Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2016 - 06:42am PT
|
I'd say all of these posts are examples of discursive minds, none operational.
Definitions (of course mine included) all suffer insufficiency. So do labels and terms. None are the thing pointed to. That makes thinking far less than supposed, unless it is the very experience of thinking that is being discussed (content irrespective). Then, it's just experience, which is simply (and completely) consciousness itself.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2016 - 08:04pm PT
|
Operational vs discursive thinking is like a dog chasing its tail. The "definitions" are so muddled in this thread as to make arguments irrelevant if not incomprehensible. Move on to something else, people.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2016 - 09:24pm PT
|
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2016 - 09:49pm PT
|
Great post MikeL.
Thanks
Liberated, Yes
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2016 - 06:48am PT
|
Jgill: . . . ”definitions" are so muddled in this thread as to make arguments irrelevant if not incomprehensible.
Let’s look at this for a second.
If definitions were hard and fast, clear and concise, unequivocal and enduring, then what could ever be argued? Things would be, well, . . . what their definitions would say that they are. End of story.
But that’s not what we see. What we seem to see is that everything can be argued: the what, the why, the how, the when, etc.
What cannot be argued? What is so clear, unequivocal, and enduring? What do you know without a doubt in all instances? Who really knows just what they are talking about?
Hell, . . . it’s doubtful that people even know what’s going on in their own minds.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2016 - 04:33pm PT
|
If definitions were hard and fast, clear and concise, unequivocal and enduring, then what could ever be argued?
Logical results arising from those definitions?
FWIW
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Bump?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Azael the Demon . . . the horrors of religion
Courtesy of my quantum computer and a virtual integral from a coupled contour system. The image is tiny and must be magnified.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Now I'm gonna have nightmares!
Unless I submit my soul to, Azael!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Azael the Demon
You should become God conscious and then your mathematics will become sublime ......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Love those displays, jgill. What would be really cool (maybe) is to somehow use the inputs to this thread as a part of the algorithm that is recursively evaluated. This would give us a picture of ourselves.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
^^^
Hmmm . . . I'll think that over.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
Mr. Gill that looks like an insect on LSD!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!