Is it possible to have non-linguistic thoughts?

Ren said:
As usual, there are lot of good points here, but I think you argue past Popper rather than answer his challenge.
Click to expand...
There's no point in addressing that kind of scepticism. It borders on what-if-ism... What if the sun exploded? Etc.

That kind of test tube thought experiment just ends up being a pretentious wank, when one can safely assume sunrise tomorrow will be at the predicted time.
 
Ren said:
@wolly.green
@Aaron Thyne

What do you think of Popper's argument against historicism? Do you find it convincing?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The idea that you can predict the future history of humanity by looking at historical patterns has always hit a bad nerve with me. It seems so obviously wrong that I didn't need Popper to tell me why. But I do find his reasons why very compelling.

If you are not familiar yet, his basic argument is this: The future history of society will be heavily affected by what we know. And since the future growth of knowledge of unpredictable, the future course of history is unknowable. That make sense to you?

Why do you ask, anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
wolly.green said:
Absolutely. The idea that you can predict the future history of humanity by looking at historical patterns has always hit a bad nerve with me. It seems so obviously wrong that I didn't need Popper to tell me why. But I do find his reasons why very compelling.
Click to expand...

Same. Popper just has a nice way of exhibiting the flaws in historicist reasoning. I have an interest in this topic in relation to the kind of philosophy I'm trying to develop in the side, as well.

wolly.green said:
Why do you ask, anyway?
Click to expand...

The topic of historical prediction just came up a little earlier in the thread, so referencing Popper seemed relevant. And I know you have a good grasp of his arguments. By the way, I read Conjectures and Refutations earlier this year, which was rewarding reading and gave me a good overview of the bulk of his positions in regard to the philosophy of science as well.

It might be cool at some point to create a 'Popper versus Kuhn' thread or something along those lines.
 
Sometimes Yeah said:
What is the actual point of adopting a future sceptical philosophy, which idealises a reactive stance to events and situations, instead of an active stance, which involves planning and consideration of contingencies?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what he set out to do. As well as to explain why historicism is flawed, he wanted to set out a better, more rational method to help humanity prepare for the future. Basically, he ends by stating the only way to prepare for the unknowable future is to create knowledge for its own sake.

Sometimes Yeah said:
If we had perfect knowledge of causality and historical reality (from even just a minute in the past), we could have a perfect foresight into the future. THAT sort of foresight would eliminate the NEED for planning, even though one would foresee many instances where causality leads to planning activities, which in turn lead to other events. But our imperfect knowledge of the past and of causality doesn't render forward looking null, it just subjects that forward looking to a degree of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Predicting what one person will do is quite a different challenge than trying to predict what all of humanity will do over the next decade. This assumption that people are nothing more than "atoms" and society is nothing more than an accumulation of "atoms" is horribly flawed IMO. Society is bigger than the sum of its parts.

Anyway, the problem with trying to predict the future history of humanity is that the choices we make will be heavily influenced by what we KNOW. Our knowledge has a direct affect on our actions. Further, We have the capacity to learn from our past mistakes. To not only learn WHAT those mistakes were, but also to solve them and implement solutions that prevent them from happening again. The future will look different from the past because what we KNOW will also look different.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Ren said:
Same. Popper just has a nice way of exhibiting the flaws in historicist reasoning. I have an interest in this topic in relation to the kind of philosophy I'm trying to develop in the side, as well.



The topic of historical prediction just came up a little earlier in the thread, so referencing Popper seemed relevant. And I know you have a good grasp of his arguments. By the way, I read Conjectures and Refutations earlier this year, which was rewarding reading and gave me a good overview of the bulk of his positions in regard to the philosophy of science as well.

It might be cool at some point to create a 'Popper versus Kuhn' thread or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

Wow, wtf. That's insane! What did you think?

Also, yes, lets do it. Having a long protracted conversation with you might actually help me to understand Kuhn a little better. You're insanely intelligent, so I'm sure your insight will be invaluable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Thought doesn’t imply that it must be communicated, though it is detrimental to the whole of people in itself. Therefore communication can occur within even if there’s no communication outside. People cant be seen as not having thought because communication isn’t occurring. The brain has its own communications/neurons communicating with each other, therefore communication outside to others being lacking isn’t the brain not communicating to itself.
Furthermore if this is the case and we were to expand on that thought, it would also mean that when a person dreams and has symbols representing what is occurring within their waking life inside their dreams as a representation, then that person is processing its own brains events with itself so therefore communication within to itself must be possible. To follow that train of thought that not being able to communicate thought would be irrelevant and a moot point that people sleeping would be considered dead altogether. Thinking with thoughts and symbols would mean that the brain is more awake and alive and working much more than not. It finding the words associated with the symbol and the thought that is the hard part and would indicate a lack of health with dealing with the emotions of others that would cause issues. That would be by INTJs tend to communicate better when it comes to thought but have less emotional understanding just like an infj would have a hard time communicating the way the thoughts are working and why something will happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top