#201
Post rating: ~
kid next to luis looks like a bigger prick than hitler tbqh
#202
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

i am bored, i don't like wittgenstein, and i haven't read those other two. i think you have a very boring conception of language and thought, swirls. apart from any other merits or demerits it is very boring. sorry.


Correct theories are usually boring and complex, tell that to Marx lol.

#203
Post rating: +
Speaking of Hitler, now there's a guy with simple and exciting theories!
#204
Post rating: ~
why cant thought be like a good meal, why music?
#205
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

take THAT, Shittgenstein
#206
Nippon
Post rating: ~
geordi is a superautist megagenius in the 26th century, trying to explain emotions to a robot. couldn't he talk in terms of chemical and neurological changes leading to aggressive behavior. or would that not fly for some reason
#207
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
the best geordi storyline is when he created that woman on the holodeck and then met the real woman and she got weirded out by him.
#208
Online
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

like, he just seems to be paraphrasing wittgenstein to me

well there's the problem

#209
Post rating: +
hey Marxists, language isnt supposed to say things that are true, it's meant to get people to do things. imo
#210
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

the best geordi storyline is when he created that woman on the holodeck and then met the real woman and she got weirded out by him.



actually it was the other way around, she didnt live up to the idealized version of her he had fictionally constructed and placed upon a pedestal

#211
[account deactivated]
#212
[account deactivated]
#213
political car tune
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

here we go


oh?

#214
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

here we go




set phasers to warp speed

#215
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

i am bored, i don't like wittgenstein, and i haven't read those other two. i think you have a very boring conception of language and thought, swirls. apart from any other merits or demerits it is very boring. sorry.


Wittgenstein is also "boring" to most philosophers, including academic marxists, because his method is toxic to the 'theorizing' on which their vanity and careers are based.

CharlesFomsky posted:

hey Marxists, language isnt supposed to say things that are true, it's meant to get people to do things. imo


Then language has clearly failed there, as you tried to say something with a truth value.

#216
[account deactivated]
#217
[account deactivated]
#218
Post rating: ~
i am NOT a merry man
#219
Post rating: ~
i bought wittgensteins poker like a decade ago but never got around to reading it
#220
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

jools posted:

actually it was the other way around, she didnt live up to the idealized version of her he had fictionally constructed and placed upon a pedestal

actually she was awesome, she just wasn't in love with him and he creeped her out by acting like she should remember their holodeck adventures, also she was married



what the fuck, i didnt make this post....

#221
Post rating: ~
you can quite easily be a wittgensteinian marxist, probably
#222
Post rating: ~

swirlsofhistory posted:

roseweird posted:
Then language has clearly failed there, as you tried to say something with a truth value.



the referential function of language, as rowsward implied, is subordinate to its rhetorical function. we say things that seem true in the service of influencing people.

#223
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
if all thoughts are only creatable through language, then how can there be thoughts which exist in totality yet cannot through language be described in their totality?
#224
Post rating: ~
the answer is there are no thoughts that exist in totality that can't be described in language probably
#225
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
so how does the fact that serious Language Impairment disorders typically do not confer any detriment to IQ or intellectual capacity factor into all this?
#226
Post rating: ~
tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono tono
#227
[account deactivated]
#228
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

if all thoughts are only creatable through language, then how can there be thoughts which exist in totality yet cannot through language be described in their totality?



isnt this more an argument for mentalese than anything else tbh

#229
[account deactivated]
#230
Post rating: ~
iirc jerry fodor is the mentalese guy
#231
Post rating: ~
well, from my limited understanding its more like that thought itself is best modelled as a language, ie thoughts are composed of combinations of simpler thoughts within a syntax, etc

tbh though fuck cognitive science as a field lol
#232
Post rating: ~

CharlesFomsky posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

roseweird posted:
Then language has clearly failed there, as you tried to say something with a truth value.



the referential function of language, as rowsward implied, is subordinate to its rhetorical function. we say things that seem true in the service of influencing people.


Sometimes we say things to influence or convince. I don't how you've discovered that this is primary over all the other ways language is used, or what that entails...

Superabound posted:

if all thoughts are only creatable through language, then how can there be thoughts which exist in totality yet cannot through language be described in their totality?


Such as?

roseweird posted:

i am still trying to figure out what "mentalese" is. what is that cannot be more easily expressed as "thinking"? mentalese seems to be the proposition that thinking occurs in a subconscious symbolic form that resembles language, but i cannot think of any evidence for this. anyway the argument seems to undermine itself. if thought cannot exist without language, then surely the language of thought is simply the spoken language itself? either mentalese does not exist because prelinguistic thought exists, or mentalese does not exist because thought is language and mentalese is not a language.


Are you this thick? Go back three pages and read the thread over, you'll see I've been arguing against mentalese and your similar notion that it's possible to understand or think without language.

#233
[account deactivated]
#234
[account deactivated]
#235
[account deactivated]
#236
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +

swirlsofhistory posted:

Superabound posted:

if all thoughts are only creatable through language, then how can there be thoughts which exist in totality yet cannot through language be described in their totality?

Such as?



*opens mouth to express the unexpressable thought i was thinking of* *modem dial tone resounds from throat as liquid mercury covers post*

#237
Kurdt
Post rating: +
Torque (Construction Noise) Lewith
#238
Post rating: ~
the thing is, having seen that sketch, I Know What You Mean
#239
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
i actually went to school with DaVoin Shower-Handel
#240
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~
has anyone mentioned julian jaynes yet in connection to this discussion? roseweird I encourage you to read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In it jaynes seeks to uncover the biological and anthropological origins of thinking to discover what it is exactly. In a shell, ancient man didnt think, but used symbols to evoke auditory hallucinations to "think" for them; first these symbols might be a shrine to a chieftan, later they are written words (this is what jaynes claims over the course of book). Someone stole my copy so if anyone has a hidden pdf thanks.