Posted on 05/23/2003 3:59:51 PM PDT by unspun
Not accurate at all. I don't rely on induction hardly at all, only in specific cases. In this case I am relying almost totally on deduction. But, granting your point, if you reject the argument, then the word "believe" has no meaning. If you don't exist, there is no one to "believe" anything (ontology). And if you don't have an epistemology, then you don't "know" anything, including what you "believe."
Knowledge is relational
This statement is an absolute, which is dependent upon "Epistemology." So, if what you say is true, then this statement is invalid, since all knowledge is "relational" and the knowledge about "Knowledge is relational" is also relational. Your premise refutes itself.
I believe it may be shown that relationships and the knowledge involved in them run beyond what we understand as the physical functioning of the brain.
I don't care what you "believe." I especially don't want public policy being instituted according to what you "believe." And it isn't possible to demonstrate that anything you understand "runs beyond the physical functioning of the brain." It is not possible to demonstrate that any thought is "beyond the physical funtioning of the brain" - and for you, with your physical brain, to think it.
You have no right to demand that the rest of us live by what you "believe." Especially since none of this can be demonstrated to be "true."
But, thank you for spelling out your own belief about knowledge.
And thank you for spelling out what you don't.
Exactly! And, you're welcome.
This statement is an absolute, which is dependent upon "Epistemology." So, if what you say is true, then this statement is invalid, since all knowledge is "relational" and the knowledge about "Knowledge is relational" is also relational. Your premise refutes itself.
Hardly true, because the relationality of knowledge need not occur soley within a closed loop physical universe. (But of course, you've heard that over and over again, so this is an exercise for amusement.) In fact, I'm told by the source of all, with whom all is either aptly related or dead, that none of us occur solely within a closed loop physical universe. That source Himself is The Premise of course, not that "all knowldedge is relational." All knowledge is simply, like everything else, an effect of what is (or has been) related to God.
I can't take credit for my; you do me much too much honor, LW, no, please don't worship me....
This statement is an absolute, which is dependent upon "Epistemology." So, if what you say is true, then this statement is invalid, since all knowledge is "relational" and the knowledge about "Knowledge is relational" is also relational. Your premise refutes itself.
Oh fiddle dee dee -- because the relationality of knowledge need not occur soley within a closed loop physical universe. (But of course, you've heard that over and over again, so this is an exercise in our amusement.) In fact, lean closer... I'm told by the source of all, with whom all is either aptly related or dead, that none of us occur solely within a closed loop physical universe. That source Himself is The Premise of course, not that "all knowldedge is relational." All knowledge is simply, like everything else, an effect of what is (or has been) related to God.
I can't take credit for my premise; you do me much too much honor, LW, no, please don't worship me....
Neither do I suggest that one imposes the rules of {the order he knows} upon that which very effectively demonstrates that He has fashioned the place we call "order" and as is His want, sets His feet upon that stool. You can ask Him about it, though.
Forgive my metaphor if you will, FRiend.
Hi everybody... though our "tongues will cease," apparently our thinking goes on.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
The map is not the territory.
The verbalization of the statement destroys its own hypothesis.
Of course we often think in language. Some people have very great difficulty thinking abstractly, i.e. nonverbally. The difficulty that is common among English students with mathematics or physics or representational arts (architectural design) is exactly because some folks have difficulty thinking other than verbally. I knew an English major who could only do mathematics by reducing it first to English.
I "think" though, that the author would distinguish thinking in language from thinking by the use of language. Analogy: to move from room to room, one naturally and even subconsciously walks there. But in fact, there are many other ways to motivate one's body, to get to the next room. It is the "intentional state" of desiring to move, that causes, directs, integrates, and guides the motion.
He is saying that the basic process of thinking is by its nature, not a process of semiotics and tongue -- that thinking has more dimensions than linguistics and is a process of its own at the core.
"I think, therefore I..." use language.
To press the point further, I'm confident he is arguing for the human soul -- and doing a good job of it.
Moreover, much of what I think I would not have thought without language. The concepts of the US Constitution are not expressible without words. Judicial reasoning, at least traditionally sound judicial reasoning before left wing whiners took charge, is verbal reasoning.
Thank you, AJ.
You are describing thinking using the discipline of logic, most conveniently applied through using language.
And when you did so, you thought to use it.
Perhaps that was subconsciously conceived, but that also is a clue to that which thought, in essence, is, at its core: reflection, impetus, and intention, based upon observation.
There is also a good volume calledl "Thinking As A Science," by Henry Hazlitt. I got my copy from the Mises Institute Website.
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.
