have of thinking thoughts, not an invention to meet the needs of language.
The word "thought" is pretty lame for describing anything. Maybe one of us is strange. But I don't think thoughts. I think all kinds of things, but thoughts are not what I am thinking. "Thought" is just a label people use in their language. It's an abstraction, in that is is supposed to refer to what the thinking is about but without ever saying what the thinking is about.
Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need.
I have a very different, and probably unconventional view of what language is. While we use it to communicate ideas, I see it as more importantly there for achieving social cohesion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Words were invented to meet our own practical needs of communicating necessary ideas to others. Language is the vehicle for meeting that need. Then wny do we think in words in our own language? It seems to me that language and thought develop together; language allows for high-level symbolic thought. Evidence for this would be that humans who (terribly) develop absent language also aren't capable of the high-level symbolic thought that typefies being human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Can you give a specific example of an instance where "thinking" has been observed to occur without neuronal activity? That is, is there any rational reason to conclude that "thinking" is possible without neuronal activity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't claimed it occurs without neuronal activity. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Can you show us what is involved with thinking other than neuronal activity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why don't you read the thread for a change, Schraf?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I have read the thread.
Perhaps you would like to apologize for being so snotty?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"What is involved with thinking other than neuronal activity" would be a rabbit trail at this point in the thread, which you ought to know if you really have read it. It didn't appear you had the slightest idea what is on the thread. However I apologize if I am wrong about that. Nevertheless I don't want to go down this trail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
On its own, the Theory says nothing whatsoever about what happened 10 million years ago. We actually need to plug data into the theory to reach conclusions. Data such as genetic similarity, fossil morphology, current morphology, etc etc. We can then see if a hypothesis about common ancestors can be falsified, or strengthened...using the theory. I am not suggesting there is evidence for the theory but no evidence for its conclusions. Actually quite the contrary. The conclusions are based on combining physical evidence with the ToE. I don't see how this distinction you are making between theory and "practice" matters. If there is plenty of evidence for the "practice," then I'm including that as part of the definition.If that is imprecise, then we can just say I mean the TOE plus conclusions. What matters is the evidence. So let me reiterate my central position: Even if accepting ToE somehow means rejecting a supernatural creator it does not mean rejecting all other supernatural entities and explanations. What might these "supernatural entities" be? If supernatural, then they are not natural. Aliens are natural beings--at least that's the normal definition--so we can rule them out. These beings are supernatural in that they are purely mental. Yet they were created by the physical universe at its inception. It seems we are right back to where we started. Just as the physical cannot produce the supernatural on earth, it also cannot produce the supernatural in intersellar space during the age of a young universe. abe: sorry about the earlier sarcasm. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-28-2006 06:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't see how this distinction you are making between theory and "practice" matters. If there is plenty of evidence for the "practice," then I'm including that as part of the definition. If that is imprecise, then we can just say I mean the TOE plus conclusions. What matters is the evidence. Creationists would tell you its all about interpretation. They accept the collection of explanations that is the ToE, (ie they accept microevolution) but they reject massive population change (macroevolution). In essence you are discussing common ancestry rather than ToE. It might seem pedantic, but I think its important.
What might these "supernatural entities" be? If supernatural, then they are not natural. Aliens are natural beings--at least that's the normal definition--so we can rule them out. I've mentioned three types of supernatural entity: Eos (Goddess of Dawn), Domovoi (house spirit) and Leszi (Woodland spirit).
abe: sorry about the earlier sarcasm. No worries - its a busy thread with lots of different directions, perfectly understandable, sorry about my impatience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Your concept, maybe. It doesn't do anything to my concept. Your sensibilities must be very dull, Crashfrog. But there is an advantage that comes out of a philosophy of which evolution is the base. It is so good, so satisfying, isn't it, to not be egotistical like all those religious people are. I just love myself for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your sensibilities must be very dull, Crashfrog. Hardly. I'm simply intelligent enough to recognize the difference between the significance some things or some people have to me, personally, and the significance those things or people have to everybody else, or the universe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024