There seems to me to be more evidence for God than evidence to distinguish between a physical and non-physical source for the consciousness. 'Course that expands the field of non-physical believers only slightly. 
Posted on 05/23/2003 3:59:51 PM PDT by unspun
Virtually everyone thinks in pictures. The confusion comes from two sources, in my opinion. (1)Some people make the transfer to words so rapidly, that they believe--erroneously--that they are actually thinking in words. Yet even as fast as these people make the transfer, the process is still enormously slower than working with the images without the words.
(2)Since we all require words to communicate with other people, even those who verbalize more slowly, still fall into the trap of trying to make the transfer into words as rapidly as they are able. Thus they still stultify their perception.
Generally, women make the transfer more rapidly than men. Most women are, in fact, unable to even realize that they are making a transfer, and will actually argue that they don't. One of the effects of this 'faster on the draw verbalization' that anyone can notice is at a party, where if the girls are keyed up, and not deliberately frustrating the tendency--as old fashioned Moms would have taught them to do--the guys have difficulty getting a word in. (I have always believed that this phenomenon was behind the proper Victorian tendency to divide the sexes, after a dinner, into separate rooms--whether or not cigars were the excuse.)
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
As I mentioned in post 215/216 human beings are quite subjective in their analyses of the process of thought.
A great example of someone who might think extensively in words is a schizophrenic. Indeed, one of the key symptoms of his condition is an inability to shut down or control the constant barrage of "talking in his head."
A more precise term is ... concepts.
In part, yes. But it is the way everyone thinks, whether they want to argue the point or not. If your wife comes home and describes an event that happened at work, or at a store, or at her hair dresser's, with her impressions, etc.., do you really believe that her analysis of the event started verbally? How could it? The start is in the dynamic moving images that she is relating to you via the medium of language. But it had to start with those images. However fast she may make the verbal transfer, the event, related, started with images and other sensory impressions.
Incidentally, whether you consider me pompous or not, I little care. But I did want to commend you on your post #215. It is a reasoned position, which I would have acknowledged earlier, had I not already posted a second response here, before I read it.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Actually not. A concept, even non-verbal, is still secondary to perception--which really would be a more precise term, because we have perceptions that are not visual or pictorial. A concept is something that arises out of our crunching of perceptions.
I was not really trying to be that precise, however; just make the general point that verbalization, while the key to most communications, is not necessarily the key to unlocking the maximum analytic power of the human mind. Some pictures, after all, are not worth a thousand words; it would take millions to describe what you can see in a second.
William Flax
While "proving" things in upper division math classes, it was interesting to observe that legitimate proof methods differed substantially, from student to student, in "proving" the same mathematical relationships.
I differ, therefore, with your inference that humans cannot reach similar conclusions given the same facts.
When humans come to agreement about newly discovered "facts," a concept is born; and the word describing that concept will end up in dictionaries.
Dictionaries -- The epistemological treasure chest used to describe human concepts -- "truths," so to speak, for those concepts based in reality.
There seems to me to be more evidence for God than evidence to distinguish between a physical and non-physical source for the consciousness. 'Course that expands the field of non-physical believers only slightly.
In a classical example of time, time is and was the exact center of mass of the universe. prior to the universe as we know it, the universe was a point of mass infinitesimally small. The exact center of mass was a point called time. When the universe exploded, based upon external forces as some would propose ie the hand of God, the point called time was put in motion, always maintaing itself as the center of mass of what was the original universe plus the additional force introduced by God.
The line transcribed by associating all the points of the center of mass has been defined as the time line. This line is not linear, quite the contrary, it twists and turns. If you could approach any point on the line, you would experience the universe as it existed at that point in time.
Time travel can only be accomodated by travelling back in time for it is there that the time line exists, not in the future. There are additional limitations and anomolies which must be considered. Let me know if you are interested and I will provide you with further information to help your understanding of this phenomenom.
... is to base one's epistemology upon axiomatic concepts -- facts about reality which cannot be analyzed; primary facts such as existence, identity and consciousness; the "givens" -- and to rigorously build one's power-knowledge-base to analyze data based on those axiomatic concepts.
The reference to "thinking the same way" does not refer to one incident or one type of incident. Taking this conclusion out of context from the entire post or the entire thread changes its meaning completely.
The main point of the post was:
Because every human being thinks, each individual is naturally biased by the way he (or she) personally experiences intellect and emotion. Furthermore, since thought ...is universally experienced... there is currently no person who is impartial enough to determine what processes* "people" use to think.
*processes can include: thinking in words, pictures, symbols, thinking on an intuitive level, subconsciously, consciously.
Logic, law, and word are nearly the same in the root. Logos, legis. All of these apparently are from the Indo-European lex-, to gather. We're gathering. There is no limit except our ability to learn and gather; mende- learn, mathematikos, learning. It's what we do, we are men, women, learners, gatherers.
Verbal constructs, however closely they may approximate reasoning from real data and observation, are inevitably flawed.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
This is a simplistic view and incorrect. Null mappings or incomplete mappings between two or more contexts will break any semblence of perfect subjective symmetry. Mathematically speaking, the only way to have the same subjective impression of any event among multiple minds is if they are absolutely identical. Even receiving identical experiences for their entire existence in a different order or temporally shifted will break the symmetry.
It is mathematically intrinsic to the type of representational system used in the brain that "perfect understanding" or identical subjective impressions is impossible. Never mind the fact that transaction theory does not allow us to truly guarantee the synchronization of "indisputable facts" even in the case of identical minds; a synchronization protocol that can make facts "indisputable" is not possible, and all approximations of it will necessarily break the symmetry.
In other words, "hive minds" of perfect and identical understanding are actually mathematically impossible. Telepathy is just a different, and perhaps more efficient, transport for the same basic protocol.
(Not assuming that would come before we can just get along with telepathy. Did you mean to say that you believe we'll evolve it? Or be granted it by aliens? Not sure what you meant either.)
This is also behind the current attempt to ban tobacco. It takes away the equalizer and allows natural competition. In this sense it goes counter to the social movement towards equality and demonstrates that the movement is inherently hollow, idealistic, and has other motives than what is stated. Also in this sense it is brother to the movement toward banning firearms. They are going back to the pre-industrial age, perhaps back to a rustic age where living was precarious, want was universal, and violence excessive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.