• Possibility
    1.1k
    And yet... they take flight upon the animal's return.creativesoul

    They’re still only interacting with the patterns of stimuli in relation to learned responses - they’re acquiring no information about the animal as such.
  • creativesoul
    7.9k
    And yet... they take flight upon the animal's return.
    — creativesoul

    They’re still only interacting with the patterns of stimuli in relation to learned responses - they’re acquiring no information about the animal as such.
    Possibility

    :brow:

    The position I'm arguing for/from does not depend upon whether or not they are acquiring information. Either way, the consideration itself is irrelevant to what I've offered.
  • Possibility
    1.1k
    Beyond what we can put into words? Seems an inherently mistake approach. I mean, we can put five gallons of apple juice in a five gallon container... and do!

    We cannot put apple pies into words... and do not! We can talk about words... and do!
    creativesoul

    To ‘put into words’ is an expression - I recognise it confuses the issue here. We’ve established the lack of spatiotemporal location to meaning and language - so this was a lack of clarity on my part.

    But what sorts of things are we talking about when we say that there is 'meaning that goes beyond what we can put into words or symbolic expressions'?creativesoul

    We’re talking about relations, as I’ve said before. How you feel about the experience. The elements of what you mean that people sometimes miss when they attempt to interpret your words from their own experiential position. I’m not saying there is always more to what the author meant than the words convey, but I see the process of conveying meaning with language or symbolic expression as collapsing the potentiality of a photon. Information is lost.

    Have you read David Eggers’ novel ‘The Circle’?

    If the phrase "goes beyond" makes sense, it - somehow and someway - refers to going onward, or being out of reach. Unknown seems more than adequate here. If it's something that we cannot talk about, it is most certainly something that we have no knowledge of.creativesoul

    Out of reach of language, perhaps. It’s difficult to describe a six-dimensional relationship. But ‘unknown’ is insufficient. I don’t see dichotomy as a path to understanding - in my book, it’s a fear response. To ‘have knowledge’ of something is closely tied to language, as you have pointed out - so ‘unknown’ provides no other information than what I already have, and again limits the information we have to what we can say about it, which I believe is inaccurate.

    It’s something we can talk about - but the talking is imprecise.

    Imagine drawing a sphere: we draw a circular line, colour it in and then use shading to convey a 3D object on a 2D plane. We recognise the 2D information as a 3D sphere because we understand firstly that there is missing information, and then we attempt to mentally ‘fill in’ what is missing By recognising how the 2D information relates to our understanding of a sphere’s 3D aspect. When the image is more complicated (say, a teddy bear), only certain perspectives will ensure that recognisable information regarding the 3D aspect is still available in the 2D image.

    In the same way we can recognise meaning through language because we understand that there is missing information. We then fill in what is missing by understanding how the language or symbols (as an expression of 5D experience) relate to our own subjective experience of the 6D aspect of meaning. So when we convey meaning through language, we need to recognise that we will lose information, and that our perspective limits the information we provide regarding how the language or symbols we use relate to another’s subjective experience of the same meaning. Understanding different perspectives enables us to try a more recognisable angle to express what we mean, or to more easily understand meaning in a variety of symbolic expressions. But as you can appreciate, there are many, many more different perspectives in 6D than in 3D...
  • Possibility
    1.1k
    If what you say here were true, fear of dogs would not happen, would not 'exist'.creativesoul

    The initial fear is not in response to the dog - it’s in response to a pattern of stimuli in an event involving a dog. A fear of dogs can develop as a result. But a fear of dogs doesn’t develop in creatures without self-awareness.
  • creativesoul
    7.9k
    ...a fear of dogs doesn’t develop in creatures without self-awareness.Possibility

    You've lost me entirely here. If remaining consistent leads you to this conclusion, you've gone wrong somewhere along the line. Ducks are not self aware. They fear dogs.
  • creativesoul
    7.9k
    We’re talking about relations, as I’ve said before. How you feel about the experience. The elements of what you mean that people sometimes miss when they attempt to interpret your words from their own experiential position. I’m not saying there is always more to what the author meant than the words convey, but I see the process of conveying meaning with language or symbolic expression as collapsing the potentiality of a photon. Information is lost.Possibility

    It's all about correlations. Misinterpretation consists of a listener drawing correlations between the language use and other things; different things than the author. The correction always involves both people drawing correlations between the same things, one of which is the language use. The other things are where the heart of the misunderstandings lie.
  • Possibility
    1.1k
    You've lost me entirely here. If remaining consistent leads you to this conclusion, you've gone wrong somewhere along the line. Ducks are not self aware. They fear dogs.creativesoul

    I have jumped to a conclusion here, but not as much as you think. Ducks can and do develop a fear response to ‘dogs’ as a specific pattern of stimuli. They instinctively fear patterns of stimuli that threaten harm, and learn to apply the fear response to negative patterns in the environment. But ducks, like humans, are also social creatures - and when there are no threatening patterns of stimuli, they can and do interact and develop relationships with ‘dogs’ as other animals, without any signs of fear. We say that cats fear dogs, too, yet cats and dogs can also develop strong positive relationships in the right environment.

    So I maintain that it isn’t the dog, but the patterns of stimuli that initiate a fear response. A couple more examples to illustrate:

    I had no pets as a child, and developed a general fear response to dogs after encountering several less-than-friendly greetings while delivering phone books one year (I think I was 8). It took repeated exposure to calm, friendly dogs in controlled situations to overcome - and the recognition that my fear response was to a pattern of stimuli, not to ‘dogs’ as such.

    Married now, we’ve always had a dog, so my daughter loved all dogs as a child, even after being bitten by a friends’ dog at the age of three. It wasn’t until she witnessed my sister’s dog bitten in an unprovoked attack by another dog during a walk (age 9) that she began to develop a fear response to dogs - but only to strange dogs that confronted her in a particular manner.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment