Thinking without language?
chows at dontspam.me.ozemail.com.au
Thu Jan 20 02:09:01 EST 2000
"Rick Wojcik" <rwojcik at gte.net> wrote in message
news:388664FB.C826F9D0 at gte.net...
> Leo Smith wrote:
> > Rick Wojcik wrote:
> > > Read the question. If you define thinking as a silent exercise
> > > in language, then you have just begged the question.
> > I do. There. So the question is like 'can you have eggs without eggs' as
far as I am
> > concerned. Stupid dumb question. Wasting bandwidth.
> I can understand why you think the question is stupid, given your
> definition of thinking. I applaud your general goal of getting
> people to stop wasting bandwidth, but are you sure that this is
> the best method to go about it--posting lengthy responses to
> circular questions?
> > > Your only
> > > way out of the dilemma is that you say it is "almost a matter of
> > > definition". If you can tell us how "almost" differs from
> > > "totally" in your mind, you might have a way out of the circular
> > > logic.
> > >
> > I am not looking for a way out. I am not trying to be smart. The only
reason to post at
> > all is in case some poor sod out there is actually paying attention to
> I am happy that you are not trying to be smart. I think that you
> have succeeded. I will now cease to waste any more bandwidth.
Dont forget - people who THINK they are smart generally are 100% of 1!
Remove the anti-spammer stuff.
More information about the Neur-sci