Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[eFestivals]

Psychology can and, in more cases than not, does work this out.

yep it does. By guessing.

After all, there is nothing - and I doubt there ever will be - that is able to analyse every exact process within a brain. As things stand there's very little of what happens within the brain that can be analysed with any accuracy. They can detect that something is happening, they can detect what area of the brain that 'something' is happening in, but actual thoughts? Nope, a million miles away from that, the only possible method is guesses.

As for 'triggers' themselves, to recognise those they'd first have to know if someone is born with a propensity for (say) violent acts that a trigger then stops happening, or if a person is born with (say) no propensity for violent acts that a trigger then causes to happen - that would have to be the first step. So do please tell me how that first step is done outside of your fantastic telepathic skills.

Guesses and blind faith in guesses is all you have for this. No facts, no substance, merely unproven ideas that are based on a guess.

Absolute drivel.

For instance, if someone cannot remember their name after an accident, then it can be analysed to see if they have amnesia or dyspraxia. Amnesia and dyspraxia are psychological concepts derived from research into the cognition of the working memory aka normal psychological thought-processes. Do you deny amnesia and dyspraxia?

these are deviations from a person's 'previous normal' - a completely different thing.

f**k me you're crap at analysis - which here funnily enough is philosophising with the psychological, the two things you claim great expertise in.

This can relate in the exact same way to factors pertaining to social psychology, developmental psychology, biological psychology and psycho-analysis. There are definitive indicators of unresolved past traumas that come out in analyses of the individual's current thoughts and feelings

Yep, it's so precise that no two psychologists will come up with the same answer from the same scenario.

They can't even agree what the more simple 'insane' is. They make different guesses because there's so little of any substance to guide them to the same answer - because funnily enough, just as with the subject being examined, there is no way for two people to be in the exact same 'thought place' because of their different experiences and different importance/weighting to those experiences. Psychologists have all the same flaws to their thought processes to keep them away from 'normal' as any subject they might examine - and so the errors are doubled up.

just as there are indicators of why someone may have learned to feel resentment towards a specific social group.

I've not said there isn't.

But do please tell me how psychology is able to say with certainty how any such resentment is outside of 'normal'. Just because you might not get the same resentment from the same thing happening to you from that group, that tells you nothing of whether that other person's resentment is misplaced or wrong, because context is everything - you and that other have not had identical experiences, and neither have you given the same importance to any experiences you share, to be able to have the same context.

I care about current affairs; most people don't. On the basis of what you're putting forwards here, it's abnormal and 'bad' for me to deviate from the norm by having that interest. Or is your fantastic 'science' perhaps working from double standards for no reason outside of being able to point the finger at anyone they fancy at any moment they fancy because they have 'science' behind them as their powerbase despite so much being guesses?

[eFestivals]

Thus proving that there's no such thing as just physical. To enact something you have to envisage it. You can't kill a load of people with a gun without a complex psychological process. This is pretty much fact, as the wind can't force your hand to do so. It may influence your thought-process (highly unlikely), but it can't make you do it.

"pretty much fact" equals "not a fact".

And you have absolutely no idea if what you say is true or not. It is an impossibility to know the scope and depth of any 'genetic programming' or 'developmental-programming'. For all you know, what you've said here might be the result of default programming, with that same default programming having you believe you've arrived at that conclusion via thoughts. You only have your personal context to work from, you can know nothing outside of that.

So you fall back on guesses, and place your blind faith in those guesses.

Without a psychological process you wouldn't do anything. You'd just lie on the floor in a completely unresponsive mess before dying of starvation.

See above. No substance, only a guess.

But even if 'absent', as you put it, your sub-conscious is telling you things such as to seek food, water and shelter. That's precisely what babies are doing when they cry to their mothers. Such drives are psychological. To refer to them is to speak psychologically.

See above. No substance, only a guess.

Even if brain activity is detected, it still doesn't prove a psychological drive, because it could be a purely pre-programmed physical drive. You cannot know, you can only guess.

You sound like a complete fruit bat with this unthinking, physical garbage. Stop pretending that you can speak of human activity without psychology.

Stop pretending that you have the proof that you can.

All you have is a self-satisfying concept which proves nothing of whether that concept is correct. It cannot be measured because there is no reference point to measure from. It is no less of an impossibility than proving or disproving the existence of god.

[eFestivals]

Neil has a bizarre idea of psychology and a somewhat meta-physical notion of human activity.

Not at all.

Psychology is an idea that only works if you buy into all of its base concepts, that it works itself up from.

The problem for psychology is that those base concepts are themselves without any solid substance. Even the idea of 'thoughts' themselves are baseless; just because we believe we think independently does not mean that we do. We have no proof for it, we buy into the idea no differently to how a person buys into a god concept, it's an idea/thought that 'confirms' that idea/thought to that (religious or psychological) believer.

=======

And please do bear in mind that when I said "idea/thought" in those lines just above that that's the only language I have to work with that can be understood so that I'm able to communicate the 'idea' [same problem here]. Just because I say "idea/thought" to make the point, it doesn't mean it actually is an "idea/thought" as it could be a purely physical or chemical delusion [same problem here].

Self-supporting 'ideas' [there it is again] are a proof of nothing other than the existence of that 'idea' [and again].

People used to say that "the world is flat" on the basis of 'ideas' [and again] that self-supported that 'idea' [and again] in no different a way.

Psychology beyond the basics is just an idea. There is nothing of substance behind it.

=======

Psychology knows what I've just said is true, even if you personally do not. And psychology - claiming to be a science - gets past that by saying "oh, that's rather inconvenient, let's pretend it's not there".

It even does it with the simple. Feral has mentioned how psychology is used in marketing; it has discovered that people are more likely to buy a product if displayed in front of a particular background. What it is not able to do is say whether that happens by a person's "default processes" (whatever they might be) or because they think something like "I like that green colour, oooo, that makes me like the product in front of that green more than I otherwise would". There is no proof that it's thought processes at work, only that something happens.

[eFestivals]

oh yeah I agree with you. Even though I believe in brain processes

I believe in brain processes too - but note the "I believe" that both you and I used here.

It's blind faith, an idea without substance, no different to religion.

[feral chile]

I believe in brain processes too - but note the "I believe" that both you and I used here.

It's blind faith, an idea without substance, no different to religion.

Edited September 1, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Not at all.

Psychology is an idea that only works if you buy into all of its base concepts, that it works itself up from.

The problem for psychology is that those base concepts are themselves without any solid substance. Even the idea of 'thoughts' themselves are baseless; just because we believe we think independently does not mean that we do. We have no proof for it, we buy into the idea no differently to how a person buys into a god concept, it's an idea/thought that 'confirms' that idea/thought to that (religious or psychological) believer.

=======

And please do bear in mind that when I said "idea/thought" in those lines just above that that's the only language I have to work with that can be understood so that I'm able to communicate the 'idea' [same problem here]. Just because I say "idea/thought" to make the point, it doesn't mean it actually is an "idea/thought" as it could be a purely physical or chemical delusion [same problem here].

Self-supporting 'ideas' [there it is again] are a proof of nothing other than the existence of that 'idea' [and again].

People used to say that "the world is flat" on the basis of 'ideas' [and again] that self-supported that 'idea' [and again] in no different a way.

Psychology beyond the basics is just an idea. There is nothing of substance behind it.

=======

Psychology knows what I've just said is true, even if you personally do not. And psychology - claiming to be a science - gets past that by saying "oh, that's rather inconvenient, let's pretend it's not there".

It even does it with the simple. Feral has mentioned how psychology is used in marketing; it has discovered that people are more likely to buy a product if displayed in front of a particular background. What it is not able to do is say whether that happens by a person's "default processes" (whatever they might be) or because they think something like "I like that green colour, oooo, that makes me like the product in front of that green more than I otherwise would". There is no proof that it's thought processes at work, only that something happens.

[feral chile]

I believe in brain processes too - but note the "I believe" that both you and I used here.

It's blind faith, an idea without substance, no different to religion.

Edited September 1, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Ok, do you accept that thoughts and feelings are the way that we experience our brain's information-processing?

they're the labels we've given our experiences of those things, yes.

Whether those things are really as we believe them to be is something we can never know. It's the exact same intellectual dilemma as exists around god concepts.

It's what psychologists call phenomenology, and what most people call subjective experience. You wouldn't deny that we're conscious of phenomena, and the way we're conscious of it is as a result of how our body works (perception, sensation, brain, etc.)?

Yep, I fully accept that we have what we take to be a conciousness of phenomena, and they're certainly the result of how our bodies work.

But we cannot know if there's any independence of thought within that conciousness. Psychology might say something like "Breivik carried out his acts as a result of childhood trauma which warped his thinking", and might even come up with (what it believes to be) solid reasons behind that, all laid out in a rational form.

And yet we cannot know if there's any iota of truth to those ideas, from whether someone does actually have any independent thinking process thru every part to that conclusion. Our brain tells us that there is, but that's simply no different to the lack of proof to god concepts. It's within our heads and nowhere else.

Something is happening within the brain, yes - that can be detected. What can't be detected is what is actually going on internally. What is happening within the brain could be simply a motor function no different to what makes us breathe.

(and, I'll point out, breathing would be considered outside of psychology!).

And we have an amazingly special tool which helps us, called language.

it's as much a hindrance as "an amazingly special tool".

I've been trying here to get across my own thinking on 'thinking' (if it is 'thinking' as we standardly take it to be). Worm and your ability to understand the points I'm trying to make is limited by your own understanding of language which might be different to my own (so ... there's not even a 'normal' language to work up ideas about ideas with!).

I'm certainly getting the impression (in this thread, and previously) that worm (if not you too) is unable or unwilling to consider meanings that might exist outside of a literal take on the words used - and it's via this that he insists that the ideas I've laid out fall fully within the psychological. He can only consider what we take as 'thinking' to be always exactly as dictionary defined, when there's nothing of substance to show that it is, there is only how we subjectively take it be (no different to how a believer takes religion). It might really be a 'motor function' that is nothing like how he considers thinking to be, and so such a literal take of the word 'thinking' has already boxed in his ability to make full consideration of what 'thinking' might be.

His ability to think is limited by his strict adherence to language in the literal - that is constantly clear; his intellectual considerations are limited by the dogma he subscribes to. Yet this only works as something solid, something of substance, if the literal is provable as really something, and not just 'an idea'.

So often, the brain thinks in words. (not all the brain is verbal, but the non-verbal part of the brain passes information to the verbal part through the corpus collosum, so in undamaged brains there's coherence). So we can talk about feelings, sensations etc. that we might otherwise act on subconsciously. Or non-verbally, as I'd prefer to call it.

if we can only think in words then the existence of language becomes a logical impossibility (unless there's a god). The fact of that logic and that we have language proves that assumption to be wrong (or at the least [working from the god idea], suspect).

It's the massive assumptions such as the one you've just given that gives me the grounds to call psychology baseless. If you can't trust the basics to an idea, then you certainly can't trust what is worked up from those basics.

Now, the language we use to describe what our brain's up to (i.e. who we are) affects our behaviour, interpretation of events etc. In other words, through language, we assign symbolic meaning to our experiences.

that's how we standardly take things to be, yup.

And yet it's based from an impossible idea, that we only think in words. So tell me, how can we trust that conclusion when we can't trust what it's worked up from?

Psychology gets around this by pretending that we can only think in words, by ignoring the logic which says that's an impossibility. It takes psychology as far away from being any sort of science as it's possible to get.

Edited September 1, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Psychology is no different from any other science when it's looking at abstract concepts though - relativity for instance, is just a theory based on evidence. We can't get outside time in order to observe it objectively, because we live temporally. it's the same with psychology - we can't really observe that truly objectively, because we live subjectively.

Based on evidence - evidence that is absent from the psychology basics.

There are only 'thoughts' (which, just to confuse things, might not be 'thoughts' as we take them to be) behind psychological ideas, no different to how thoughts confirm religion to a believer. Neither can be said to be definitely true or false. We can only guess, by using 'thoughts'. The cyclical self-confirming nature of that scenario is by itself highly suspect; such things rarely turn out to be how things actually are (there's a mass of history which shows it).

everything - science, social science, life - is just interpretation.

On an intellectual level, that's indeed right.

For reality, it is not. There is a solid fact to a punch in the face, that we then interpret as being a punch in the face.

(an idea hampered by language yet again ).

We only have interpretation for thoughts, at every level. Just like religion.

Edited September 1, 2011 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

they're the labels we've given our experiences of those things, yes.

Whether those things are really as we believe them to be is something we can never know. It's the exact same intellectual dilemma as exists around god concepts.

Yep, I fully accept that we have what we take to be a conciousness of phenomena, and they're certainly the result of how our bodies work.

But we cannot know if there's any independence of thought within that conciousness. Psychology might say something like "Breivik carried out his acts as a result of childhood trauma which warped his thinking", and might even come up with (what it believes to be) solid reasons behind that, all laid out in a rational form.

And yet we cannot know if there's any iota of truth to those ideas, from whether someone does actually have any independent thinking process thru every part to that conclusion. Our brain tells us that there is, but that's simply no different to the lack of proof to god concepts. It's within our heads and nowhere else.

Something is happening within the brain, yes - that can be detected. What can't be detected is what is actually going on internally. What is happening within the brain could be simply a motor function no different to what makes us breathe.

it's as much a hindrance as "an amazingly special tool".

I've been trying here to get across my own thinking on 'thinking' (if it is 'thinking' as we standardly take it to be). Worm and your ability to understand the points I'm trying to make is limited by your own understanding of language which might be different to my own (so ... there's not even a 'normal' language to work up ideas about ideas with!).

I'm certainly getting the impression (in this thread, and previously) that worm (if not you too) is unable or unwilling to consider meanings that might exist outside of a literal take on the words used - and it's via this that he insists that the ideas I've laid out fall fully within the psychological. He can only consider what we take as 'thinking' to be always exactly as dictionary defined, when there's nothing of substance to show that it is, there is only how we subjectively take it be (no different to how a believer takes religion). It might really be a 'motor function' that is nothing like how he considers thinking to be, and so such a literal take of the word 'thinking' has already boxed in his ability to make full consideration of what 'thinking' might be.

His ability to think is limited by his strict adherence to language in the literal - that is constantly clear; his intellectual considerations are limited by the dogma he subscribes to. Yet this only works as something solid, something of substance, if the literal is provable as really something, and not just 'an idea'.

if we can only think in words then the existence of language becomes a logical impossibility (unless there's a god). The fact of that logic and that we have language proves that assumption to be wrong (or at the least [working from the god idea], suspect).

It's the massive assumptions such as the one you've just given that gives me the grounds to call psychology baseless. If you can't trust the basics to an idea, then you certainly can't trust what is worked up from those basics.

that's how we standardly take things to be, yup.

And yet it's based from an impossible idea, that we only think in words. So tell me, how can we trust that conclusion when we can't trust what it's worked up from?

Psychology gets around this by pretending that we can only think in words, by ignoring the logic which says that's an impossibility. It takes psychology as far away from being any sort of science as it's possible to get.

Edited September 1, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I think it's more that, when we get to levels of awareness, we make sense of it through language.

I disagree completely.

We only communicate though language. It's a means of sharing, not of understanding.

Now, worm will say (he's said it before) that I'm wrong about that, but who is he to tell me that my own brain functions are wrong/misinformed, when he's working from nothing different himself?

There are only assumptions, guesses. We cannot reach a definitive applicable-to-all answer for this, yet 'intellectual' () disciplines give one anyway on the basis of f**k all.

what I'm saying, really, is that language mediates the experience.

nah, it just enables you to share the experience verbally.

I think Culty might say language is the experience.

If he's not going to say that now, he's certainly said that previously. But given how what he says changes week to week, who knows what today's version will be?

Those changes get to show that despite his always stated certainty for such things, they're vacuous, and not of the intelligence he claims for himself.

[feral chile]

I disagree completely.

We only communicate though language. It's a means of sharing, not of understanding.

Now, worm will say (he's said it before) that I'm wrong about that, but who is he to tell me that my own brain functions are wrong/misinformed, when he's working from nothing different himself?

There are only assumptions, guesses. We cannot reach a definitive applicable-to-all answer for this, yet 'intellectual' () disciplines give one anyway on the basis of f**k all.

nah, it just enables you to share the experience verbally.

If he's not going to say that now, he's certainly said that previously. But given how what he says changes week to week, who knows what today's version will be?

Those changes get to show that despite his always stated certainty for such things, they're vacuous, and not of the intelligence he claims for himself.

[worm]

yep it does. By guessing.

After all, there is nothing that is able to analyse every exact process within a brain.

[worm]

And you have absolutely no idea if what you say is true or not. It is an impossibility to know the scope and depth of any 'genetic programming' or 'developmental-programming'. For all you know, what you've said here might be the result of default programming, with that same default programming having you believe you've arrived at that conclusion via thoughts. You only have your personal context to work from, you can know nothing outside of that.

[worm]

Psychology is an idea that only works if you buy into all of its base concepts, that it works itself up from.

Edited September 1, 2011 by worm

[worm]

But to share, you have to have a mutual understanding.

i don't know what this has to do with anything, but I was thinking about the reasons we give for doing something. We hardly ever say, because I wanted it, or because I was scared, and I bet that's pretty much why we do everything. maybe we think it's too obvious or uninformative to say that, so we try to explain what made it desirable, or threatening.

[feral chile]

Freud believed in only two pre-logical drives: eros and pathos; creativity and destruction. These were sustained by two pre-logical feelings or existential states of being that we try to avoid, henceforth, we indulge either drive. These are anxiety and lonliness.

Everything else to Freud was a result of logic, which pretty much meant culture. For instance, we are deemed happy as a result of overcoming anxiety. Pleasure is therefore the elimination and existential loss of anxiety and lonliness. Interesting stuff.

[eFestivals]

But to share, you have to have a mutual understanding.

absolutely - and it's achieved thru a shared understanding of language.

[eFestivals]

I can't be arsed with your self indulgent diatribe as it misses the point over and over again, so I'll just put it plainly:

You don't need to know the processes of the brain to know the psychology of it. The psychology of the brain, i.e. the thought-processes, are visible yet abstract entities that exist in LOGIC. We then match thought-processes to the brain's chemical processes. The thought-processes are primary. The biology of the brain means absolutely f**k all without the thought-process to link to it. No thought-process, no bio-psychological activity.

We examine the brain as a cause simply because we are attempting to match it to thought-processes. Now revise your irrelevant diatribe.

PMSL

All you've said is based in the idea you've been told - the dictionary definition if you like - of what thoughts are.

But the basis for that is simply an unproven idea, no different to the idea of religion which might be correct or might not. The whole idea of psychology is worked up from this guess, and it only holds itself together via the cyclical nature of the idea.

If you don't know how the brain works - and you don't - then how are you able to say it works in a particular way and call that a science? It's simply presumption, no basis for anything that is science.

You're managing to prove all I've said by responses like the one above. If you don't see it (and those words say you don't), then that's the result of your own intellectual limitations, your own inability to think for yourself, to think outside of what you've been boxed into. Your literal take on such things limits your thinking only to the literal - you have no room for original thought within that, and if only types like you existed then psychology and a million other ideas that were at one time original never could do.

[feral chile]

absolutely - and it's achieved thru a shared understanding of language.

[eFestivals]

Indeed, and God may be creating all of the abstract forces of the physical universe to act. But science rejects such omniscient bullshit and investigates in a bottom-up fashion beginning with the forces themselves and the most logical explanation for why they behave as they do. It too only guesses. The exact same can be said for psychology, which is why it's called an 'ology'.

Get a grip of this ironic tirade you keep coming out with.

Yep - science investigates in a bottom up fashion, with measurable things. The only abstract thing is the measure itself, but it doesn't matter that it's abstract (as long as it's applied in a consistent way), because it is not the science itself, it's merely a way of displaying difference.

Psychology doesn't. It hasn't got the solid basics to work anything up from. It takes an unprovable assumption for what thoughts are and how they work, and works from that. It's baseless.

The 'ology' is an irrelevance, it's just a label. No one grabs power by saying "i've got a shit idea".

[feral chile]

Yep - science investigates in a bottom up fashion, with measurable things. The only abstract thing is the measure itself, but it doesn't matter that it's abstract (as long as it's applied in a consistent way), because it is not the science itself, it's merely a way of displaying difference.

Psychology doesn't. It hasn't got the solid basics to work anything up from. It takes an unprovable assumption for what thoughts are and how they work, and works from that. It's baseless.

The 'ology' is an irrelevance, it's just a label. No one grabs power by saying "i've got a shit idea".

[eFestivals]

No it isn't, you ignorant gobshite. It's any logical explanation that someone offers for human activity. It's that simple.

PMSL - too simple.

Human activity includes the motor function of breathing. Is that covered by psychology, or is it outside because it's not 'thought'?

It depends which definition you go with, and you're going with the least accepted one here (while you haven't at other points). If you want to put breathing within psychology then that's another pointless and misdirected power-grab.

That's why we have the schools of developmental, social, biological, cognitive and so on. These are disciplines of psychology, rather than any old outdated shite spouted by a layman such as yourself.

Yep, they're disciplines. Care to tell me how that alone proves anything for their substance?

No one seeks and gains a cult by saying "I've got a shit idea, come join me and feel the power".

He has to make people believe. Put on that dog collar, and you've got yourself a religion. Run that advertising campaign to sell to people the things they don't want or need. None of which proves a thing.

What you're offering is a completely outdated omniscient notion of pre-determinism, in which our actions and events can be linked to some imaginary omniscient fate.

PMSL

I started off in this thread swerving the idea of pre-determinism completely, because it wasn't something I accepted at all - and yet I've managed to have different thought processes to the thought processes that psychology says I have. PMSL. How's that possible while psychology stands up?

And then I by-chance stumbled across a MODERN idea - an idea with more proof to it than any aspect of psychology - that there is an amount (how much? Currently unknown) of pre-determinism, something you're still rejecting it seems. Here's betting that you believe you know it all, and that nothing on radio 4 can inform you differently - you've not listened to what can inform you of what you don't know.

If I were weak minded, in awe of the self-proclaimed, I'd have caved in to your discipline, cos it takes a brave man to dispute 'men of power'. Opposite to that is your refusal to find out what you don't know of. Which of us is the thinker?

You clearly have no idea of how utterly outdated this concept is.

It's a modern concept, a new one, one that has come to exist since you've come to believe that you know it all.

It's the absolute antithesis of modern science.

It's the product of modern science you tool.

Science (what is evident in a given constraint) is the exact opposite of omniscience (the force that makes everything so). I've heard science attacked because it depends upon constraints, and I can see the logic, but I've never heard of it being attacked because it cannot tell us everything.

PMSL

It's being attacked because it can tell us nothing - and because it tells us nothing it's not science.

('nothing' is an over-statement, only said in reflection of your words. It tells us something but very little of substance. It's nearly all presumption from the very basics. It's house of sand, it's the emperors new clothes.)

[eFestivals]

and you have to use that language to refer to inner events.

You do realise that 'inner events' contradicts your earlier statement about 'only language', don't you?

Before you can discuss your inner events with others, you have to formulate the words to describe them. so you're applying your shared understanding to your own inner events before you can get to share them.

On nearly all occasions the words already exist (so no formulation is necessary). The 'inner events' are 'uploaded' to your 'language section', processed, and 'outputted' (spoken). That's how I see things as working, anyway, and no one is able to prove it wrong (so why are my 'thoughts' not valid to psychology if it's about thoughts? )

This is where the limits of language come in. An idea cannot be shared if there's not the common language via which that can be done - which is precisely the problem I'm having in this convo, particularly with worm because of his strictly literal approach.

Sure, I could make up a new word to get around those limits - but until a person is able to get the concept behind that meaning it's a hiding to nothing - I can say 'brick', but it means nothing to you until I show you a brick. It needs explaining (or showing) first, which is impossible to do for the non-physical to someone with worm's limitations; originality is an impossibility to him because of that literal approach.

worm wasn't always this way. He'd know nothing at all if he had been.

I might be implying too much here - what I'm saying is that you have to know what you're feeling, and know what label to apply to it, before you can describe it to someone else.

yep. But there's indescribable feelings, which blows away the idea of 'only language'.

Try and imagine feeling something, and it's a totally new feeling/colour etc. unrelated to anything you've ever experienced. How could you apply meaning to it without being able to describe it, even to yourself?

it always has a context that it fits within in your mind, so you get it - it needs no describing. It only needs the description to be shared with another.

Something different to that is the understanding (or not) of that new thing. I don't much understand space (the spaceman kind), but it doesn't stop me from recognising it and it having a context.

You'd probably start off with feelings of unfamiliarity (cognition) pleasantness/unpleasantness (affect). But after that, what, without a label or point of reference?

who cares? I look upwards at night and see space (as best as I can from earth). I don't need to understand it to know its there.

Without being able to label it yourself, how could you share the experience?

you can't. As I said and you're agreeing with, language is for sharing.

[feral chile]

You do realise that 'inner events' contradicts your earlier statement about 'only language', don't you?

yep. But there's indescribable feelings, which blows away the idea of 'only language'.

you can't. As I said and you're agreeing with, language is for sharing.

Edited September 1, 2011 by feral chile