Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
There is no such *thing* as a thought or belief. There is only "molecular activity", which is assembled by brains to *be* "thoughts", and beliefs. The physical activity in 1 brain, only *approximates* what it comes to understand is a *similar* brain activity, (thought) in another brain. They are never EXACTLY the same things. They, (by learning), are, (by learning), adjusted, and modified, and come to be "similar", and then "agreed" to be the same/very similar. There is no "actual similarity" existing "out there" someone, which NOT in either of the two brains.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 05:48 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 08:21 AM)I and I Wrote:  One person might grow up to believe in an all encompassing thing that is the answer to everything, one person might go on to believe in an all encompassing "scientific theory" that can explain everything. Both are steaming piles of bullshit and both are very similar. And both of these ideas existed before you were born.

You are using English which has old words, Spanish words, french words from hundreds of years ago mixed in the language. Yes fuckball, shit from the past, shit before you were born has had an influence on you.

Yeah, and you don't think it is worth trying to get all the shit straightened out - you just want to asign it to some one else to do it, and hope they get it straightened out, because you trust their non-religious expertise in science and social engineering???

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 02:00 PM)Vera Wrote:  BTW, a quick side note (because you happened to choose numbers as your example) - while I think as much as (or rather, more) in English, than I do in my own language, counting is the one thing I always do in my language (unless I have to count out loud to a speaker of another language, obviously). Have always found that quite interesting, but still haven't looked into why it might be so...

I'll guess that it is because you are probably quicker in solving any computations with your language rather than having to make any translation. Or maybe you like the sounds of the number set.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 09:18 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no such *thing* as a thought or belief. There is only "molecular activity", which is assembled by brains to *be* "thoughts", and beliefs. The physical activity in 1 brain, only *approximates* what it comes to understand is a *similar* brain activity, (thought) in another brain. They are never EXACTLY the same things. They, (by learning), are, (by learning), adjusted, and modified, and come to be "similar", and then "agreed" to be the same/very similar. There is no "actual similarity" existing "out there" someone, which NOT in either of the two brains.


Nobody said that a thought was a thing existing outside human brains.

Nobody ever said that each brain handles information the exact same way.



How ones brain handles information from the physical world is determined by ones society/culture, what determines a society or culture is dependent on the mode of production of material goods (this part is not your concern and has nothing to do with the topic, just wanted to clarify).

Two different brains in the same culture don't handle information the exact same way but are similar enough to be a part of a particular culture. American Y likes hot dogs with ketchup, american x likes hot dogs with mustard, similar but not exactly the same.

next
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
19-10-2012, 10:24 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 09:18 PM)I and I Wrote:  Two different brains in the same culture don't handle information the exact same way but are similar enough to be a part of a particular culture. American Y likes hot dogs with ketchup, american x likes hot dogs with mustard, similar but not exactly the same.

Exercises in classification - I like that a lot.

I learned in the past year that there is some amount of discussion concerning the condiment selection for the classic American food staples - mustard for hot dogs, and ketchup for hamburgers.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 11:16 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 05:57 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 02:00 PM)Vera Wrote:  BTW, a quick side note (because you happened to choose numbers as your example) - while I think as much as (or rather, more) in English, than I do in my own language, counting is the one thing I always do in my language (unless I have to count out loud to a speaker of another language, obviously). Have always found that quite interesting, but still haven't looked into why it might be so...

I'll guess that it is because you are probably quicker in solving any computations with your language rather than having to make any translation. Or maybe you like the sounds of the number set.

Not really, I said and meant counting, not calculating... And when I think in English I do not translate my thoughts from my own language.

Just saying.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 09:09 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 02:00 PM)Vera Wrote:  BTW, a quick side note (because you happened to choose numbers as your example) - while I think as much as (or rather, more) in English, than I do in my own language, counting is the one thing I always do in my language (unless I have to count out loud to a speaker of another language, obviously). Have always found that quite interesting, but still haven't looked into why it might be so...

That is interesting, Vera. And it's not the first time I've come across that phenomenon.

A good friend of mine was born in Cuba to parents who had emigrated from New York. He was raised bilingually, Spanish and English. He and his family left and came back to the U.S. a couple of years after Castro came to power; he was 9 years old at the time. Although he's retained his Spanish, English is clearly his primary language and the one he's the most comfortable in . . . except for numbers! When he counts or does computations in his head, it's usually in Spanish. He finds that just as interesting as you do.

I haven't checked the literature to see if anyone has done research in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a universal phenomenon. Why numbers more than anything else should be so tied to one's first language isn't at all clear.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
19-10-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 09:18 PM)I and I Wrote:  How ones brain handles information from the physical world is determined by ones society/culture, what determines a society or culture is dependent on the mode of production of material goods (this part is not your concern and has nothing to do with the topic, just wanted to clarify).

Two different brains in the same culture don't handle information the exact same way but are similar enough to be a part of a particular culture. American Y likes hot dogs with ketchup, american x likes hot dogs with mustard, similar but not exactly the same.

next

Dear High Priestess of Woo Woo, BowingBowingBowing
I bow before you royal crappiness. .

Prove it.
No it isn't. How a brain "handles" anything, is dependent on :
1. the physical limits of physical reality, (atoms and molecules and the working of brain structures, (cells)).
2. genetics, (as we know it determines part of memory,
3. memory, and how it's stored by molecules,
4. What is has "individually" learned *ABOUT* society and culture. There is no magical woo woo of "society and culture" inside a brain, until it's learned, and saved by memory, (which is 100 % dependant on Chemistry.) It would be really nice if you would get an education, on Neuro biology before you make a fool of yourself any further. "Society and culture" are "constructs". There is no *actual* society and culture. They are tiny individual data points.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 06:12 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(19-10-2012 09:09 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 02:00 PM)Vera Wrote:  BTW, a quick side note (because you happened to choose numbers as your example) - while I think as much as (or rather, more) in English, than I do in my own language, counting is the one thing I always do in my language (unless I have to count out loud to a speaker of another language, obviously). Have always found that quite interesting, but still haven't looked into why it might be so...

That is interesting, Vera. And it's not the first time I've come across that phenomenon.

A good friend of mine was born in Cuba to parents who had emigrated from New York. He was raised bilingually, Spanish and English. He and his family left and came back to the U.S. a couple of years after Castro came to power; he was 9 years old at the time. Although he's retained his Spanish, English is clearly his primary language and the one he's the most comfortable in . . . except for numbers! When he counts or does computations in his head, it's usually in Spanish. He finds that just as interesting as you do.

I haven't checked the literature to see if anyone has done research in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a universal phenomenon. Why numbers more than anything else should be so tied to one's first language isn't at all clear.

Turns out that's a pretty universal phenomenon... though they say the same about dreaming, cursing and praying and I only did the last one exclusively in my own language (that was before I came to by senses and admitted to myself I really didn't think anyone was listeningWink)... The numbers thing may have something to do with different parts of the brain being involved in language production and maths.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 08:53 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(19-10-2012 09:09 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I haven't checked the literature to see if anyone has done research in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a universal phenomenon. Why numbers more than anything else should be so tied to one's first language isn't at all clear.

My research and practice of classification would then suggest the theory that the Arabic numerics is such an accurate semantic system that its interpretation is uniquely tied to the individuual's primary language.

Good stuff - I can't wait until somebody does the research. I wonder what kind of theories and hypothesis they have developed?

(20-10-2012 06:12 AM)Vera Wrote:  Turns out that's a pretty universal phenomenon... though they say the same about dreaming, cursing and praying and I only did the last one exclusively in my own language (that was before I came to by senses and admitted to myself I really didn't think anyone was listeningWink)... The numbers thing may have something to do with different parts of the brain being involved in language production and maths.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. After having bannished the religious curse words from my speech for several years, after I determined that I had discovered a scientific theory, I returned to listening to music, and using religious curses as before; but I also was developing high blood pressure from a salty snack food and beer diet.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: