This discussion is closed.
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by corey)
but if we require language for thought then without it we can't find answers to anything! Can you look insider yourself and imagine yourself having thoughts without any language attached to them? Because I cannot.

Hmm not sure I agree with this.
Surely the inspiration, the spark, comes first, and language adapts for these new ideas?
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by Tnacilppa)
Yes but we also need to accept its limitations!
But your trying to say its a bad thing because it limits us...but we would be limited even further without it.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by corey)
but if we require language for thought then without it we can't find answers to anything! Can you look insider yourself and imagine yourself having thoughts without any language attached to them? Because I cannot.
Does that mean then that the more complex language we have, the more complex ideas we can form?

THat would be interesting actually... I mean, I'm bilingual so I can see the comparisons between punjabi/urdu and english, the former having no philosophical words at all and so people from pakistan being a bit restricted in their ideas as well i think and not enjoying philosophy or being able to understand it. Of course, those are just the people I know from there and it might only be because they have never been able to be subjected to it.

But how do we learn language then if we don't have a framework for the individual words to correspond to?
0
Tnacilppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by corey)
but if we require language for thought then without it we can't find answers to anything! Can you look insider yourself and imagine yourself having thoughts without any language attached to them? Because I cannot.
Personally I have thoughts which move through my mind so fast they do not have language. That's not to say they are thoughts of any particular worth. However, I think people writing or talking about philosophy need to understand the limitations of language. To express feelings and thoughts about these issues requires something beyond language but (sadly) something we don't have!
0
Tnacilppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by Adhsur)
Does that mean then that the more complex language we have, the more complex ideas we can form?

THat would be interesting actually... I mean, I'm bilingual so I can see the comparisons between punjabi/urdu and english, the former having no philosophical words at all and so people from pakistan being a bit restricted in their ideas as well i think and not enjoying philosophy or being able to understand it. Of course, those are just the people I know from there and it might only be because they have never been able to be subjected to it.

But how do we learn language then if we don't have a framework for the individual words to correspond to?
Look at Nineteen Eighty-Four. The language created is Newspeak. It is designed to control thought. It limits the vocabulary of its speakers. They cannot express thought contrary to party policy. I think that a wider range of words does allow a wider range of thought - or at least the ability to express thought. However, the flipside to that is that language is also a limit on thought. We do not have the perfect language. There is no perfect language and there never will be. This is why there will be no perfect thought.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by Adhsur)
Does that mean then that the more complex language we have, the more complex ideas we can form?

THat would be interesting actually... I mean, I'm bilingual so I can see the comparisons between punjabi/urdu and english, the former having no philosophical words at all and so people from pakistan being a bit restricted in their ideas as well i think and not enjoying philosophy or being able to understand it. Of course, those are just the people I know from there and it might only be because they have never been able to be subjected to it.

But how do we learn language then if we don't have a framework for the individual words to correspond to?
I'm not really sure...but I think your right how could someone without the language to express ideas about 'determinism' actually have the thought about it let alone allow that thought to be told!

For instance, relgious experiences the people who experience them usually say they are 'inexpressible' that they physically have no langauge to actually understand the images they saw.

(BBL)
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
(Original post by corey)
Could we even have thought without language? I seem to doubt that because for me the majority (if not all) relies on language. So, it is not a limit it is what allows us thought.

Hmm, that depends. I suspect that animals may have thoughts of some kind, though I don't know what the 'official' scientific line on that is right now. But obviously they can't if language is necessary... I don't think it is though. You dream, don't you? You can have dreams without language: I've had wordless dreams before. So why not thoughts?

(Original post by Adhsur)
If someone says "I could have eaten fruit instead of chocolate last week and then I wouldn't be so fat", is it really possible that they could have done otherwise in that situation? It obviously wasn't...maybe you HAD to take the chocolate...how do you know you didn't?
What about the 'Trousers of time'? Maybe in the other 'trouser' they did eat the fruit...
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by corey)
For instance, relgious experiences the people who experience them usually say they are 'inexpressible' that they physically have no langauge to actually understand the images they saw.

(BBL)
And that's one of the reasons I don't believe in religious experiences...beyond the senses and yet picked up by the senses? beyond language and yet understandable?
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by MadNatSci)
Hmm, that depends. I suspect that animals may have thoughts of some kind, though I don't know what the 'official' scientific line on that is right now. But obviously they can't if language is necessary... I don't think it is though. You dream, don't you? You can have dreams without language: I've had wordless dreams before. So why not thoughts?



What about the 'Trousers of time'? Maybe in the other 'trouser' they did eat the fruit...
I have not heard of that...

Is this some sort of parallel-universe thing, where there infinite copies of me and each one does something slightly different to cover all possibilities?
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Adhsur)
I have not heard of that...

Is this some sort of parallel-universe thing, where there infinite copies of me and each one does something slightly different to cover all possibilities?

Yeah It seems to be a relatively widespread term now, at least among my friends... though I know Terry Pratchett uses it in his books and we're all readers of his. Anyone know where it originally came from or if he coined it?

Anyway, yes, it refers to the theory about the possible existence of multiple dimensions where basically everything that can possibly happen, happens in one of them. Every time you make a choice, new ones are spawned.. Mindboggling and I have yet to be convinced, but it's an alternative to determinism...
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Adhsur)
I have not heard of that...

Is this some sort of parallel-universe thing, where there infinite copies of me and each one does something slightly different to cover all possibilities?

Yes, as far as I know, there is a theory that whenever a fundamental particle moves, as there is a only a certain probability that it will go in any one direction, it simultaneously travels in every possible direction, and there is a different "reality" for each path it takes.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by MadNatSci)
Yeah It seems to be a relatively widespread term now, at least among my friends... though I know Terry Pratchett uses it in his books and we're all readers of his. Anyone know where it originally came from or if he coined it?

Anyway, yes, it refers to the theory about the possible existence of multiple dimensions where basically everything that can possibly happen, happens in one of them. Every time you make a choice, new ones are spawned.. Mindboggling and I have yet to be convinced, but it's an alternative to determinism...
Yes, that's really really interesting actually...the fact that there is nothing to disprove the possibility of something like that, and if anything evidence favours the existence of parallel universes!

But it does sound quite scary that another Rushda somewhere went to Afghanistan, had an illegal affair and then got stoned to death...

Would that still be "ME" though? If my copy did everything different as one of these possibilities, what's to say that that copy is me? just a genetic similarity?
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Yes, as far as I know, there is a theory that whenever a fundamental particle moves, as there is a only a certain probability that it will go in any one direction, it simultaneously travels in every possible direction, and there is a different "reality" for each path it takes.
I don't even know if I believe in probability - why one effect as opposed to another...maybe we can't see the cause on which a physical choice of a particle is made, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't there.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by Gnostic)
One day check out chapter 9 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Romans is a book of the Bible).

Paul was a determinist - he believed that God predestined everything. In chapter 9 Paul said that someone was bound to ask him "if this is so how can God hold man responsible for his actions?" Paul simply said it was rude to ask such a question - a pot has no rights to speak back to the potter and if the potter wants to smash the pot he can do as he *damn* well pleases. It's quite a funny little chapter of the Bible - Paul clearly sees the problem but gives quite a silly answer and quickly moves to a different topic.

The fact is, more often than not, the conscious self (assuming that there is such a thing) experiences thoughts, but does not author them.

One cannot have free will and have a subconscious genetic nature.
Hehehehe...

But you'd expect God to treat us better than a careless potter though...I should hope he would anyway.

Yes, that is what I do find disturbing. We do make choices and think that we are able to do everything physically possible, but the results of those choices are preconfigured, we just don't know them. Hence we can't change the future, and hence we have no free will.
0
Tnacilppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
If it's true there must be infinate other universes.

Also how would interaction work?

Our choices affect other people. Arrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhh (language block here - you see )

Hang on, gonna try to express it...

World 1

I get out of bed. I go to London on a train. On the train I meet someone and we chat (I say I am going to see an art exhibition) and as a result he/she goes to the exhibition.

World 2

I don't get out of bed. The person doesn't go to the art exhibition.

---

So how does this work. For one person the other universe idea with the other option would work. However, the interaction of events would mess it up wouldn't it?
0
Tnacilppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
(Original post by Gnostic)
Yes. I think that it may be possible to construct a rational concept to explain our condition. However, we will need to literally invent new concepts and even new words. This requires fresh insight, creative perception.
I agree we need new concepts and language. I don't know if we will ever suceed though!
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by Adhsur)
I don't even know if I believe in probability - why one effect as opposed to another...maybe we can't see the cause on which a physical choice of a particle is made, but that doesn't mean the cause isn't there.

As Einstein said, "He (God) does not play dice with the universe."

There is a lot of evidence however that at the smallest quantum levels the universe is inherently unpredictable, and not only can we not tell exactly where an object is and how fast it is travelling (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) but it actually does not have a definite position of speed.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by Tnacilppa)
If it's true there must be infinate other universes.

Also how would interaction work?

Our choices affect other people. Arrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhh (language block here - you see )

Hang on, gonna try to express it...

World 1

I get out of bed. I go to London on a train. On the train I meet someone and we chat (I say I am going to see an art exhibition) and as a result he/she goes to the exhibition.

World 2

I don't get out of bed. The person doesn't go to the art exhibition.

---

So how does this work. For one person the other universe idea with the other option would work. However, the interaction of events would mess it up wouldn't it?
It is mind boggling.
For THAT person, one of their possibilities in a certain world would interact with the relevent possibility of yours? For example the possibility of you going on the train is directly interacted with his possibility...and they are hence not completely independent.

And if in only two worlds, there are things which make them dependent on each other, think about what infinity worlds for infinity people would be like...would it work!?!! It'd be a very complex web and maybe contradicting too. God I don't know how I could get round the concept of that. But we're human, maybe we don't have the capacity to.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by Gnostic)
As for God, I believe that "God" is a symbolic projection of an archetype in the collective unconscious.
Well, that goes out of the window as soon as the problem of evil is mentioned.
0
Tnacilppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by Adhsur)
It is mind boggling.
For THAT person, one of their possibilities in a certain world would interact with the relevent possibility of yours? For example the possibility of you going on the train is directly interacted with his possibility...and they are hence not completely independent.

And if in only two worlds, there are things which make them dependent on each other, think about what infinity worlds for infinity people would be like...would it work!?!! It'd be a very complex web and maybe contradicting too. God I don't know how I could get round the concept of that. But we're human, maybe we don't have the capacity to.
It's mid-blowing. I don't think there could possibly be enough universes for all the combinations though. With 6 billion people interacting at some level I think it's impossible.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (142)
14.33%
I'm not sure (42)
4.24%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (297)
29.97%
I have already dropped out (26)
2.62%
I'm not a current university student (484)
48.84%

Watched Threads

View All