The Editor’s Bit

Post by **Philosophy Now** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:01 am

by Rick Lewis

http://philosophynow.org/issues/1/The_Editors_Bit

marjoramblues · Post by **marjoramblues** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:22 pm

From the 1st to the 100th,

http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/A_Century_Not_Out

Many Congratulations !!

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:22 pm

Language reflects the nature of the human brain, which is something else philosophers and scientists are keen to understand better.

Well, it was the very last thing on the page, but it was in there somewhere so that's good.

We might reflect upon the noun, a building block of language. What does the noun tell us about the brain?

Consider the nouns "sun", "tree", and "soil". Three different words, which by their distinctness purport to represent three different things in the real world. Conceptually, in our heads, it's all very neat and tidy, and each word points to an entirely different image in our mind. The dividing lines seem clear and obvious, too obvious to even bother remarking upon, except that...

The neat and tidy conceptual divisions collapse when we venture beyond the symbolic realm in to the real world. In the real world, a tree functions as part of a holistic system which includes sun, soil, water, air, insects and many other factors.

Such systems might be compared to the human body. We have many different names for parts of the body, but if we remove one of those parts, the whole body is likely to collapse, which illustrates the body is one thing, not a bunch of smaller things.

Ultimately all of reality is such a single unified system, as is illustrated by the fact that you and I are made from the remains of supernova explosions that happened too far way for us to really even imagine.

What nouns tell us about the brain is that thought has a strong bias for division. The mind sees division and separation where it doesn't actually exist.

This might be compared to wearing sunglasses. Once you put on your sunglasses, no matter where you look, all of reality appears to be tinted. The tintedness is of course not a property of what is being observed, but is instead a property of the equipment being used to make the observation. And so it is with thought generated by the human brain.

To see the power of this built in bias for division, we might observe it's very difficult to even talk about such things, given that we require thought and language to do so, and the process we must use further reinforces the illusion of division. As example, this post is loaded with nouns, each of which invites us to see reality as being divided. While my point is that division is illusion, the way I have to make that point argues that division is real.

I'm not at all sure philosophers are actually that interested in better understanding the human mind. The evidence seems to suggest they are far too interested in the content of thoughts to spend much time investigating thought itself.

If I'm wrong, this thread will continue for 100+ pages. I'd like to be wrong. Let's find out.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:25 pm

"... We’re celebrating our hundredth issue by launching our very own app for iPad and iPhone. ..."

Hello! Android anyone? Bloody yuppies.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:34 pm

Felasco wrote:...
Consider the nouns "sun", "tree", and "soil". Three different words, which by their distinctness purport to represent three different things in the real world. Conceptually, in our heads, it's all very neat and tidy, and each word points to an entirely different image in our mind. The dividing lines seem clear and obvious, too obvious to even bother remarking upon, except that...

The neat and tidy conceptual divisions collapse when we venture beyond the symbolic realm in to the real world. In the real world, a tree functions as part of a holistic system which includes sun, soil, water, air, insects and many other factors. ...

Except that this "holistic system" is exactly a conceptuality and not of the 'real world'. Even squirrels know a tree when they see it.

Such systems might be compared to the human body. We have many different names for parts of the body, but if we remove one of those parts, the whole body is likely to collapse, which illustrates the body is one thing, not a bunch of smaller things. ...

And also illustrates that it is made of a bunch of smaller things.

Ultimately all of reality is such a single unified system, as is illustrated by the fact that you and I are made from the remains of supernova explosions that happened too far way for us to really even imagine.

What nouns tell us about the brain is that thought has a strong bias for division. The mind sees division and separation where it doesn't actually exist. ...

And also creates abstracts that are not apparent. But you've slipped from language to the mind here and the 'brain' is also problematic.

This might be compared to wearing sunglasses. Once you put on your sunglasses, no matter where you look, all of reality appears to be tinted. The tintedness is of course not a property of what is being observed, but is instead a property of the equipment being used to make the observation. And so it is with thought generated by the human brain.

You've slipped from language to thought here, what difference do you understand by them?

...
I'm not at all sure philosophers are actually that interested in better understanding the human mind. The evidence seems to suggest they are far too interested in the content of thoughts to spend much time investigating thought itself. ...

Which philosophers specifically are you thinking about?

If I'm wrong, this thread will continue for 100+ pages. I'd like to be wrong. Let's find out.

Are you claiming that you have the definitive answer and any discussion means that you have been proved right? How handy.

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:10 pm

If in the future you would like a reply, please post something more meaty than little blurby quipy thingies, and I will make a good faith effort to engage your more thoughtful posts. Or not, as you wish.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:28 pm

Just try answering the sentences with question marks at the end would be a start.

On the whole it bothers me not whether you reply or not as I point-out your errors for others as I well understand that you are not here to philosophise about your thoughts.

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:43 pm

On the whole it bothers me not whether you reply or not

Ok, fair enough, as you wish.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:33 pm

And yet you do.

Try the ones with question marks.

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:40 pm

If in the future you would like a reply, please post something more meaty than little blurby quipy thingies, and I will make a good faith effort to engage your more thoughtful posts. Or not, as you wish.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:56 pm

Felasco wrote:If in the future you would like a reply, please post something more meaty than little blurby quipy thingies, and I will make a good faith effort to engage your more thoughtful posts. Or not, as you wish.

I guess the problem is due to your inability to understand or abstract the philosophical point from a sentence, as these 'little quips' as you put them actually point to serious errors in your thought but I guess that addressing them would have to involve you in actually thinking about what you have said and like I've said thats not what you are here for is it. Take baby steps and try addressing the ones with question marks for a change rather than using your pet psychobabble to avoid.

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:49 pm

If in the future you would like a reply, please post something more meaty than little blurby quipy thingies, and I will make a good faith effort to engage your more thoughtful posts. Or not, as you wish.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:57 am

Felasco wrote:If in the future you would like a reply, please post something more meaty than little blurby quipy thingies, and I will make a good faith effort to engage your more thoughtful posts. Or not, as you wish.

Nice avoidance technique, you really should post on a psychology forum you'd be insightful. Alternatively you could try some philosophy and answer a sentence with a question mark at the end.

Felasco · Post by **Felasco** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:12 am

Arising_uk wrote: Alternatively you could try some philosophy and answer a sentence with a question mark at the end.

For the final time before you go back on ignore, I simply refuse to read through all your little blurby quipy thingies, because most them express nothing more than your desire to react. You have a brain, but most of the time you decline to use it, and I don't have the patience to dig through the junk pile looking for the bits that might be interesting.

I'm putting you back on ignore. Do whatever you want with your account and posts, I just don't care.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Editor’s Bit

The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit

Re: The Editor’s Bit