What is what is?

[AlP]

I think you are confusing a hammer, with the act of hammering. A hammer is an object that is designed for optimal hammering. A rock can be used to hammer, but it is not a hammer with regard to the common definition of a hammer.

If your attack is only in semantics then I you are not attacking. I was not talking about a hammer as defined in a dictionary. I tried to make that clear. I was talking about whatever thing I perceive as a hammer when I think. I do not think in language. You might say this is circular. It is not. The hammer that I perceive comes from the hammering, not vice-versa. Hammers are so basic to humans that I imagine almost all of us understand it. A hammer is anything we use to batter something with when the possibility arises. There is not just hammering. There is a hammer. The hammer is as much a part of our thinking as the hammering.

You're conflating the possible utility of a thing, with what it is. A rock is not a hammer, even if it can be used to hammer, as it does not meet the definitional parameters of a hammer, even if you can in fact beat stuff with it. A "hammer" is not defined as just anything that can be used to beat stuff, it has physical a parameters that have to be met. There is no "hammeryness", no metaphysical essence of a hammer that can be bestowed upon objects by means of intent.

Language again. I agree that a rock is not really a hammer. That is actually my point. But I will sometimes perceive it to be a hammer. That's what interests me. And you're correct that there is no metaphysical essence of a hammer. Hammeryness is an idea.

I won't disagree but I actually do think the definition itself is abstract. What it defines is not. But you're returning to language.

I haven't left language -- are you proposing a mind-meld?

No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

I never said that! I said the opposite. That doesn't even make sense, if no one views it as a hammer -- then who wrote the dictionary?

I've been trying to make it clear, though I failed in this case, that I am talking about perception of a hammer at a particular instant in time for a particular person. The person who wrote the dictionary might be a different person or the same person at a different time. But that's irrelevant anyway. The person writing the dictionary is defining hammer. I'm only interested in our perception of the hammer.

[AlP]

Edit: Sorry for double posting. I was replying to Sophus here whereas in the previous post I was replying to Hitsumei.

An object's potential of what it can become is perhaps more what it is than merely its current state of being.

Yes. A rock can remain stationary or it can be kicked (among other things). There is nothing in the rock that means it will be kicked. It certainly doesn't know it's going to be kicked. What happens is, a person comes along, observes there is currently a rock, remembers that kicking rocks is possible and arbitrarily decides to kick it.

Thoughts are powerful and are meaningless to us without our minds to host them.

By thought do you mean idea or concept? Or something else? I see thinking as a continuous process that I am partially aware of in my own mind at a particular instant in time. It's hard for me to pick two points in time and call my thinking between those points in time a thought. They flow in and out of each other.

But I don't think that means the concept would not still hold true even without a mind to think the thought.

It depends on the concept I think. In a sense, 1 + 1 = 2 is true without a host. Displaying my extravagant tail feathers will attract a mate is likely for birds like peacocks but not for humans. And then there are things that are completely subjective, like celery tastes good. I hate celery. Some people like it. It seems most concepts need a host to be true. And true is overloaded. When a mathematician says something is true, I understand what they mean by true. That's my true. But when I speak to my roommate who has post-modernist leanings, I quickly realize she's speaking a different language with a different meaning for true. Her true means to me something like important or significant or desirable. But it is no less practical or potent. Our minds do not appear to work in binary.

So to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

It's almost like the old "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?"

This is the problem with language I raised earlier. Because we have a word for sound and it seems real, we think there are sounds in nature. There are no sounds in nature. There are pressure waves. We hear them and interpret them as sounds. Sound needs a host to be realized.

So "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" It causes a pressure wave regardless of whether anyone hears it. And that is all that ever really happens. But if someone were there they might perceive sound. They brought the sound concept with them and associated it with the experience of hearing the pressure wave.

If a thought is true when thought, does it remain true when not? I would answer yes to both of these questions.

I hope I have explained why I disagree in most cases. Math is a case where I do not.

What makes a hammer could be disputed but is not the definition of hammering agreed upon? If we realize a hammer is something that hammers we know a hammer. Thus the hammer may also identify with something else if its use changes. If I give a hammer to someone unfamiliar with the purpose it was designed for and they use it as a stake to support their tent, it becomes a stake. And by the potential of its being, it is still a hammer. I suppose it is many things, which is why words cannot truly describe an object.

I imagine a lot of languages have a broadly accepted definition for hammer, English included. Words are not concepts though. A word can identify a concept just as a name can identify a person but the word is not the concept just as a person is not simply their name. Words are static. Concepts are dynamic. They change with time and they are experienced with time and they are tied to a host. That's why the hammer seems to become a stake. It doesn't. It was never a hammer and never a stake. What happened was, some person at some time viewed it as a hammer. Then that person or a different person, at a different time, viewed it as a stake.

But the understood concepts that is associated with a tool or things being is indisputable. The act of hammering, when understood properly, we have clarity and truth as to what makes a hammer a hammer. I may be veering from your crux in my attempt to relate this to knowing the state of god by knowing the functionality of his attributes.

I will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

[Tom62]

What makes a hammer could be disputed but is not the definition of hammering agreed upon? If we realize a hammer is something that hammers we know a hammer. Thus the hammer may also identify with something else if its use changes. If I give a hammer to someone unfamiliar with the purpose it was designed for and they use it as a stake to support their tent, it becomes a stake. And by the potential of its being, it is still a hammer. I suppose it is many things, which is why words cannot truly describe an object.

You can use something else for hammering. Recently I used my shoe to hammer a nail in the wall. Does that mean that my shoe is now a hammer? A hammer also doesn't have to be a hammer. F.e. being a senior software engineer I've seen many golden hammers, but none of them were hammers.

[VanReal]

No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

[Hitsumei]

No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

Where'd language come from if thinking didn't predate it?

Language is entirely unnecessary for thought, its sole purpose is to communicate thoughts to others. I know I hardly ever engage in extensive inner monologue. I have this neat little trick I call conceptual thought.

[VanReal]

No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

Where'd language come from if thinking didn't predate it?

Language is entirely unnecessary for thought, its sole purpose is to communicate thoughts to others. I know I hardly ever engage in extensive inner monologue. I have this neat little trick I call conceptual thought.

You understand your conceptual (critical) thought through language.  Instinct, emotion and experience through the senses do not require thought, and language has been around, not in the current form but in some fashion.  The birds and bees do it too.  Words (language) are names or identifiers we give to concepts which is important in thought.  Without knowing the concept or word of "hammer" there would be no thought process surrounding whether or not the rock was a hammer, we'd be using instinct to see what could smash another object yet small enough to handle.

Oh, and I have inner monologues all of the time, and when I drift I often say to myself "what was I thinking about"....oh and it comes to me in words.

[AlP]

Hmm, what do you think in then?

I'm not an expert on this by any stretch. I'm just sharing how I think I experience thinking.

I sometimes have an inner monologue. But not always. That's why I know that the inner monologue is not the only source of my thought, if it is even a source at all. I think the inner monologue is like a theatre where you put on little plays to see how things might turn out later in the real world with real people.

There's visualization, where I "see" something that is not actually there but which is useful for me to see. Like if I'm driving I might "see" a map.

There's conceptual thought. I visualize that as a graph, where the vertices are concepts and the edges are relations between the concepts. Conceptual thought is like riding around the graph, changing it as I go. Although some of the concepts can be identified with words, in my experience, most of them have no corresponding word.

There are more parts to this puzzle.

I find this is an interesting little thought experiment. I am thinking and furthermore I am aware that I am thinking. But I unable to be aware that I am aware that I am thinking. Nor am I able to be aware that I am aware that I am aware that I am thinking. Try it . The awareness that I am unable to be aware of is where I am most comfortable. And it doesn't talk.

[Hitsumei]

You understand your conceptual (critical) thought through language.  

It is the other way around. It is because I comprehend the concept that I am able to render it intelligibility within a semantic medium.  

Words (language) are names or identifiers we give to concepts which is important in thought.  

So you then must agree that conceptual throught predates language.

Without knowing the concept or word of "hammer" there would be no thought process surrounding whether or not the rock was a hammer, we'd be using instinct to see what could smash another object yet small enough to handle.

Without the concept, we wouldn't be doing anything. We don't have an instinct to use tools. That requires conceptual thought, but not linguistics. Tool use went on for a good million years before language evolved.

Oh, and I have inner monologues all of the time, and when I drift I often say to myself "what was I thinking about"....oh and it comes to me in words.

Should try it without it. Rendering everything unnecessarily into a linguistic format significantly slows things down.

[VanReal]

So you then must agree that conceptual throught predates language.

No, language has been around, it may have been in the form of signals, pounding, facial expressions or grunts but there was some form of language/communication.

Should try it without it. Rendering everything unnecessarily into a linguistic format significantly slows things down.

Come now, I did not say every thought in my head was audible, I'm not here drooling in a cup.  There are thoughts that are quick and needed for reaction or decision making, vague or subconscious, that I don't sit there and play out in my head.  But, conceptual thought makes sense to us through language even if internal and not in a monologue.  I'm not saying it doesn't occur outside of language just that it makes sense to us through language IMO.

[Hitsumei]

Come now, I did not say every thought in my head was audible, I'm not here drooling in a cup.  There are thoughts that are quick and needed for reaction or decision making, vague or subconscious, that I don't sit there and play out in my head.  But, conceptual thought makes sense to us through language even if internal and not in a monologue.  I'm not saying it doesn't occur outside of language just that it makes sense to us through language IMO.

We only require language to share ideas and concepts, not to understand them. We need to understand them before they can be rendered into language.

Just a simple reduction demonstrates this, unless the very first description of conceptual thought was handed down from on high, someone would have had to understood it, and then worked to render it intelligibly into language.

Sharing ideas through language is pretty well how we come to understand almost everything, because understanding anything that it hard is a group effort, but each little piece of the puzzle started out as an idea in someone's head, and then they attempted to intelligibly represent it in language.

[VanReal]

We only require language to share ideas and concepts, not to understand them. We need to understand them before they can be rendered into language.

Just a simple reduction demonstrates this, unless the very first description of conceptual thought was handed down from on high, someone would have had to understood it, and then worked to rendered it intelligibly into language.

Sharing ideas through language is pretty well how we come to understand almost everything, because understanding anything that it hard is a group effort, but each little piece of the puzzle started out as an idea in someone's head, and then they attempted to intelligibly represent it in language.

This does make sense but it is debatable and of course is debated under the "do babies think/understand/remember before they learn language" topic that runs through philosophy classes in college.  I don't think we can understand our thoughts until we can "match" those thoughts to something we use as an identifier, my opinion of course.

[AlP]

This is a slightly different topic but still appropriate for the title "what is what is?".

Suppose something is. It "is" at a particular instant in time. That time can only be now. If the time is past then it was. If the time is future then it will be. This isn't an accident of language. They aren't just different words for similar concepts. It was, it is and it will be seem profoundly different to me.

Suppose something was. How would I know that? Perhaps a remnant of what was still is. From what is I can try to infer what was. I might also remember what was and the memory is itself a remnant. I can study records of what was, which are also remnants. Someone might communicate to me their memory of what was, which is a remnant. What was in the past is no more. There are only remnants. "Is" and "was" are not equals. Is means something now. Was is confusing. It is tempting to think that what was still somehow is. It is not.

Remnant isn't a particularly good word. It's fine for talking about what was 1000s of years ago but I'm using it (somewhat inappropriately) for any passage of time. I can't think of a more appropriate word.

Here's an example. I'm sitting at a desk. I can observe that there is a desk. I infer from observing that there is a desk and by recalling from memory that there was a desk a second ago, that there was in fact a desk a second ago. But I am disconnected from that desk. There was a desk a second ago but it is inaccessible to me. It is gone forever. Fortunately the remnant of the desk still is and, being only a second older, is not significantly degraded.

Here's another example. I was sitting at this desk a second ago. I remain and I remember sitting here. From that I infer that I was sitting here a second ago. But that I that was is gone forever. I can never return to him. It seems that I am being continuously extinguished, becoming a remnant of what I was. The I that was is essentially dead and I am his remnant.

What will be cannot be more than prediction based on what is. "Is" and "will be" are not equals. What "is" is, obviously, all that there is. What "was" and what "will be" do not add anything.

I suspect Hitsumei is about to kick my ass.  

VanReal posted while I was writing this. I'll respond here so I don't double post.

This does make sense but it is debatable and of course is debated under the "do babies think/understand/remember before they learn language" topic that runs through philosophy classes in college. I don't think we can understand our thoughts until we can "match" those thoughts to something we use as an identifier, my opinion of course.

Concepts have identity but the identity does not have to be a word or phrase. I'm also not convinced that we need to match our thoughts to something we use as an identifier.

You are not asserting this. But if someone were to state that we can only think in language then that would be falsifiable. And Hitsumei and I would just have demonstrated that it is false. I believe Hitsumei. I also do not think in language.

[VanReal]

Suppose something is. It "is" at a particular instant in time. That time can only be now. If the time is past then it was. If the time is future then it will be. This isn't an accident of language. They aren't just different words for similar concepts. It was, it is and it will be seem profoundly different to me.

This is interesting:)

My thought while reading this made me think of looking at a chrysalis.  It is beautiful and light green with gold stripes. It was a caterpillar slinking around nibbling on leaves.  It will be a butterfly after cracking the chrysalis, hanging upside down to dry and flying away.  It will not be and never can be a caterpillar again, and if you look at him closely while he's drying out his wings you can't see any remnents of the caterpillar's color or body, it's all in your memory.

[Sophus]

Yes. A rock can remain stationary or it can be kicked (among other things). There is nothing in the rock that means it will be kicked. It certainly doesn't know it's going to be kicked. What happens is, a person comes along, observes there is currently a rock, remembers that kicking rocks is possible and arbitrarily decides to kick it.

Cool. I believe we're on the same page here. This is a tricky concept to articulate well...

By thought do you mean idea or concept? Or something else? I see thinking as a continuous process that I am partially aware of in my own mind at a particular instant in time. It's hard for me to pick two points in time and call my thinking between those points in time a thought. They flow in and out of each other.

You're absolutely right. "Idea" or "concept" would be much more appropriate. This reminds me of a book I read called As A Man Thinketh by James Allen. If you're not familiar with it I think you would find it interesting. It's a quick read and is in some ways very closely related to our theory.

So to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

To have significance to us they do. But as I said, the concept would hold true without it being thought for the reasons I previously explained. If I remember As A Man Thinketh may explain this as well.

This is the problem with language I raised earlier. Because we have a word for sound and it seems real, we think there are sounds in nature. There are no sounds in nature. There are pressure waves. We hear them and interpret them as sounds. Sound needs a host to be realized.

So "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" It causes a pressure wave regardless of whether anyone hears it. And that is all that ever really happens. But if someone were there they might perceive sound. They brought the sound concept with them and associated it with the experience of hearing the pressure wave.

Well it does come down to the semantics of sound. As you can see we could pull definition variations that would support either of our case: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

I will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

Look forward to it. Fantastic topic, truly is.  

[AlP]

So to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

To have significance to us they do. But as I said, the concept would hold true without it being thought for the reasons I previously explained. If I remember As A Man Thinketh may explain this as well.

To my mind, a concept is not really "true". Most of my concepts are about understanding what currently is and what possibilities are open to me. So the hammer concept is about understanding what a hammer is, what I can do with it and what the outcome might be. It is the physical object of the hammer plus the possibility of hammering. But I can't think of any sense in which it is "true".

My true is in of the domain of logic. There are different ways of thinking about logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy. That's what it really is. I'm going to try an experiment and invent some phrases. I'm going to invent the phrase in-itself and logic as a branch of philosophy I will call logic in-itself. I also have a concept of logic. As a concept, it is my understanding of what logic is plus my sense of the possibilities logic opens to me. I'm going to invent the phrase to-me-now and call that logic to-me-now. As a species, we have not understood logic until quite recently. Logic is not inherent in our thinking. "True" is only is significant to me when I am using the concepts of logic to-me-now. When I'm doing laundry "true" isn't usually significant to me and there is nothing "true" about the concept of laundry.

A hammer in-itself is a lump of steel or wood and steel. That's the kind you buy at Home Depot. A hammer in-itself is not a stone. A stone in-itself is just a stone composed of a particular kind of molecule. A stone in-itself is not a hammer. A sound in-itself is a pressure wave as defined in the dictionary link you provided.

A hammer to-me-now is anything I can use for hammering. This is the hammer concept. It can be a hammer in-itself or a stone in-itself. A hammer in-itself can be a stake to-me-now when I'm pitching a tent. A sound to-me-now is the concept of what I hear, what that means and what possibilities are open to me. Do I look for the water I hear? Do I run from a predator I hear behind me?

Nothing of the to-me-now is contained in the in-itself. I carry the to-me-now around in my brain. But it seems to me that the brain projects the to-me-now onto the in-itself. The in-itself seems to become the to-me-now. It is hard for me to distinguish between the two. But they are really quite separate. The to-me-now is in my mind.

A hammer in-itself exists independent of whether anyone is observing it or thinking about it. When does a hammer to-me-now exist? It exists for a particular person when they are using the concept of the hammer.

You asked whether a concept would hold true without it being thought. At a particular instant in time the physical world exists in a certain state and certain things are possible. That is independent of whatever people are thinking. Hammering is possible whether or not anyone realizes. But hammering does not exist. Something that might be used as a hammer might exist. But without a person that understands the concept of the hammer, it is not a hammer to-me-now.

So yes there are possibilities that we are unaware of but they do not in any sense exist.

I will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

Look forward to it.

I'm going to hold off a little longer and see how you respond to this.