RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 8:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Not rocket science at all . . . . merely your refusal to accept that your cat responds to a rewarding stimulus . . . . and instead your desire to project human cognitive abilities into the brain of said cat. . . . . I wonder if when your cat is distraught do you take her for a session of psychoanalysis to revamp her fucked about concepts? If I assert that the Bengal finch has a concept of grammar, that's not anthropomorphization or ascribing human thought to it. Stop projecting human ideas onto animals as a way to assert they don't conform to those ideas. IWYW, — Aswad.

mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 8:55:36 AM)
When my daughter was very young, she had about 15 nuclear devices (pacifiers) I would set her in her highchair in the morning, and pick one and put it on her tray (different coloars every one).. She would sail that bitch across the room...put another one on her tray and I WOLD SAY....wrong kind? and we would repeat that until she got the one she wanted, and it was not always the same one, depended on the mood. When she started trying out the language end of it, she would heft them hence, and yell very loudly at me, KIND!!!!!! and I did not need to ask the question anymore, and we would play that out, until she could describe colors. I got the gimmick, she got the gimmick, we got the gimmick, long before language.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 8:59:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I got the gimmick, she got the gimmick, we got the gimmick, long before language. And some won't get it, long after language. Love the way you break things down, Ron. You pick your audiences better, too. IWYW, — Aswad.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 9:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If you stand in a crowd of chinese people who speak no English at all and you go bouncing up & down trying to peer over the people in front of you, don't you think they know you can't see?? I have heard of 'holy rollers' and 'speaking in tongues' but this is the first I have been aware of anyone worshiping a diety by jumping up and down. But then perhaps I have lead a sheltered life [:D][:D] It had nothing to do with worshipping a deity at all. It has everything to do with the notion/concept of being able to convey a meaning without language. The gesture would have no meaning without the concept already formed in the vocabulary of the observers. You can communicate quite well with a tribesman that has no formal lanuage and achieve the same results. You can do similar things with primates and other animals too. And as I mentioned before in a previous post - even simple-minded fish can use posturing to convery a message. Are you now trying to say that even a goldfish has a vocabulary and a concept of language in order to gesture to another goldfish that they aren't wanted in their territory?? I don't think so! Now that is pushing the boat out!!

mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 9:03:46 AM)
Thanks al-Aswad, and now to put the coup de gras on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-nzQg97uUs Cuz I am mordant like that.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 9:10:32 AM)
See? Right audience. [:D] Thanks, Ron.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 10:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So it's a matter of interpretation now is it? I remind you that the relevant post in full was: "It may be of interest to some that the first verse of John's Gospel is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1 (NIV) "" And I'll remind you, in turn, that the post as it actually appeared was: It may be of interest to some that the first verse of John's Gospel is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word* was with God, and the Word was God." John 1 (NIV) Note the bolding for emphasis, which you decided to remove. In the context of this discussion, I think it fairly transparent that you imagined the verse relevant to your claim about the primacy of language. quote:* ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There is sweet fuck all interpretation happening there. Of course there is. You are interpreting the text literally. And unfortunately for you, the "Word" in that verse has (to adopt your turn of phrase) sweet fuck all to do with language. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 10:42:34 AM)
quote: Are you now trying to say that even a goldfish has a vocabulary and a concept of language in order to gesture to another goldfish that they aren't wanted in their territory?? I don't think so! Instinct, man. FFS!!![8\|]

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 10:51:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Are you now trying to say that even a goldfish has a vocabulary and a concept of language in order to gesture to another goldfish that they aren't wanted in their territory?? I don't think so! Instinct, man. FFS!!![8\|] No, not just instinct. I have two mandarins, different genus and markings, one male, one female. Some days she will let him into her space, some days they actually swim together and feed together. I swear there are days when they are actually playing together. Other days she won't let him near her. That's not instinct... that is making a concious decision and showing it by gesture. That aside, instinct and ways to convey your message doesn't need any understanding or comprehension of a language.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 10:53:52 AM)
quote: If I assert that the Bengal finch has a concept of grammar, that's not anthropomorphization or ascribing human thought to it. It is if the assertion is untrue. Anthropomorphizing is not limited to ascribing human thought.

Moonhead -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 10:57:19 AM)
Anthropomorphisation can thoroughly mask our understanding of other species behaviour. Just look at the ridiculous spin that used to be put on the organisation of lion prides until quite recently...

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:06:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That aside, instinct and ways to convey your message doesn't need any understanding or comprehension of a language. But that action/reaction is a long way from concept formation. Until you can show me otherwise I will go with 'concept' as Tweak defined it in #220: "However this discussion has been clearly about a concept as a product of a language-enabled mind from the beginning. A concept is a human abstraction that only exists at its point of origin inside someone's head. The only way it can exist outside of a human head is through its symbolic representation (most commonly in language)."

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML That is the game Kirata plays. He withholds his own reasoning and quotes at length from some 'authoritative' textbook or article, but when challenged as above he ignores the challenge or finds some snippet to snark at. A totally disingenuous method of discourse. Please disabuse yourself of the peculiar notion that fatally flawed questions nevertheless demand answers. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:23:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML That is the game Kirata plays. He withholds his own reasoning and quotes at length from some 'authoritative' textbook or article, but when challenged as above he ignores the challenge or finds some snippet to snark at. A totally disingenuous method of discourse. Please disabuse yourself of the peculiar notion that fatally flawed questions nevertheless demand answers. K. You make my point . . . nothing but snark and jive. Feel free to lay out a cogent case for your pov whatever it is, without dodging the question by holding others' questions in contempt and without resorting to argument by authority.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Feel free to lay out a cogent case for your pov whatever it is... You have a habit of dismissing facts as merely someone's "point of view." I suggest you pursue getting yourself a contract for a Sunday morning television show. Don't forget to do your hair. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Feel free to lay out a cogent case for your pov whatever it is... You have a habit of dismissing facts as merely someone's "point of view." I suggest you pursue getting yourself a contract for a Sunday morning television show. Don't forget to do your hair. K. Again you shuck and dodge. Really, have you nothing to say? What are your facts then? Happy to give them my attention.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:44:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That aside, instinct and ways to convey your message doesn't need any understanding or comprehension of a language. But that action/reaction is a long way from concept formation. Until you can show me otherwise I will go with 'concept' as Tweak defined it in #220: "However this discussion has been clearly about a concept as a product of a language-enabled mind from the beginning. A concept is a human abstraction that only exists at its point of origin inside someone's head. The only way it can exist outside of a human head is through its symbolic representation (most commonly in language)." What I described was not just action/reaction. Or maybe you can't see that?? You are entitled to your opinion. I, on the other hand, have the opposite view. You can no more more prove your point to me than I can mine to you. Until there is proof positive, one way or the other, that both sides will accept, then either view can be no more nor less than the other's and doesn't make any one opinion any less valid than the other.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:47:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Again you shuck and dodge... What are your facts then? Happy to give them my attention. You have never given a fact your attention since I've known you, and this thread stands as evidence that you intend to maintain that policy. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:06:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Again you shuck and dodge... What are your facts then? Happy to give them my attention. You have never given a fact your attention since I've known you, and this thread stands as evidence that you intend to maintain that policy. K. Then, you really have nothing of substance to add to the discourse. Pathetic.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Then, you really have nothing of substance to add to the discourse. Not from your point of view, no. Sorry about that. [:D] K.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875