WJ

All!

Dumb, adjective:

a (of a person) unable to speak, usu. because of a congenital defect or deafness.
b (of an animal) naturally unable to speak (our dumb friends).
2 silenced by surprise, fear, etc. (struck dumb by this revelation).
3 taciturn or reticent, esp. insultingly (dumb insolence).
4 (of an action etc.) performed without speech.
5 (often in comb.) giving no sound; without voice or some other property normally belonging to things of the name (a dumb piano).
6 esp. US colloq.often offens. stupid; ignorant.
7 (usu. of a class, population, etc.) having no voice in government; inarticulate (the dumb masses).
8 (esp. of a computer terminal) able only to transmit data to or receive data from a computer; not programmable

Ok, call me crazy but [my thesis], as so often happens, we find words are either misused, misunderstood, or do not capture the essence of what we think we understand of a certain reality. What does it mean for a person or thing to be dumb? Is it the same as ignorance or stupidity? Apparently not. The definition of dumb relates mainly to the inability to articulate through normal speech. It would not be accurate to call someone dumb if they posses the ability to speak. But what about sign language? What about speaking thru an instrument or a canvas?

So maybe all this simply becomes a brief lesson in the proper uses and applications of human speech, expression and comunication. What do trees or other physical objects have to do with this? Likewise, what if you encounter someone or thing that can't speak. And without letting the object express itself, how can we assume anything? We can't, the object is considered 'inanimate' until one either examines it or provokes it into a form of expression. But why would the object want to interact to begin with?

If it were human we assume it would want to interact or communicate because of its primacy of sentience or sentent existence. It first feels, then expresses its need to articulate. And if there exists some innate need to interact and express itself/oneself, how do we determine its intelligence? Or, in this case, do trees simply have their own intelligent language different from ours?

Perhaps the simple answer is that higher forms of consciousness, among other things, posses the ability to think, feel, reason, and posses volitional existence. But, what if say, the materialist and determinist (just using them as an example) claim that trees are another form of consciousness that we simply cannot understand. Would they be wrong? Could they make a strong case by reason alone?

Do words by themselves, adequately capture the meaning of existence? Does the definition of consciousness even help? What if you were a child and were told trees could talk, would or should you believe it?

Thoughts?

Amos

Animals do communicate but their convention is different than ours. They, like us, probably think that they are the only ones in charge of their own destiny. In fact, they probably think that they are the centre of their own universe.

WJ

Hi Amos!

Thanks. Who are the 'animals' (or trees)? (I wasn't sure how to follow you on that one.)

Walrus

Jonsey3333

Assuming that they possess conscious thought, which, btw, is impossible to determine.

Also, when they are locked in cages for their life, have their offspring taken away and killed, have their mammary glands farmed for the good of another species, and are slaughtered when no longer useful alive, it becomes improbable that they believe they are "in charge of their destiny" and "the centre of their own universe" (assuming they think).

-Mike

Francois Tremblay

If evolution is true, then "lower" animals must have much less volition than we do, if any (for example, animals without brains can't). The only way to deny this is to deny evolution.

John Page

No, you have to be there! Joking apart, what meaning? Existence is, it has no need to jutify itself anthropomorphically.

Yes, IMO it helps us discuss the phenomena of our internal workings.

Children have an uncanny ability to suspend their belief. How else could they be sucked into watching puppets with strings so obviously operating them? By considering hypothetical truths as possibly true we are able to test the nature of the reality we live in. My (personal) philosophy is to try and believe everything and nothing at the same time (if you get what I mean).

Cheers.

Amos

If animals have a conscious mind they are capable of conscious thought.

If Paul could be "singing in prison" animals can too and there is no need to reflect your own perceived misery upon the mental well-being of other animals.

Amos

Animals are much better with their communication system then we are with ours. For example, they can navigate the oceans better, never have suicidal urges and no reproduction problems. Their life is as ordered as ours and probably much more sublime.

WJ

all!

Gosh, lots of neat replies. The evolution one is interesting. Let me address this first to John since as you may know, I'm a staunch opponent of logico-deductive reasoning.

"Existence is, it has no need to justify itself anthropomorphically.'

Are you saying that describing or defining the essence and/or existence of a human is via the word or verb 'is'? (Warning, be careful how you answer that one it may lead to other inferences viz. the 'atheists reasoning'.)

"Yes, IMO it helps us discuss the phenomena of our internal workings."

RE: consciousness. But you see, the reason for [you using] the word 'helps' is that you or one must be implying a 'need' for meaningful existence in defining a 'thing'. (?)

John, perhaps I do get what you mean. Without quoting your last reply regarding a child's beliefs (which of course we really can't ascertain, and I know we are all just speculating anyway) but to believe and not believe at the same time, to me, is a suspension in enunciating action. But, if forced to take a position, one would have to take a risk of using faith (an epistemic suspension without proof). If the context is purely analytical in proposition, the faith is in assuming the truth of the meaning of words. I think that is called synthetic apriori propositional truths. We can't help but assuming some things are true to effect scientific discovery.

Anyway, one of the many concepts, I think, one can glean from TMC is that words, meaning (aposterior) and the apriori are all mixed together. How shall we pull them apart? From the definition of dumb, how shall we provide meaning in an otherwise dumb physical universe? Words alone won't do it. The concern is the apriori.

Aside from that brief detour, I have to think about the evolution thing, volitional existence, and consciousness...

thanks guys...

Walrus

John Page

Walrus, let me repeat your original question:

Originally posted by WJ:
Do words by themselves, adequately capture the meaning of existence?

Now:

1. I took "meaning" to confer upon "existence" the ability to 'mean' or 'intend' something.
2. From direct experience, (not logico-inductive reasoning), I have not observed any indication that the human characteristics of 'meaning' or 'intending' something are to be found in "existence". Hence my reference to anthropomorphism.
3. I do not intend the word "is" as a verb, more as an adjective describing the state of "existence" as 'extant'. P.S. I maintain that in the strictest sense, all words are necessarily adjectives.

So, what I'm saying is I couldn't understand your original question. Verbal descriptions are incomplete, however.

Please substitute "the concept of consciousness" for "it". Hopefully, this clarification makes your question redundant.

BTW, that something "helps" does not necessarily imply it has its own purpose or is sentient in any way.

Very much agreed and I appreciate you giving me a break on my description.

I do wish to observe that systems are not necessarily single-threaded (so-called von Neumann architecture). Our brain consists of many simultaneously working parts so I believe it possible to literally "believe" and "not believe" at the same time. Indeed, I think comparison of two signals is the fundamental basis of perception/abstraction. In my Comparison/Detection theory this is the process that ultimately gives rise to the 'illusion' of identity as referenced in formal deductive logic.

Regarding the a priori, I am working on an ontology derived from direct knowledge. The device that I use is direct, common, experiential knowledge of the ontology itself. Currently Axiom #8 is equivalent to the law of identity. I think it requires faith to jump directly to the axioms of logic - to blindly believe in formal logical is to relegate atheism to a religion.

I look forward to your observations.

Cheers.