Thinking without language?
fell_followedby_in at one.net.au
Sun Nov 28 15:34:02 EST 1999
You are not wrong.
Wrong one thing to the other, one of your main "intellectual signatures" is
that you hold forth that everything about brains boils down to the 2nd law
of thermodynamics; no wonder then, that people quickly become luke-warm ;-)
to your theoretical outline/effort (A0K).
Consider 10mg/day of Thorazine (a drug whose effect includes that it
generally diminishes the by stressors/Pain/CURSES maintained raised volum of
activity of the reticular activating system). Observe how you then feel and
think. You might even then be able to re-integrate - bit by bit - the
imprints of in at least principle and in general easily specifiable
Hibernation-imploring type life-situations (previously in your life),
provided a secure and otherwise conducive social setting.
Check out http://188.8.131.52
(but be careful)
but this one should be sadly sound and certain (althoug i have not read it
And remember one can be intellucually smart and "have come to be
driven/insidiously motivated into following less than ideal ideational
tracks" AT THE SAME TIME!
All the best to you!
kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:383FA02A.9EA16F1A at earthlink.net...
> "Sir Knowitall" wrote:
> > Greg Lee <lee at Hawaii.edu> wrote in message
> > news:81m4ck$b0s$3 at news.hawaii.edu...
> > > In sci.lang \"Sir Knowitall\" <fell_followedby_in at one.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > : It is, I maintain, impossible to be equally aware at the same time
> > (really
> > > : focused and vividly conscious of two activities of two
> > "hardware"-absorbing
> > > : activites) of any two distinctly different sensory-motor contents
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Why do you seem to yourself to be a single person instead of many?
> > Possible
> > > answer: you can only recall being vividly conscious of one thing at a
> > > (even though you might have actually been conscious of several). I
> > > you should consider the possibility that people really differ in how
> > > they can divide their consciousness and how well they can
> > > recollect doing so.
> > We probably don't define/mean consciousness the same way.
> > By the way, (re the subject of this thread) it is possible to think
> > lingually more or less well (as in beneficially in some way,
> > encompassingly, etc.).
> yes, but such occurs as a function of shared understanding. when folks
> understand, one can discuss 'with great eloquence'. but when folks don't
> understand what one's talking about, no matter what one does, one seems to
> communicating 'inefficiently'.
> it's some of why folks 'move away from' New stuff. (this's all discussed
> it's only relatively-small novelty that's 'attractive'.
More information about the Neur-sci