Thinking without language?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 30 05:14:54 EST 1999


yeah, sure. K. P. Collins

"Sir Knowitall" wrote:

> 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://204.177.13.59
>
> http://www.primalinstitute.com/
>
> http://home.att.net/~jspeyrer/index.html
>
> (but be careful)
>
> but this one should be sadly sound and certain (althoug i have not read it
> thoroughly yet)
> http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/neurosis.html
>
> 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!
>
> Peter
>
> 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
> of/at
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > 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
> time
> > > > (even though you might have actually been conscious of several).  I
> think
> > > > 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,
> efficiently,
> > > 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
> be
> > communicating 'inefficiently'.
> >
> > it's some of why folks 'move away from' New stuff. (this's all discussed
> in AoK,
> > BTW.)
> >
> > it's only relatively-small novelty that's 'attractive'.
> >
> > ken
> >
> >








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list