Do Humans Have A Word-Virus?

[pears]

 

Personally, while I understand the point that theistic scientists are able to compartmentalise their cognitive processes in this way, and so the vast majority of theistic scientists are good scientists and safe practitioners of Medicine - I would be relucantant to place trust in somebody who compartmentalises in this way. If you visited your Doctor's surgery and they mentioned that 9-5 they choose to think like Tommy but on work nights and weekends they choose to think like Harold, would you still trust them? Most people displaying the compartmentalisation of multiple personality disorder are pitied and possibly medicated - not so if they happen to visit Church on a Sunday.

 

Are you saying that theists who are doctors have multiple personality disorder? What definition of multiple personailty disorder are you using? Is it one used in mainstream psychiatry?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Whilst the concept of theistic scientists and a necessary cognitive disconnect is fascinating it is not the topic of the thread. If you want to continue please do so in a new thread or in the pre-existing thread on theistic scientists. Thanks

 

[s1eep]

I don't think anyone has discussed properly the original topic that I posted about a word-virus, and people have simply nullified what I said with pieces of partial evidence. I've provided a good reason for why words are not a form of intelligence, and it supports why there is a word-virus which is the purpose of this thread. When we were discussing barks, I think I made the sound judgement that any word is equal to a bark, but words can be amplified by other words which leads to words having functions; but that does not escape the fact it is not mind-fodder, it is word-fodder. We are more intelligent than the word -- a humans wisdom is above the word. And I don't believe any of the evidence you supplied has any relevance, and all of your replies were wordplay. I can't understand how you can't understand how humans and animals are different because humans use pre-defined words and other animals do not. I don't believe scientists should have reputation for intelligence, but rather, a particular skill. Science is not beneficent for future generations and the prosperity of Earth life (which is key for our survival and reproduction). I think great meaning to life is overlooked and most intellectuals are arrogant and egotistical.

Edited October 30, 2013 by s1eep

[Arete]

I don't think anyone has discussed properly the original topic that I posted about a word-virus

 

Are you actually suggesting that the ability of humans to converse is a symptom of a viral infection? Otherwise it would appear that you've used the word in a metaphorical sense without actually defining the context - making it difficult to discuss your ideas in a "proper context".

[s1eep]

 

Are you actually suggesting that the ability of humans to converse is a symptom of a viral infection? Otherwise it would appear that you've used the word in a metaphorical sense without actually defining the context - making it difficult to discuss your ideas in a "proper context".

I'm saying it's an inability to communicate naturally, and wordlessly, like the rest of known nature.

[Strange]

I'm saying it's an inability to communicate naturally, and wordlessly, like the rest of known nature.

We can communicate better than (probably) any other species.

 

Other animals can tell others where food is to be found (or lie about it). They can express emotions and sound warnings. But ot an awful lot more.

We can tell stories, write poetry, pass on technical and scientific information. All through the use of words. The development of language is one of the key things that makes it possible for you to have the technology to have this conversation (using words).

 

But feel free to go back to just barking at people. Let us know how that works out for you.

[Moontanman]

I'm saying it's an inability to communicate naturally, and wordlessly, like the rest of known nature.

How do you know "known nature" communicates wordlessly?

[s1eep]

No other species idealizes written and spoken words in the same manner as Humans. A Dolphin may use sound to confirm action, but this is based on common feelings in another Dolphin, because they are the same species they have similar functions and associations; these aren't defined words, the Dolphin's character is the definition. When a Dolphin sounds, and says what humans would translate as "Yes", to another Dolphin, it does not mean a word-based definition, the Dolphin is using the naming ability. It is expressing 'You are this one," based on it's own character or imagination. It's probably routing memories and sensory data - because they have similar builds, they often act in similar ways, and a bond can be made where a sound or movement expresses meaning that they both can understand. This is not like humans, humans use a word such as "Hello", and it's definition is defined in a dictionary; it is different to "Myrrh," said by a Dolphin to socialize with another Dolphin. One uses a worded definition, and the other uses a wordless definition, and therefore; they both are forms of communication but one is used tactically. The Dolphin makes tactical use of sound. Humans abandon tactics and lose themselves in the words proclaimed beauty (or it's power over them; they conform to it).

A Dolphin knows it's above the word; most humans do not know that they are above the word.

 

Why is word communication considered important? Sure it has it's perks, it is cool in it's own right, but how is speaking in word more intelligent than being wordless and using sound tactically like the Dolphin. We wouldn't be able to interact with some of reality, but if it was true that the word was evil, parents would be obligated to teach their children the truth so that they lived naturally. Humanity comes before man-made reality. It's obviously true that if the world was wordless like it's supposed to be, it would be bound for greater things than what Human's can create with their craftsmanship. Greater vessels than the Human body, greater senses and abilities. Nature was only improving, we are an evil menace to Nature, we nullify harmony with our word stupidities.

The point still stands. A bark is not equal to the mind, whether or not it has a definition. Word knowledge is not knowledge understood by the mind, it is worded by the word. The word and life are made out of different fabrics, you can sense the Sun, you can feel the Sun, but you cannot comprehend the Sun in mind, like the mouth as it eats food. The word, "Sun," does not make the Sun comprehensible - the word, "Sun," is not the Sun, and when comprehending the word "Sun", you do not comprehend the Sun or the word, you marvel in the glory of the word, and how technical it is. The only reason words make sense is that you are word-based yourself; because you can say "Yes," like the Dolphin after you have read it to confirm it's understood, but understanding is merely a simple smile, for crediting words are cool. They are not cool. You enjoy the feeling of power that comes with sensing the word. You're never really not sensing and feeling, even the word is treated how a natural subject would be treated, it simply shouldn't be at the command of human intelligence.

Edited October 30, 2013 by s1eep

[swansont]

No other species idealizes written and spoken words in the same manner as Humans. A Dolphin may use sound to confirm action, but this is based on common feelings in another Dolphin, because they are the same species they have similar functions and associations; these aren't defined words, the Dolphin's character is the definition. When a Dolphin sounds, and says what humans would translate as "Yes", to another Dolphin, it does not mean a word-based definition, the Dolphin is using the naming ability. It is expressing 'You are this one," based on it's own character or imagination. It's probably routing memories and sensory data - because they have similar builds, they often act in similar ways, and a bond can be made where a sound or movement expresses meaning that they both can understand. This is not like humans, humans use a word such as "Hello", and it's definition is defined in a dictionary; it is different to "Myrrh," said by a Dolphin to socialize with another Dolphin. One uses a worded definition, and the other uses a wordless definition, and therefore; they both are forms of communication but one is used tactically. The Dolphin makes tactical use of sound. Humans abandon tactics and lose themselves in the words proclaimed beauty (or it's power over them; they conform to it).

 

A Dolphin knows it's above the word; most humans do not know that they are above the word.

 

Why is word communication considered important? Sure it has it's perks, it is cool in it's own right, but how is speaking in word more intelligent than being wordless and using sound tactically like the Dolphin. We wouldn't be able to interact with some of reality, but if it was true that the word was evil, parents would be obligated to teach their children the truth so that they lived naturally. Humanity comes before man-made reality. It's obviously true that if the world was wordless like it's supposed to be, it would be bound for greater things than what Human's can create with their craftsmanship. Greater vessels than the Human body, greater senses and abilities. Nature was only improving, we are an evil menace to Nature, we nullify harmony with our word stupidities.

 

The point still stands. A bark is not equal to the mind, whether or not it has a definition. Word knowledge is not knowledge understood by the mind, it is worded by the word. The word and life are made out of different fabrics, you can sense the Sun, you can feel the Sun, but you cannot comprehend the Sun in mind, like the mouth as it eats food. The word, "Sun," does not make the Sun comprehensible - the word, "Sun," is not the Sun, and when comprehending the word "Sun", you do not comprehend the Sun or the word, you marvel in the glory of the word, and how technical it is. The only reason words make sense is that you are word-based yourself; because you can say "Yes," like the Dolphin after you have read it to confirm it's understood, but understanding is merely a simple smile, for crediting words are cool. They are not cool. You enjoy the feeling of power that comes with sensing the word. You're never really not sensing and feeling, even the word is treated how a natural subject would be treated, it simply shouldn't be at the command of human intelligence.

 

I see a lot of claims, both here and in previous posts, and no supporting documentation for them, even after they've been challenged. That's really not keeping with a scientific-based discussion. Here you've made some claims about dolphin communication, which has certainly been studied, so perhaps you could back your assertions up with some links to studies that support them?

[s1eep]

 

I see a lot of claims, both here and in previous posts, and no supporting documentation for them, even after they've been challenged. That's really not keeping with a scientific-based discussion. Here you've made some claims about dolphin communication, which has certainly been studied, so perhaps you could back your assertions up with some links to studies that support them?

This is knowledge I gained through my own observation of nature, and that discussion is a sub-discussion, it's not the point at hand. I gave a good reason for why the word is not mind-fodder that still hasn't been addressed.

[Strange]

I gave a good reason for why the word is not mind-fodder that still hasn't been addressed.

 

I haven't seen any good reasons. You have made some confused and half-baked claims, which are unsupported by any evidence and contradict reality. For example, you claim that the power of our language, which has enabled our culture and technology, is somehow inferior to meaningless grunts.

[s1eep]

 

I haven't seen any good reasons. You have made some confused and half-baked claims, which are unsupported by any evidence and contradict reality. For example, you claim that the power of our language, which has enabled our culture and technology, is somehow inferior to meaningless grunts.

No, I'm stating that to the mind it is meaningless, you clearly haven't read what I stated properly, you've lost yourself in the copious amounts of wordplay you and friends delivered. How does a bark become equal to the mind for barks to be classed as intelligence? And the word "Sun" is not the actual Sun, and humans cannot comprehend the Sun, we can merely sense and feel with it. These are definite statements you have dodged time and time again. You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts.

[Strange]

No, I'm stating that to the mind it is meaningless

 

To the mind what is meaningless?

 

 

you clearly haven't read what I stated properly

 

Or maybe you are just not able to express your thoughts very clearly.

 

 

How does a bark become equal to the mind for barks to be classed as intelligence?

 

What does that mean? A bark isn't equal to the mind. And a bark isn't classed as intelligence.

 

And you wonder why people don't understand you?

 

 

And the word "Sun" is not the actual Sun

 

Of course not. Have I mentioned Saussure? This is not exactly news.

 

 

and humans cannot comprehend the Sun, we can merely sense and feel with it.

 

We can also make measurements, exchange ideas (you know, using those "word" things) and develop complex theories about how it works.

 

What do you mean by "comprehend"? Because we seem to be doing a pretty good job of perceiving and understanding it.

 

 

You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts.

 

That might be because it is pretty much impossible to know what that is.

[s1eep]

 

To the mind what is meaningless?

 

 

Or maybe you are just not able to express your thoughts very clearly.

 

 

What does that mean? A bark isn't equal to the mind. And a bark isn't classed as intelligence.

 

And you wonder why people don't understand you?

 

 

Of course not. Have I mentioned Saussure? This is not exactly news.

 

 

We can also make measurements, exchange ideas (you know, using those "word" things) and develop complex theories about how it works.

 

What do you mean by "comprehend"? Because we seem to be doing a pretty good job of perceiving and understanding it.

 

 

That might be because it is pretty much impossible to know what that is.

People believe intelligence can be a collection of words, but there is no difference between a collection of words and a collection of barks. A word is like a twisted bark, it's a bark that we believe to have meaning above a bark because of other words that support that notion. No matter how intelligent you are word-wise, it's not natural intelligence. This means you never really are intelligent, because words do not create intelligence, actual objects are the only forms we can consume to increase our intelligence. Words are egotistical. Yet again I'll mention, they have their technical details, they do function in their own right, but the way that they function with humans is unnatural, and it's life-destruction. A collection of barks is not really intelligent, then why are people with collected barks in their mind considered intelligent? Because what they produce is cool? Is that how intelligence is judged, coolness? You're in love with the word too much to debate. You keep beating around the bush, and insulting me with irrelevant analogies.

 

No matter what the word has produced, it is nothing in comparison to what nature can produce (i.e. humans, animals, water). The word can look good and still be false. I don't care how good it looks, if it is not true intelligence, then I won't consider it as such. Let me remind you, barks do not equal the mind, word intelligence is not brain intelligence - we are slaves to the word to consider it as true intelligence. There's so much you don't know.

[Strange]

People believe intelligence can be a collection of words

 

Do they? Who thinks that? That is a very strange idea. Intelligence is a function of the mind - human and animal. Which rather implies it has nothing to do with words.

 

This seems to be a strawman argument.

 

 

There's so much you don't know.

 

Well, I don't know what you are on about. None of that made any sense. Maybe you have a problem with words.

[Tridimity]

word intelligence is not brain intelligence - we are slaves to the word to consider it as true intelligence

 

 

People think in terms of mental images/imagination/numbers/abstract concepts. Language is the means by which these ideas are exchanged. Nobody is suggesting that the language itself supercedes the original thought, but to fail to make use of our most efficient means of communicating ideas (language) would certainly not be intelligent.

 

So what is the point of your argument exactly, s1eep?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Tridimity

[Arete]

So to cut through your - for a lack of a better word for made up terms - gibberish, you are claiming that verbal communication in humans is:

 

a) unnatural.

b) intrinsically bad/evil

c) unintelligible

 

is this correct?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Arete

[arc]

People believe intelligence can be a collection of words, but there is no difference between a collection of words and a collection of barks. A word is like a twisted bark, it's a bark that we believe to have meaning above a bark because of other words that support that notion. No matter how intelligent you are word-wise, it's not natural intelligence. This means you never really are intelligent, because words do not create intelligence, actual objects are the only forms we can consume to increase our intelligence. Words are egotistical. Yet again I'll mention, they have their technical details, they do function in their own right, but the way that they function with humans is unnatural, and it's life-destruction. A collection of barks is not really intelligent, then why are people with collected barks in their mind considered intelligent? Because what they produce is cool? Is that how intelligence is judged, coolness? You're in love with the word too much to debate. You keep beating around the bush, and insulting me with irrelevant analogies.

 

No matter what the word has produced, it is nothing in comparison to what nature can produce (i.e. humans, animals, water). The word can look good and still be false. I don't care how good it looks, if it is not true intelligence, then I won't consider it as such. Let me remind you, barks do not equal the mind, word intelligence is not brain intelligence - we are slaves to the word to consider it as true intelligence. There's so much you don't know.

 

 

So to cut through your - for a lack of a better word for made up terms - gibberish, you are claiming that verbal communication in humans is:

 

a) unnatural.

b) intrinsically bad/evil

c) unintelligible

 

is this correct?

 

This sounds philosophically familiar.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

 

Kaczynski "attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions." . . . . .

 

Kaczynski goes on to claim that "n modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives." Among these drives are "surrogate activities", activities "directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 'fulfillment' that they get from pursuing the goal". He argues that these surrogate activities are not as satisfactory as the attainment of "real goals" for "many, if not most people". . . . . .

 

He claims that scientific research is a surrogate activity for scientists, and that for this reason "science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research."

 

​I'm only saying philosophically familiar in an anti science or anti modern societal way, I'm not casting aspersions. O.K.

[s1eep]

 

 

 

This sounds philosophically familiar.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

 

Kaczynski "attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions." . . . . .

 

Kaczynski goes on to claim that "n modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives." Among these drives are "surrogate activities", activities "directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 'fulfillment' that they get from pursuing the goal". He argues that these surrogate activities are not as satisfactory as the attainment of "real goals" for "many, if not most people". . . . . .

 

He claims that scientific research is a surrogate activity for scientists, and that for this reason "science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research."

 

​I'm only saying philosophically familiar in an anti science or anti modern societal way, I'm not casting aspersions. O.K.

This is the only good reply so far, and the reason he believes it's a surrogate activity is the reason I think science shouldn't be classed with human intelligence.

[Tridimity]

This is the only good reply so far

 

 

I notice that you do not bother to respond to any of the questions or comments posed by members regarding the utility of language as a means of communication and the separation of language and thought. You deem the above to be the best comment precisely because it is in line with your preconceived ideas. What I don't understand is, if you were merely looking for a mirror to reinforce your own views rather than to learn something from the inevitable differences of opinion, then why did you bother to come to a discussion Forum?

[s1eep]

 

I notice that you do not bother to respond to any of the questions or comments posed by members regarding the utility of language as a means of communication and the separation of language and thought. You deem the above to be the best comment precisely because it is in line with your preconceived ideas. What I don't understand is, if you were merely looking for a mirror to reinforce your own views rather than to learn something from the inevitable differences of opinion, then why did you bother to come to a discussion Forum?

You do not discuss, you insult and nullify what I say. Your response is best left alone, since it only confuses and misleads those like the poster who I said was good (the types a discussion can come from).

[Strange]

This is the only good reply so far, and the reason he believes it's a surrogate activity is the reason I think science shouldn't be classed with human intelligence.

 

It is a pertty damning indictment of your thought processes to say you agree with Kaczynski.

 

your response is best left alone, since it only confuses and misleads

 

You are doing a splendid job of confusing and misleading people all by yourself.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Strange

[s1eep]

 

It is a pertty damning indictment of your thought processes to say you agree with Kaczynski.

 

 

You are doing a splendid job of confusing and misleading people all by yourself.

Another cowardly and pointless nullification.

[Phi for All]

Another cowardly and pointless nullification.

!

Moderator Note

s1eep, you've made several assertions which you've haven't supported with any evidence. You've been asked several very specific questions which you've avoided as well. You need to provide support for your ideas if you're going to assert them so strongly.

 

And finally, you can't accuse others of "pointless nullification" when they're reduced to refuting you for lack of evidence. You've been ducking the issue by simply claiming, "You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts" or "There's so much you don't know" or even that it's not your fault people can't understand your perfect explanations because they're still using "words" and "definitions" that you don't want them to.

 

In short, your explanations rely solely on you being already correct. You're asking others to assume that and you're getting defensive when they don't. Your style is to preach instead of discuss, and nobody else is here for that. You make your claims on how things are and then sneer when anyone attempts to question you.

 

I'm not sure you can change. If you can, you are certainly welcome to stay and discuss. If all your threads are going to be like this one, you're going to waste a lot of your time. You should really think about starting a blog somewhere, where that style might attract those who just want to read and agree/disagree with you, rather than talk to you about your ideas.

 

I'll leave this open for now, but the thread will be closed if it continues like this.

[s1eep]

!

Moderator Note

s1eep, you've made several assertions which you've haven't supported with any evidence. You've been asked several very specific questions which you've avoided as well. You need to provide support for your ideas if you're going to assert them so strongly.

 

And finally, you can't accuse others of "pointless nullification" when they're reduced to refuting you for lack of evidence. You've been ducking the issue by simply claiming, "You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts" or "There's so much you don't know" or even that it's not your fault people can't understand your perfect explanations because they're still using "words" and "definitions" that you don't want them to.

 

In short, your explanations rely solely on you being already correct. You're asking others to assume that and you're getting defensive when they don't. Your style is to preach instead of discuss, and nobody else is here for that. You make your claims on how things are and then sneer when anyone attempts to question you.

 

I'm not sure you can change. If you can, you are certainly welcome to stay and discuss. If all your threads are going to be like this one, you're going to waste a lot of your time. You should really think about starting a blog somewhere, where that style might attract those who just want to read and agree/disagree with you, rather than talk to you about your ideas.

 

I'll leave this open for now, but the thread will be closed if it continues like this.

I think I have provided enough evidence; you can use yourself to find out how the sound made from our mouths is not mind-equal. It's not lack of evidence, it's lack of effort to reason with evidence. In short, I think that's all the evidence I need to suggest that there is a word-virus - there is obviously more evidence, such as thinking with the tongue and treating it as thinking in the head. If posters spent the time to reason with my semantics instead of picking them apart, one, they would be understood with greater ease, and two, a discussion would possibly emerge. Isn't it pedantic mind control to send me in the direction of work when a strong point has been made already that's been nullified (that is the reason it's not considered strong). The poster I said was good, really considered the semantics and the point at hand. The others have criticized particular parts of my post but never really touched on the main point of a word-virus.

 

I will not repeat, but when I said barks do not equal the mind, I think I provided enough evidence to suggest that humans have a word-virus, because that sort of intelligence is not correct (or natural as I acclaimed).

 

EDIT: What I'm really asking is "Prove this wrong" (referring to my barks not equaling the mind statement).

Edited October 31, 2013 by s1eep