Let us talk about philosophy

i need to find a link....about the girl from Brazil....

her life explains it rather well....


be back shortly....

Hmm, information is saved in all these things, interpreted elsewhere ect, but i dont see how thats a paradox?

Im having trouble seeing the contradiction here?

Have you heard about the dying violinist senario?

it here you can look: [link to en.wikipedia.org]


would you let him remain pluged in to you and and give up your autonmy? Become a non person but merely an instrument of worth being used bo someone else? Howabout if being hooked up to your violinist cost you your life?

Ah the joys of what if.

Go to this thread. Read it:

Thread: A clear concise path to defeating the NWO:Thoreauvian Disobedience

Okey,

Is this:

"if a human is born, and for the first 10 years or so of its life never has any contact with any human being, then that human can never develop language skills necessary for conscious thought....even though that human is perfectly normal biologically...."

What it is/was thought to be, but the girl from brazil proves otherwise?

do i follow?

Everything is moving away from everything else, but nothing is moving away from the center, because everything was (and still is) the center. This can be applied to the big bang/singularity. Different scales of existence, no boundaries to the physical or mental world (perception is infinite IMO).

It's a huge step to self-governance, one in which I think cannot but fail or cost an uncountable figure to many individuals, of whose loss might or might not be positive. It swings the door wide open on the monkeys on the rubbish dump scenario… The aggressive monkeys ruled the rubbish dump where food pickings were plentiful, and all the timid monkeys disbanded and foraged by conventional means while the aggressive monkeys stayed in an ever increasing sized troop. Then a deadly strain of disease hit the dump and took out all of the most aggressive monkeys. The short of it was the timid gentler monkeys remained foragers and thrived, they also transformed any aggressive monkeys by disallowing the aggression and segregating them from their community. Everyone has their own take on what Thoreauvian style self-governance might achieve in a power vacuum. We’ll see, maybe soon even.

that has nothing to do with what i am stating....nothing whatsoever

well, it was a case of a feral child....

anyways, human syntax development must be 'triggered' by a certain age for conscious thought to develop....a specific 'window' so-to-speak....

humans cannot develop conscious thought on their own....IMPOSSIBLE biologically....

what do you consider conscious thought? the thought that says they just felt pain or hunger, heat or cold? Fright or comfort? Are they not conscious thoughts? Language can not be a determinant of conscious thought.

no, okay, consider it a new line of inquiry.

that is about the subject of psychology....


just what EXACTLY does that have to do with the subject of philosophy ??

can you determine to a pin point what IS a thought?

whatever, i have no interest in unrelated subject whatsoever....

that is easy:

I think, therefore I am

No, its an argument on autonomy/sovereignty, the discussion as to what autonomy is and how far it goes and all the ponderance surouning soverign beings is indeed philosophy. The ethics debate is an enormous phiosophical school of thought.

no that is infantile.

Is the grandmother in an vegative state a non person?
did she cease to be because she no longer thinks? Would she still have moral rights?
If someone raped her would that be morally wrong?

HORSESHIT !!

well, it has NOTHING to do with human autonomy/sovereignty....nothing whatsoever.

you said specifically to a pin point did you not ??

This is a tricky one, and im not well versed in this subject.

But i think what he means is, it is required for the development of thought that leads to "why did i just feel hungry?" "How do i feel pain?" or the age old "what is the meaning of life?", as opposed to" Im hungry, i should eat" or "that hurts, dont do that". correct me if im wrong?

And i should point out, im not aware if there is a different definition for this type of thought, if one even exists, and if not, this could get very confusing very quickly, hehe

well the thing is, language develops logic....

logic and the ability to 'infer' come from language acquisition....

Human Acquisition Language....HAL....

halo and good night !!

it is bed time for me....

thanks for the rapport

are you feeling pissed yet?
You are wrong, you see governance is what leads to large groups going down in large groups, and it doesnt matter who the boss is really.
self governance in a disbanded unit will have the individual go down on their own if they go down at all or in their new lawless society rob some other poor bastard to stay on their game.

People act in a certain manner in utillitarian societies in order to fit, often utillitarian ideals are not good, but they do keep order, Thoreauvian disobediance throws all that out the window.

Thoreauvian disobediance, is based on individualist principles so for that matter alone clearly it suits the west, cause the east is communitarian (not to be confussed with communist). now, if under the principle of Thoreauvian disobediance the general idea is for self governance and to basically look after self first then society will faction. the agressive players will branch off and others will disperse possibly very thinly and many of those would be passive in the dispersal group, because they seek avoidance to the harm of self. Some passives would be choosing to live under a new agressive rule and probably exploited, but for some the safty of the mob is a good trade off for their hard work.

Thoreauvian disobediance almost ensures the excusing of trampling over anothers rights in order to promote ones own, and all that in the hopes of something better.

Hahahaha you Americans are going to have so much fun sorting your lot out in the years to come.. no matter which way you look at it its going to suck. It will be a country of factions and ill respect, small communities with some boss holding power and "keeping people in order" and everyone trying to keep everyone else alive.


Its times like 2011 I'm so happy I'm Australian. but dont worry, I'll do the right thing and give up what I can without sacrifising my own liberty and autonomy to try and make at least one persons life less painfull... I think Dr's without boarders is an amaising organisation.

there is thought and then there is awareness I think that might be where you where going.

but seperating the two is almost impossible, because they are interwoven so closly.

this suggests there is no such thing as illogical thought, now thats an interesting notion. Illogical thought is indeed thought. thought in greek is thought as it is in english or wild dog.

yes.. but you just wrote off every person in a vegative state, now when they are all put down against their wishes because they cant have wishes because they no longer "are"
that can be deemed A OKAY.

lol

Okay a real thing does necessitate its existence necessarily the same applies for any thought. The real thing which is perceived gives content or the potential to think about its structure and nature. We can understand the structure and nature as much as possible about that which gives the structure and nature of a real thing an intelligent context. Once we think about the structure or nature of the substance is gives a perspective on the thing in and of itself. But we can never know the thing in and of itself we can only perceive its manifestation in the object.

I am currently a sophomore in college so whatever I get into is still pending in wings.

There never can be 100% certainty of your existence via consciousness and thought. It is impossible to determine the actual content of a thing simply through thought. At the same time our only means of understanding the actual content of a thing is through consciousness. This pretty much means that there is absolutely no means to be conscious of your existence 100%. Now you can understand your existence to a certain degree or magnitude but never with absolute certainty because to know something with absolute certainty is like to not know it at all in the context of being thought of. You might have an intuitive feel that you exist but this is a matter that is quite misty and obscure. The thing is you have experienced things simply through who you are as of now. You have changed over time slowly and gradually. You ineffably know yourself as you already are under conditions that have been determined within the context of time. We can never truly know a thing does this mean that the true knowledge of the thing does not exist not at all but we just can't be conscious of the absolute value of a thing this is because the absolute value necessarily negates its connects or compatibility with our consciousness.