Conversation
Notices
-
@Humpleupagus @Senator_Armstrong @AshChapelsGhost
-
@Humpleupagus @Senator_Armstrong No, dickcheese, that's not what I'm saying. That you can't understand what I'm saying suggests the true nigger is the one that requires concrete objectivity and is incapable of abstract thought.
Even the dog learns the word "stick" means something long and thin and probably made of wood is about to be thrown. That you seem to think this requires a supreme telepathic see of collective unconscious makes you more on the woo end than the guy who says "God gave me this brain that can recognize patterns, and through that ability, I can eventually figure out what the fuck other humans like me are saying."
-
"That a dog learns the word stick" is not a counter example. Where'd he learn it from and under what condition? You're fucking retarded.
So tell me, how much philosophy have you read? I've read everything from Plato through Foucault, and prefer
Martin Heidegger, because he expanded on Kant in the german tradition. And my position is the German position. On the otherhand, you haven't read shit, which is why your shit's all retarded. Write me when you're capable of a serious discussion. Until then, good luck with your dualism.
-
@Humpleupagus @Senator_Armstrong This is sophistry. Dogs don't need to know what 'stick' is. They just know when you throw that object (because objects exist, language or no), he gets to run after it. We also know that object because we can see it, touch it, hold it, etc. We know it's a stick, because we've picked up that that's what others call it. To communicate to other humans that this is a stick, we use the agreed-upon sounds to reference the stick.
There are shared experiences. Every human being knows what a 'stick' is even if they've heard it called a stick, 棒, palo, lazda, ਸਟਿੱਕ, палка or sopa.
Also, get the kind of nigger I am right. It's "Sanchez" if you want to imply my arguments are bad because of a racial handicap.
-
That's still language. At best you're arguing that the world psychically imposes itself into the mind. The "stick" says "stick" to you. It gives you its "idea." If so, very Greek of you. Otherwise, you're a materialist. Materialism is gay and jewish. Don't be a faggot, and tell me where in my head, which is smaller than my house, my house is. See you're retarded ass needs two things: A house, which you allegedly never really see, and the perception of it. I only need a house. I live in the world, while you suck Neil deGrasse Tyson's cock, or at least the perception of it. 😒
-
@Humpleupagus @Senator_Armstrong But it is. You're using pattern recognition to realize sounds are associated with objects, actions and behaviors. Repeated exposure associates the sound "apple" with that red fruit the guy's holding. I don't see how that's not an explanation.
-
Recognizing things is exactly the issue. You need language to do that. You'd need to know red from pink or blue or green. You'd need to know that there is a 'person.' You'd need to know what being 'pissed off' is. You make cutting up the world using language a prerequisite to learning language.
You're talking like a person who is stuck in their language. What if you weren't stuck in your language because you didn't have a language yet, Tyrone?
-
@Humpleupagus @Senator_Armstrong Pattern recognition. It's this thing humans are really good at. We see some asshole sitting on the hood of his car munching on an apple, and we've seen other assholes munching on apples, and we've heard people say over and over "That apple-munching asshole pisses me off." After multiple exposures, we associate the words "apple", "munching", and "asshole" to refer to people who consume a red fruit and do crude things. Thus, we now have built a phrase in a language.
-
You're already identifying objects using language in this explanation. Thus, you'd need to known language to learn language in your scenario. Ergo, it's not an explanation.
-
What if we can see / hear / sense each others thoughts, but it's so common that it's like seeing the air, you don't? It would explain how children learn language. Imagine all of the ways the world can be chopped up. How do we learn to associate an utterance with a distinct thing brought into the foreground by it except by "seeing" other people's thoughts?
-
I do think you probably have some control over your local reality. But I'd reject the idea everything is a projection of your mind. That wouldn't explain how you can learn stuff from others that you've never thought of.
Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
Ash Chapel's Holly Jolly Tiddies
🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
Senator Armstrong
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the