Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 07-16-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spacer1
....Therefore, since we cannot understand at will, it must occur subconsciously. It may be a conscious experience, but it is not under conscious control.

That is my understanding, also.

Quote:

Originally posted by spacer1
I believe this synonymous use of "private language" and "understanding" (or the behind-the-scenes mental activity that brings about understanding) has been adopted previously in this discussion by John and possibly others, and I find no problem with it.

Agreed, "behind the scenes" of conscious awareness.

Cheers, John

sophie · 07-16-2003, 10:27 AM

spaver1 : We may end up not understanding, despite our attempts.
Therefore, since we cannot understand at will, it must
occur subconsciously. It may be a conscious experience,
but it is not under conscious control.

not understansing despite all attempts can also be a signal of
incomplete information or inadequate methods to cipher through
all the relations. This is necessarily a conscious effort to acquire
methods and information which will cause understanding. I think you
are missing a few basic points in this discourse.

The only understanding which was not built on conscious efforts
would be baby parameters

* * *
spacer's quote of Wiggenspeel :

What finds its reflection in language,
language cannot represent.
What expresses itself in language,
we cannot express by means of language

this is a bunch of nonsense.

spacer 1:
A proposition asserts something and we either
understand it or not. We do not need to write
more propositions explaining what the first
proposition means, for it should show what
it means by itself.

this is un-intelligible.

spacer1 : I believe this synonymous use of "private language"
and "understanding" (or the behind-the-scenes mental
activity that brings about understanding) has been
adopted previously in this discussion by John and
possibly others, and I find no problem with it.

There is a subtle difference between private language
which underlies understanding, and private language
which underlines understanding.

sophie · 07-16-2003, 10:34 AM

John Page,

do not neglect to remember this discussion is based on truth, related to truth, and as such, an intelligent argument or discussion, MUST MAKE REFERENCE, implicit or explicit to truth.

I see no implicit reference to truth in your recent posts.

John : Yes, I don't think you've thought it through

without your references to truth you have no position to posit. Perhaps if you wish to discuss pure language, you should start another thread, but if the thread of truth is tainted with language, then any language references must necessarily be stained with truth.

spacer1 · 07-16-2003, 10:47 AM

Sophie:

Quote:

not understansing despite all attempts can also be a signal of incomplete information or inadequate methods to cipher through all the relations. This is necessarily a conscious effort to acquire methods and information which will cause understanding.

This may be, but it still remains the case that you cannot consciously understand at will.

Quote:

this is a bunch of nonsense.

Why?

Quote:

this is un-intelligible.

Why?

Quote:

There is a subtle difference between private language which underlies understanding, and private language which underlines understanding.

What is that difference?

sophie · 07-16-2003, 11:06 AM

spacer1,
why why why
I'll get back to you as soon as possible

concerning understanding :
This may be, but it still remains the case that you cannot consciously understand at will.

yes I can understand at will. Part of the vechicle for understanding may be buried layers deep within my mind, however with conscious direction, I will move towards an understanding of 'anything', and thusly discover the truth for myself.

It is my conscious direction of the path towards understanding that allows me to articulate. Example, I can tell myself, use this method, try this resource, hunt for more information. Then when I am consciously satisfied with my understanding, I no longer have to emote, I understand I don't understand.

In this light your claim that understanding is unconscious, is unfounded even though the vehicle to achieve understanding may be buried within the sub-conscious.

The rest will have to wait for later...

John Page · 07-16-2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
do not neglect to remember this discussion is based on truth, related to truth, and as such, an intelligent argument or discussion, MUST MAKE REFERENCE, implicit or explicit to truth.

All statements are the intrinsic truth of John and, as such, cannot be off topic. I think you understand this, although you may not consciously realize it until I point it out to you.

Vraiment?

Cheers, John

spacer1 · 07-16-2003, 11:45 AM

Sophie,

Quote:

Part of the vechicle for understanding may be buried layers deep within my mind, however with conscious direction, I will move towards an understanding of 'anything', and thusly discover the truth for myself.

Yes, you can move towards understanding however you see fit, but my point still remains that you cannot determine when that light bulb will pop up above your head; when you will get that "Ahhhh, I get it now" sensation. To use Wittgenstein's terminology, it is the sense that you can "go on"; as if one riddle had been solved and you can now proceed to the next. I apologize for quoting an author you don't seem to hold much regard for, but I think it is relevant:

Quote:

From Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations:

151. But there is also this use of the word "to know": we say "Now I know!" - and similarly "Now I can do it!" and "Now I understand!"
Let us imagine the following example: A writes series of numbers down; B watches him and tries to find a law for the sequence of numbers. If he succeeds he exclaims: "Now I can go on!" - So this capacity, this understanding, is something that makes its appearance in a moment. So let us try and see what it is that makes its appearance here. - A has written down the numbers 1, 5, 11, 19, 29; at this point B says he knows how to go on. What happened here? Various things may have happened; for example, while A was slowly putting one number after another, B was occupied with trying various algebraic formulae on the numbers which had been written down. After A had written the number 19 B tried the formula a[subscript n] = n^2 + n - 1; and the next number confirmed his hypothesis.
Or again, B does not think of formulae. He watches A writing the numbers down with a certain feeling of tension, and all sorts of vague thoughts go through his head. Finally he asks himself: "What is the series of differences?" He finds the series 4, 6, 8, 10 and says: Now I can go on.
Or he watches and says "Yes, I know that series" - and continues it, just as he would have done if A had written down the series 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. - Or he says nothing at all and simply continues the series. Perhaps he had what may be called the sensation "that's easy!" (Such a sensation is, for example, that of a light quick intake of breath, as when one is slightly startled.)

Quote:

In this light your claim that understanding is unconscious, is unfounded even though the vehicle to achieve understanding may be buried within the sub-conscious.

I do not know what distinction you are drawing between "unconscious" and "subconscious", but I am happy to see you giving the subconscious element of understanding its due.

sophie · 07-16-2003, 04:03 PM

John Page,

I am tired of your claims. that all statements are the intrinsic truth of John and, as such, cannot be off topic.

Either you are missing something or deliberately missing the point. It is pointless to carry out an intelligent debate with you. Your statements are truth and we are talking about truth. Earlier in the thread you were doubting my proposal that all truth delivery systems must be true. Now all your statements just happen to be true. It seems to me, you change positions because you find it difficult to agree in the face of good sense, as if only John Page can hold aloft the torch of truth. When it suits you to hold a new truth without any degree of consistency you instantiate that truth and expect it to be accepted.

So Mr. John Page, my advice would be to try to achieve a level of consistency, you do not have to, but I will not reply to your posts unless you make sense. (sure you can blah blah about me claiming to have all the good sense in the world). If you wish to continue in this vein, why not keep your intrinsic truth to yourself, where it will do you most good, and it will not have the chance of being exposed for what it is...

sophie · 07-16-2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spacer1
Sophie,

Yes, you can move towards understanding however you see fit, but my point still remains that you cannot determine when that light bulb will pop up above your head; when you will get that "Ahhhh, I get it now" sensation. To use Wittgenstein's terminology, it is the sense that you can "go on"; as if one riddle had been solved and you can now proceed to the next. I apologize for quoting an author you don't seem to hold much regard for, but I think it is relevant:

I do not know what distinction you are drawing between "unconscious" and "subconscious", but I am happy to see you giving the subconscious element of understanding its due.

I am using subconscious and unconscious to really mean the same thing

Spacer1 : ...but my point still remains that you cannot determine when that light bulb will pop up above your head; when you will get that "Ahhhh, I get it now"

Sorry I know when I have arrived at understanding, however they may be times when answers will arrive from within the depths of my processing prowess. These are limited cases of understanding. There is a whole argument about this which follows the line that if understanding was not consciously motivated we would have to wait an eternity (exaggeration) to achieve higher levels of understanding. We sway understanding by working at it consciously.

Luiseach · 07-16-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
...but if the thread of truth is tainted with language, then any language references must necessarily be stained with truth.

Just a wee question for clarification:

So, is it that the 'truth' (whatever that may be) is embedded in language? Or, is it that language is influenced by the 'truth' from the outside in? Or a bit of both?

07-16-2003, 10:34 AM	#233
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	John, John John Page, do not neglect to remember this discussion is based on truth, related to truth, and as such, an intelligent argument or discussion, MUST MAKE REFERENCE, implicit or explicit to truth. I see no implicit reference to truth in your recent posts. John : Yes, I don't think you've thought it through without your references to truth you have no position to posit. Perhaps if you wish to discuss pure language, you should start another thread, but if the thread of truth is tainted with language, then any language references must necessarily be stained with truth.

07-16-2003, 11:06 AM	#235
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	wrapping thngs up spacer1, why why why I'll get back to you as soon as possible concerning understanding : This may be, but it still remains the case that you cannot consciously understand at will. yes I can understand at will. Part of the vechicle for understanding may be buried layers deep within my mind, however with conscious direction, I will move towards an understanding of 'anything', and thusly discover the truth for myself. It is my conscious direction of the path towards understanding that allows me to articulate. Example, I can tell myself, use this method, try this resource, hunt for more information. Then when I am consciously satisfied with my understanding, I no longer have to emote, I understand I don't understand. In this light your claim that understanding is unconscious, is unfounded even though the vehicle to achieve understanding may be buried within the sub-conscious. The rest will have to wait for later...

07-16-2003, 04:03 PM	#238
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	tired of your truth John Page, I am tired of your claims. that all statements are the intrinsic truth of John and, as such, cannot be off topic. Either you are missing something or deliberately missing the point. It is pointless to carry out an intelligent debate with you. Your statements are truth and we are talking about truth. Earlier in the thread you were doubting my proposal that all truth delivery systems must be true. Now all your statements just happen to be true. It seems to me, you change positions because you find it difficult to agree in the face of good sense, as if only John Page can hold aloft the torch of truth. When it suits you to hold a new truth without any degree of consistency you instantiate that truth and expect it to be accepted. So Mr. John Page, my advice would be to try to achieve a level of consistency, you do not have to, but I will not reply to your posts unless you make sense. (sure you can blah blah about me claiming to have all the good sense in the world). If you wish to continue in this vein, why not keep your intrinsic truth to yourself, where it will do you most good, and it will not have the chance of being exposed for what it is...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2003, 10:27 AM	#232
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	spaver1 : We may end up not understanding, despite our attempts. Therefore, since we cannot understand at will, it must occur subconsciously. It may be a conscious experience, but it is not under conscious control. not understansing despite all attempts can also be a signal of incomplete information or inadequate methods to cipher through all the relations. This is necessarily a conscious effort to acquire methods and information which will cause understanding. I think you are missing a few basic points in this discourse. The only understanding which was not built on conscious efforts would be baby parameters * * * spacer's quote of Wiggenspeel : What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language this is a bunch of nonsense. spacer 1: A proposition asserts something and we either understand it or not. We do not need to write more propositions explaining what the first proposition means, for it should show what it means by itself. this is un-intelligible. spacer1 : I believe this synonymous use of "private language" and "understanding" (or the behind-the-scenes mental activity that brings about understanding) has been adopted previously in this discussion by John and possibly others, and I find no problem with it. There is a subtle difference between private language which underlies understanding, and private language which underlines understanding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.