Do Humans Have A Word-Virus?

[s1eep]

Humans are the only known species to use word-communication, and all other species communicate traditionally. The methods that other species use are similar to each other, primarily they talk with signs and symbols, or through exerts of masculinity. Humans have trained their tongue to talk words; they communicate with their own minds to think. The vocabulary is quite extensive, there are many attributes to the word, it is an intelligent technology, but it is natural? Aren't we somehow differentiated with nature; shouldn't we be talking in signs and symbols like the rest of the animal?

 

A man's mind is silent, are we meant to think in words? Isn't thinking a skill attained by rote-education? (i.e. teaching your tongue to say words and routing their associations in mind). And although I said that words were an intelligent technology, are words of the same intelligence as humans or are they beneficent for human beings and their lives, survival, reproduction, social means and so on - and are there more traditional, and possibly greater alternatives?

[Bill Angel]

Humans are the only known species to use word-communication, and all other species communicate traditionally. The methods that other species use are similar to each other, primarily they talk with signs and symbols, or through exerts of masculinity. Humans have trained their tongue to talk words; they communicate with their own minds to think. The vocabulary is quite extensive, there are many attributes to the word, it is an intelligent technology, but it is natural? Aren't we somehow differentiated with nature; shouldn't we be talking in signs and symbols like the rest of the animal?

 

The subject of how other species communicate is an interesting one. Virginia Morrell has written an article for National Georgraphic, available online, titled Animal Minds . In the online article the author discusses the use of language by parrots.

Another interesting article by a different author is Researchers Find More Evidence That Dolphins Use Names

[Tridimity]

Humans are the only known species to use word-communication, and all other species communicate traditionally. The methods that other species use are similar to each other, primarily they talk with signs and symbols, or through exerts of masculinity. Humans have trained their tongue to talk words; they communicate with their own minds to think. The vocabulary is quite extensive, there are many attributes to the word, it is an intelligent technology, but it is natural? Aren't we somehow differentiated with nature; shouldn't we be talking in signs and symbols like the rest of the animal?

 

A man's mind is silent, are we meant to think in words? Isn't thinking a skill attained by rote-education? (i.e. teaching your tongue to say words and routing their associations in mind). And although I said that words were an intelligent technology, are words of the same intelligence as humans or are they beneficent for human beings and their lives, survival, reproduction, social means and so on - and are there more traditional, and possibly greater alternatives?

 

We are indeed probably distinct from other animals, in that our verbal communication appears to be more complex and nuanced. This increased capacity for highly involved information exchange presumably confers a survival advantage - not least because it facilitates the formation and maintenance of the intricate social interactions that underpin our civilisation. Having said this, there are still occasions when more primitive methods of communication prove to be more effective in communicating a straightforward message. A single facial expression or change in body language can be very informative. Simple messages such as 'I love you' are arguably best delivered non-verbally, as an embrace or a certain glance or even a kind gesture, rather than as a long series of prose. Indeed, many people experience difficulty in expressing the depth of their feeling in words - in these cases, the 'old' methods of communication rule supreme. I think it very much depends on the nature of the information that is being communicated.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Tridimity

[s1eep]

Before the human pursuit of understanding life, what were humans pursuing?

[s1eep]

The human species is the only species to use a definite word system; other species in the known universe communicate with action and sensory data. The word does not occur naturally; humans do not learn the alphabet by example, we learn via word rote-education conducted by word experts. It occurs because of others. Some people assert that we learn through socialization, which is not true, because there has to be experienced individuals with prior word-knowledge to teach into society (someone learns how to talk before they can talk – the method of obtaining knowledge of definite words is by rote education; words are not meant to be definite, we define them to be definite; definition is man-made education routed).

 

The word and worded data are distinguishable; there is a difference between Water, the scientific definition of two oxygen, one hydrogen atom, and Water itself. The word doesn't quite comprehend the being of Water in all its glory; it’s a nullification of fluctuating life. Upon reading the word Water, you do not reproduce Water truly in mind, and you facilitate null-intelligence. You think inside the box, and don’t treat the actual being of Water the same as you would without the word – as a personality of its own, you haven’t figured out whether you should help it, or if it is useful to you in its natural form; you nullify it, and then define it as a simple mixture of atoms; you do not understand what it truly expresses because you employ a different word. Let’s not forget that words are man-made products and not truths, but they can make the illusion of truth when supported by other words; stupidities supported by stupidities.

 

Are humans educated the word to be mentally nullified, for purposes of mental slavery? A criminal is considered to be unintelligent, but there is nothing to suggest he is unintelligent if he is a successful criminal – man-made laws are not part of the human mind, we do not have to obey defined laws until they are forced upon us. The law is a burden put upon us if we consider the path of crime in a reality, but after and before the crime there are no human laws. Science is based on laws, Atheism is based on laws; but the defining matter is that the mind is greater than man-made laws.

 

Atheism is a religion, it shows all the same characteristics as other religions; it talks about God religiously, and Atheists support their ideas with science – it is a belief in science, for the belief alone and not conducting science; an Atheists God is science. God doesn’t exist, but something else exists that is omnipotent, that bares all the characteristics of a God; life. A person may do what he chooses so long as it doesn't kill him in the process, if he believes in a God there is nothing wrong with his belief apart from it is a word-belief. He can believe in God because it was taught to him by example, he took the characteristics of his life and replicated them. If we don’t believe in Atheism, it just means that we do not want to pursue science, or believe science.

 

Atheists, like Christians, preach their beliefs and support their words with scientific information. They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible. Science is also unfair – if you don’t believe in science, a scientist will say you are stupid. On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist, you are isolated as if you were a disease. Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power, such as with isolation and hard criticism that can involve bans. Children are forced to believe in science. There are plenty of reasons not to, but good luck trying to tell them that. If you think disproving science is impossible, without wordplay and dodging the point at hand, address the next paragraph.

 

A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life. The reactions you have when “cat” is said are comprehended in mind, this is stemming from our emotions, but this is what happens naturally, and when in combination with the word, it becomes abstracted. Usually, we would have communicated ephemerally without putting true definitions on things - a simple movement says a thousand words. Indefinite communication works, and it would be fun and understandable, and it was the natural means that our ancestors used before they evolved into humans. When I imagine this greater harmony of life that we could be experiencing with natural communication, I imagine it with greater peace and happiness, and greater wars, emotions and senses. A wordless world can be imagined, is it meant for greater things than a word world?

Edited October 27, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

The following assertions are wrong.

"Atheism is a religion"

" an Atheists God is science."

"Atheists, like Christians, preach their beliefs "

"They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible."

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

"Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power,"

"Children are forced to believe in science."

" There are plenty of reasons not to,"

 

There were probably others too.

[s1eep]

The following assertions are wrong.

"Atheism is a religion"

" an Atheists God is science."

"Atheists, like Christians, preach their beliefs "

"They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible."

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

"Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power,"

"Children are forced to believe in science."

" There are plenty of reasons not to,"

 

There were probably others too.

You need to elaborate on your post. I have experienced first hand most of these things.

 

And the kind of response where your words are social bound after, are nullification of my words; like you were part of a greater conversation, and there was nothing to see here. Your competition is unfriendly, you do not reason, and you do not state why these things are wrong; for all I know you could say something like "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair style" which is a false statement, there are others that sound relatively correct but aren't, such as "fight fire with fire", no, you should fight fire with water. The removal of hair is a way to style your hair, it's like having it cut really short, but all completely gone, and that is your style, no hair. It's a style if it's done for style purposes, it is a way you wanted to dress your head, and that's what hair styling is about, dressing your head (unless it's done for other purposes, but it's still dressing your head). It can be conceived as a hair style in certain contexts- you wouldn't say that it was different to a hair style because it had no hair; you would still include it for styles of hair. That was simple wordplay. Atheism possesses all the characteristics of a religion, but it perceives itself from the perspective of it's God, science.

Edited October 27, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

OK, lets start with the first one

Atheism is not a religion.

Saying that it is one is like like saying "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

"" an Atheists God is science.""

An atheist's God does not exist by definition of atheist.

 

"They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible."

 

No, for two reasons.

Not all atheists are scientists and science isn't a set of beliefs like the bible- it's a way of organising and challenging beliefs.

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

No, what the God squad usually get banned for is refusing to debate. They refuse to answer valid questions.

In any event, you can only get banned for breaking the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

 

"Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power,"

Nope, they just point out the evidence. They might not be polite about it, but it's not the shouting or name calling that makes the difference in the end.

What suppresses non science is that it doesn't tally with the evidence and when your ideas don't agree with the evidence, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.

 

"Children are forced to believe in science."

Nope, children are scientists to begin with- they play with things to see what happens. That's the same as the scientists.

It's religion that forces them to stop doing that.

" There are plenty of reasons not to,"

Name one.

[s1eep]

OK, lets start with the first one

Atheism is not a religion.

Saying that it is one is like like saying "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

"" an Atheists God is science.""

An atheist's God does not exist by definition of atheist.

 

 

But you can relate not collecting stamps with collecting stamps; look at both contexts, one where collecting stamps was significant; someone asks you "do you collect stamps?", you say "no", then you are not 'collecting stamps', a style of collecting stamps in this context. Like associating bald with a hair style. It depends if hair style is a significant. In a belief for collecting stamps you could have Atheist and Theist type cults, one that believe in it and ones that believed against it. You are not collecting stamps, in response to "do you collect stamps?" a style of collecting stamps, in this only context, and others probably. You can be thought of as a religion, atheists are opposite in style but, part of the same nature and have some common characteristics. You speak as if you are opposite to religion, but you obey the same natural social laws as them and act relatively the same about your non-belief, which is a belief in non-belief. A style of belief, why aren't you silent about it, and why does it matter to you whether people follow what you are preaching? Isn't this the belief in some type of beneficent factor to what you are doing? I suppose after arguing with you about it, when we finally reach the conclusion that Atheism is a religion, the question is, why is science intelligent? (or why is it correct?)

 

"They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible."

No, for two reasons.

Not all atheists are scientists and science isn't a set of beliefs like the bible- it's a way of organising and challenging beliefs.

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

No, what the God squad usually get banned for is refusing to debate. They refuse to answer valid questions.

In any event, you can only get banned for breaking the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

 

And you are indoctrinating with the knowledge that you use to challenge children's beliefs, you can't hide the fact that your preaching knowledge that you have considered as correct. Again, why is science intelligent? Or why is it correct?

 

"Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power,"

 

You had recently expressed your social power over me when you first posted to this thread to nullify it. In situations where scientists object something and numbers agree, which can often be socially (and often stupidly) conformed, close friends, people are demonized and all powers are abused to remove them, because they are deemed too hot to handle; simply because they don't agree with what you are saying and, you are all pedantic.

 

I don't agree with any of your post.

Edited October 27, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

"But you can relate not collecting stamps with collecting stamps; look at both contexts, one where collecting stamps was significant; someone asks you "do you collect stamps?", you say "no","

And if they ask if I have a religion I say no.

You have forgotten that the only thing atheists have as s defining feature is no belief in God.

"You had recently expressed your social power over me "

I don't have any "social power" I'm just a member of the forum like you are.

"And you are indoctrinating with the knowledge that you use to challenge children's beliefs,"

No, I might be indoctrinating them with the method by which to challenge any set of beliefs, but that's not the same thing.

Any so called "scientific truth" could be overturned tomorrow by evidence.

 

 

Please rewrite this

" In situations where scientists object something and numbers agree, which can often be socially (and often stupidly) conformed, close friends, etc, people are demonized and all powers are abused to remove them because they are deemed to hot to handle, simply because they don't agree with what you are saying and, you are all pedantic."

so I can interpret them.

 

"I don't agree with any of your post."

Feel free to cite evidence.

Edited October 27, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

then you are not 'collecting stamps', a style of collecting stamps in this context.

How can not doing something be a style of doing something? That makes no sense. Is not playing football a sport?

 

why is science intelligent? (or why is it correct?)

Science isn't intelligent or correct.

 

It is a methodology for gathering and testing knowledge. Why do we continue to do it? Because it works. It produces practical and useful results (like your computer and Internet connection).

[s1eep]

"But you can relate not collecting stamps with collecting stamps; look at both contexts, one where collecting stamps was significant; someone asks you "do you collect stamps?", you say "no","

And if they ask if I have a religion I say no.

You have forgotten that the only thing atheists have as s defining feature is no belief in God.

"You had recently expressed your social power over me "

I don't have any "social power" I'm just a member of the forum like you are.

"And you are indoctrinating with the knowledge that you use to challenge children's beliefs,"

No, I might be indoctrinating them with the method by which to challenge any set of beliefs, but that's not the same thing.

Any so called "scientific truth" could be overturned tomorrow by evidence.

 

 

Please rewrite this

" In situations where scientists object something and numbers agree, which can often be socially (and often stupidly) conformed, close friends, etc, people are demonized and all powers are abused to remove them because they are deemed to hot to handle, simply because they don't agree with what you are saying and, you are all pedantic."

so I can interpret them.

 

"I don't agree with any of your post."

Feel free to cite evidence.

address

A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life.

 

How can not doing something be a style of doing something? That makes no sense. Is not playing football a sport?

Science isn't intelligent or correct.

 

It is a methodology for gathering and testing knowledge. Why do we continue to do it? Because it works. It produces practical and useful results (like your computer and Internet connection).

Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style because of it's other potential users. If we are discussing a topic, such as God, then there are those who do and those who don't, such as with stamps. What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps", and following that as a religion. Here, collecting stamps is a significant - it's what you believe against. You're not one of the general public who does not collect stamps; you're someone who has been asked the question "Do you believe in God?" and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God; you are following the answer "I do not believe in God", instead of simply not believing in God. You promote Atheism. You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible.

Edited October 27, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

"Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style "

No, really, just no.

"What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps",

Yes (sort of)

and following that as a religion. "

No.

 

"and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God"

Nope, I never said it disproves God, nor did I say anything else disproved God's existence.

" You promote Atheism."

No, I promote rational thought.

If that trips your religion up then you can either ignore logic and reason, or change religion.

 

". You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible."

​Not really, the death toll is rather lower for a start.

 

BTW, when you say "Address" do you mean 1600 Pennsylvania avenue

or do you want me to address this "A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life."?

 

I can't address that because it doesn't make sense.

"A bark is different from the mind."

What do you mean? the noise a dog makes or the skin of a tree?

Both meanings make the assertion true, but it was never doubted.

"and the mind is different from the heart. "

Again, so what? Nobody said it wasn't.

 

But this

" A word is not a mean between all parts of a human;" simply makes no sense.

the word "mean" used as a noun refers to an average. and an average between things is meaningless.

An average of all the parts of a human would- in a way- mean something, but it's not clear what and it's even less clear what you mean.

 

Similarly " each part stands out in its own light."

Each part of what? The word? The human?
neither option makes sense because neither is a light source.

Did you mean "in it's own right"?

 

This too

You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound.

is Bollocks

Where, other than my mind, could I comprehend a cat?

Word isn't a verb so worded isn't meaningful.

 

I could go on, but really, if you are going to make any progress here you need to stop saying things that are plainly not true like "Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style ", and you are going to have to communicate a lot better.

 

But before you get to those, it might be better if you apologised for making the false allegation against the site.

 

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

[Moontanman]

Before the human pursuit of understanding life, what were humans pursuing?

 

 

Survival...

[Tridimity]

Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style because of it's other potential users. If we are discussing a topic, such as God, then there are those who do and those who don't, such as with stamps. What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps", and following that as a religion. Here, collecting stamps is a significant - it's what you believe against. You're not one of the general public who does not collect stamps; you're someone who has been asked the question "Do you believe in God?" and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God; you are following the answer "I do not believe in God", instead of simply not believing in God. You promote Atheism. You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible.

Imagine two groups of people. Each group is composed of a small number of individuals.

 

Group 1. The people live simply, making their living by tending the land and they are in tune with the seasons, with the stars and so come to recognise patterns and constants within Nature. They do not believe in a Deity and have never considered the possibility of a Deity nor has the concept been suggested to them by others from outside of their close-knit community. If they were to be presented by outsiders with the concept of a Deity (of the kind that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and interventionist), after consideration of the available evidence, they would deem the probability of the existence of such a Deity to approach exceedingly, immeasurably close to 0%.

 

Group 2. Are exactly as in group 1 except for the fact that outsiders have come and proposed to them the concept of a Deity and, as for the hypothetical case in Group 1, the members of Group 2 deny the existence of any Deity on the basis of a total lack of positive evidence for the existence of such a being.

 

Now, would you suggest that the people in group 1 are not religious atheists but that the people in group 2 are religious atheists? There is no difference whatsoever between the two groups in terms of cognitive processes. The only difference is their exposure to an alien philosophy - which is coincidental, it is not an inherent characteristic of any of the people within any of the groups - any more than the asteroid that annihilated the dinosaurs was a characteristic inherent in the dinosaurs themselves - and so cannot be used as a basis for defining the religious identity of the individuals in either group.

 

They are all, in reality, atheists. Atheists are technically extreme agnostics who acknowledge that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a Deity and who recognise that there is zero supporting evidence in favour of the existence of a Deity so their estimation of the probability of the existence of a Deity would be 0.0000[too many zeros to be able to mention]1%. Because it is not possible to express succinctly the actual probability, and being pragmatists, they round it down to 0% and label themselves 'atheist' rather than 'agnostic'. Being agnostic/atheist is the default position, and there would be no such 'position' if it were not for the infiltration of minds with the alien concept of a Deity.

 

You also seem to conflate the terms 'atheist' and 'Scientist'. Actually, some Scientists (the kind I would not trust my life or health with) do believe in the existence of a Deity. And not all atheists have formal education or training in the Sciences, and may not be avid followers of Science, but they have common sense enough to recognise that natural explanations underpin the happenings in this Universe and that there is a dearth of positive evidence for the existence of any Deity.

[s1eep]

"Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style "

No, really, just no.

"What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps",

Yes (sort of)

and following that as a religion. "

No.

 

"and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God"

Nope, I never said it disproves God, nor did I say anything else disproved God's existence.

" You promote Atheism."

No, I promote rational thought.

If that trips your religion up then you can either ignore logic and reason, or change religion.

 

". You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible."

​Not really, the death toll is rather lower for a start.

 

BTW, when you say "Address" do you mean 1600 Pennsylvania avenue

or do you want me to address this "A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life."?

 

I can't address that because it doesn't make sense.

"A bark is different from the mind."

What do you mean? the noise a dog makes or the skin of a tree?

Both meanings make the assertion true, but it was never doubted.

"and the mind is different from the heart. "

Again, so what? Nobody said it wasn't.

 

But this

" A word is not a mean between all parts of a human;" simply makes no sense.

the word "mean" used as a noun refers to an average. and an average between things is meaningless.

An average of all the parts of a human would- in a way- mean something, but it's not clear what and it's even less clear what you mean.

 

Similarly " each part stands out in its own light."

Each part of what? The word? The human?

neither option makes sense because neither is a light source.

Did you mean "in it's own right"?

 

This too

You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound.

is Bollocks

Where, other than my mind, could I comprehend a cat?

Word isn't a verb so worded isn't meaningful.

 

I could go on, but really, if you are going to make any progress here you need to stop saying things that are plainly not true like "Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style ", and you are going to have to communicate a lot better.

 

But before you get to those, it might be better if you apologised for making the false allegation against the site.

 

"On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

A bark is referring to a dogs bark, and when a human produces a sound in word form, it does not magically make the sound the same as the mind, where mind-related processes take place. Therefore, when you process the word in mind, you are processing a sound, and it is not equal to intelligence (which is related to the minds capacity). Intelligence would be something attained through the mind, and not via the tongue. Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something, I'm suggesting you haven't ever comprehended anything, and when you think you're comprehending something it's really nullified non-intelligence. This is because intelligence is to do with the mind and the word is to do with man-made creation. Therefore, words are equal to barks, grunts or whatever it is humans did before they spoke fluent language, but can be repeated which leads them to create the illusion that they are intelligent.

 

Tag each part of your body; each part is different to the other, neither part is the same. What you produce from your mouth is not a medium by which you can connect the mind and the sound, they are both separate individuals. What I'm suggesting is that thinking in words is thinking on the level of your tongue, and not on the level of your head. Thinking in word is not head strong, it is tongue strong. We somehow bond our minds and tongue to create harmony, but we say that people are intelligent if they are educated (i.e. full of words), but words are not head-fodder, they are not the correct material, they are the tongue. Remember the two are separate on your body tags, changing your 'bark' to a word does not make a bark, the mind.

[John Cuthber]

" Therefore, words are equal to barks"

Clearly bollocks or you could have just written

"Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark".

Now I'm not saying that what you wrote made a lot of sense but it's clearly not just "Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark".

 

You are also failing to account for the written language, not to mention those used by people who can't speak.

re "Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something,"

I already told you that word isn't a verb.

If you make up words nobody will be able to understand you.

 

Little of what you said makes sense.

One of the small number of assertions you have made that has a clear meaning is this "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

 

You really should justify it or withdraw it and apologise.

[Strange]

A bark is referring to a dogs bark, and when a human produces a sound in word form, it does not magically make the sound the same as the mind, where mind-related processes take place.

Ferdinand de Saussure said this (and said it much more clearly) over 100 years ago.

 

Therefore, when you process the word in mind, you are processing a sound, and it is not equal to intelligence (which is related to the minds capacity).

Nonsense. When you hear or read the sound, your mind associates it with the concept.

 

I'm suggesting you haven't ever comprehended anything

And you have? Apart from the staggering arrogance of this insult, it doesn't follow from your previous statements.

 

Everyone can use their mind. It is not clear that having ability with language is anything to do with thought so your incoherent use of words is both ironic and irrelevant.

 

You really should learn something about language and/or the way the mind works.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Strange

[Tridimity]

". You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible."

​Not really, the death toll is rather lower for a start.

 

 

Also the sexual abuse toll, the toll of inequality for women, for children and for homosexuals.

 

 

I can't address that because it doesn't make sense.

"A bark is different from the mind."

What do you mean? the noise a dog makes or the skin of a tree?

Both meanings make the assertion true, but it was never doubted.

"and the mind is different from the heart. "

Again, so what? Nobody said it wasn't.

 

But this

" A word is not a mean between all parts of a human;" simply makes no sense.

the word "mean" used as a noun refers to an average. and an average between things is meaningless.

An average of all the parts of a human would- in a way- mean something, but it's not clear what and it's even less clear what you mean.

 

Similarly " each part stands out in its own light."

Each part of what? The word? The human?

neither option makes sense because neither is a light source.

Did you mean "in it's own right"?

 

This too

You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound.

is Bollocks

Where, other than my mind, could I comprehend a cat?

Word isn't a verb so worded isn't meaningful.

 

 

S1eep’s posts smack of postmodernism, wherein the longer the sentences you use and the less you are understood by your readers, the more profound your thinking must be. Which makes about as much sense as s1eep’s posts.

 

Reminds me of this:

 

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

This is a quotation from the psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, one of many fashionable French 'intellectuals' outed by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their splendid book Intellectual Impostures, previously published in French and now released in a completely rewritten and revised English edition. Guattari goes on indefinitely in this vein and offers, in the opinion of Sokal and Bricmont, "the most brilliant mélange of scientific, pseudo-scientific and philosophical jargon that we have ever encountered". Guattari's close collaborator, the late Gilles Deleuze, had a similar talent for writing:

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

This calls to mind Peter Medawar's earlier characterization of a certain type of French intellectual style (note, in passing, the contrast offered by Medawar's own elegant and clear prose):

Style has become an object of first importance, and what a style it is! For me it has a prancing, high-stepping quality, full of self-importance; elevated indeed, but in the balletic manner, and stopping from time to time in studied attitudes, as if awaiting an outburst of applause. It has had a deplorable influence on the quality of modern thought...

Returning to attack the same targets from another angle, Medawar says:

I could quote evidence of the beginnings of a whispering campaign against the virtues of clarity. A writer on structuralism in the Times Literary Supplement has suggested that thoughts which are confused and tortuous by reason of their profundity are most appropriately expressed in prose that is deliberately unclear. What a preposterously silly idea! I am reminded of an air-raid warden in wartime Oxford who, when bright moonlight seemed to be defeating the spirit of the blackout, exhorted us to wear dark glasses. He, however, was being funny on purpose.

 

 

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

Edited October 27, 2013 by Tridimity

[John Cuthber]

Postmodernism might explain it. Especially in consort with the absolute certainty people have when they feel that God is on their side.

Edited October 27, 2013 by John Cuthber

[s1eep]

" Therefore, words are equal to barks"

Clearly bollocks or you could have just written

"Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark".

Now I'm not saying that what you wrote made a lot of sense but it's clearly not just "Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark".

 

You are also failing to account for the written language, not to mention those used by people who can't speak.

re "Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something,"

I already told you that word isn't a verb.

If you make up words nobody will be able to understand you.

 

Little of what you said makes sense.

One of the small number of assertions you have made that has a clear meaning is this "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

 

You really should justify it or withdraw it and apologise.

The words I say are supported by other words, that's why they make more sense than simply "bark, bark, bark" because you associate words with other words. From the perspective of the mind, it's still equal to "bark, bark, bark" but we have conditioned our tongues to continue barking, and we lose ourselves in the bark, claiming that the barks are intelligent because we can bark them (which is more like an impulse or feeling combined with the sound). We simply make sounds and because the sounds are in harmony with other sounds, they create the illusion that they make greater sense than just a sound. This is because we could naturally use our emotions to communicate to ourselves, and govern our minds. When we say a word, we also communicate with the word using our emotions/sensory, this is why sometimes when the word "water" is used, someone may imagine an image of water; because we can use our emotions to communicate with ourselves and this is the natural wordless communication we used prior to the word - using the actual being of water. The word water is a simple bark, the reactions we have when water are said are more than that, the words do something, but by no means is a collection of words intelligence, in the same way a collection of barks is not intelligent - they are simply sound, and sound is not the mind or mind-fodder. They have ability, they do something, they have intelligence of their own, but I believe it's lesser than human intelligence, which is made out of 3D, or the actual living beings instead of their nullified word form. All knowledge gained through sensory/emotional data, all intelligence is sensory/emotional-related.

Edited October 27, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

The words I say are supported by other words, that's why they make more sense than simply "bark, bark, bark" because you associate words with other words.

Nonsense. It is because the mind associates words with concepts. (Otherwise words would just be sounds).

 

This is because we could naturally use our emotions to communicate to ourselves, and govern our minds.

Really? Why aren't you doing that then? Why are you using these words that you have such a low opinion of?

 

All knowledge gained through sensory/emotional data, all intelligence is sensory/emotional-related.

This is very obviously wrong. Would you like to provide some supporting evidence.

[s1eep]

Nonsense. It is because the mind associates words with concepts. (Otherwise words would just be sounds).

Really? Why aren't you doing that then? Why are you using these words that you have such a low opinion of?

This is very obviously wrong. Would you like to provide some supporting evidence.

And after I read these words, the only way to make sense out of them is to use more words.

 

Because I have a word-virus and the word is a major abstraction in my life.

 

Because that's the only knowledge we have of the actual beings of things, sensory and feelings. As said, the word is equal to a bark.

[Strange]

Because that's the only knowledge we have of the actual beings of things, sensory and feelings. As said, the word is equal to a bark.

You might be surprised to know that the computer you are using was not made possible by a bunch of people getting in touch with their emotions to understand "the actual beings of things".

 

In contrast it was developed by people working together who used a rational process of gathering information, who communicated using words and math to produce useful results. If they had just been barking at each other then they wouldn't have made much progress. I therefore have to conclude you are not serious (or are seriously deluded about how people communicate).

 

Can you design a computer by crying? No. Can you send your emotions through the keyboard to my screen? Only by using words. Words are a useful way of gathering and communicating information (as we are doing now). Emotions aren't.

[Tridimity]

And after I read these words, the only way to make sense out of them is to use more words.

 

Because I have a word-virus and the word is a major abstraction in my life.

 

Because that's the only knowledge we have of the actual beings of things, sensory and feelings. As said, the word is equal to a bark.

 

Of course the use of language involves abstraction.

 

If our language is such a hindrance as you seem to suggest, perhaps you might provide an alternative way of, for example, communicating to a pupil the History of the Second World War. How would you exchange ideas with the pupil, not only providing information but also assessing their understanding and debating with them the significance of various historical events?

 

One massive reel of images?

 

Note: if you do not accept this challenge, it will be assumed that you are not up to the challenge and that your assertions are groundless.

 

I look forward to your (almost certainly non-existent) contribution.