The difference between thought and speech

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Tegularius »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 25th, 2022, 6:48 am
Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pm I don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain. Speech is the movement of tongue and lips forming sounds. Sign language is the movement of arms and hands gesturing systematically along with facial expressions whose meaning is almost immediately understood.
There does seem to be some commonality, perhaps more than you thought?
Do spoken and signed languages rely on the same areas of the brain?

The parts of the brain active in sign language processing are very similar to those involved in spoken language processing. When we compare the brain scans of deaf people watching sign language and hearing people listening to speech, there is significant overlap, especially in the core areas. This suggests that these areas do not distinguish between information coming in through the eyes or the ears.

There are, of course some differences...
Link to full article.
That there is a significant overlap is not only obvious but a necessity. Whether I inform a person via speech or by sign language to turn right, go to the end of the block and turn left, the message, the meaning is the same and processed by the same regions of the brain to conclude the same. The difference lies in the input method as I think I made clear.

Anyways, I don't care; think of it in any way you or Empiricist-Bruno prefer to interpret it.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pm I don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain. Speech is the movement of tongue and lips forming sounds. Sign language is the movement of arms and hands gesturing systematically along with facial expressions whose meaning is almost immediately understood.
We have now discovered that this is factually incorrect; it is not so.


Pattern-chaser wrote: July 25th, 2022, 6:48 am There does seem to be some commonality, perhaps more than you thought?
Do spoken and signed languages rely on the same areas of the brain?

The parts of the brain active in sign language processing are very similar to those involved in spoken language processing. When we compare the brain scans of deaf people watching sign language and hearing people listening to speech, there is significant overlap, especially in the core areas. This suggests that these areas do not distinguish between information coming in through the eyes or the ears.

There are, of course some differences...


Link to full article.

Tegularius wrote: July 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm That there is a significant overlap is not only obvious but a necessity. Whether I inform a person via speech or by sign language to turn right, go to the end of the block and turn left, the message, the meaning is the same and processed by the same regions of the brain to conclude the same. The difference lies in the input method as I think I made clear.
Yes, you did. But you failed to note that the input method is irrelevant to your argument. Your words imply that you might believe sign languages to be limited to simple and simplified communications only, when compared to speech. This is not so. Did you know that signers 'speak' in 'accents' and 'dialects', as speech-users do?

Having discovered that signed communication is (roughly speaking) treated by the same areas of the brain as speech is, it is quite clear, I think, that the "input method" is irrelevant, and that saying otherwise could be seen — or intended? — as an affront to signers.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Tegularius »

Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pmI don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain.
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amWe have now discovered that this is factually incorrect; it is not so.
Mind pointing out in what way it's not so since I'm seemingly missing something?
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amBut you failed to note that the input method is irrelevant to your argument.
The input method was the entire argument.
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amYour words imply that you might believe sign languages to be limited to simple and simplified communications only, when compared to speech. This is not so. Did you know that signers 'speak' in 'accents' and 'dialects', as speech-users do?
That is definitely not so. Please point me to where I implied any such thing!

I'm also well aware that "signers 'speak' in 'accents' and 'dialects', as speech-users do". Not only that but sign language can express anything which speech can express including abstractions. Sign language is after all a language though not conveyed verbally as input.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Tegularius wrote: July 28th, 2022, 3:32 pm
Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pmI don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain.
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amWe have now discovered that this is factually incorrect; it is not so.
Mind pointing out in what way it's not so since I'm seemingly missing something?
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amBut you failed to note that the input method is irrelevant to your argument.
The input method was the entire argument.
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 9:09 amYour words imply that you might believe sign languages to be limited to simple and simplified communications only, when compared to speech. This is not so. Did you know that signers 'speak' in 'accents' and 'dialects', as speech-users do?
That is definitely not so. Please point me to where I implied any such thing!

I'm also well aware that "signers 'speak' in 'accents' and 'dialects', as speech-users do". Not only that but sign language can express anything which speech can express including abstractions. Sign language is after all a language though not conveyed verbally as input.


Well then our only point of disagreement is your assertion that signing is processed by different parts of the brain than speech is:
Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pmI don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain.
I even gave you a link:
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 25th, 2022, 6:48 am There does seem to be some commonality, perhaps more than you thought?
Do spoken and signed languages rely on the same areas of the brain?

The parts of the brain active in sign language processing are very similar to those involved in spoken language processing. When we compare the brain scans of deaf people watching sign language and hearing people listening to speech, there is significant overlap, especially in the core areas. This suggests that these areas do not distinguish between information coming in through the eyes or the ears.

There are, of course some differences...
Link to full article.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Tegularius wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 3:47 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 10:45 am
Tegularius wrote: July 21st, 2022, 10:54 pm Sign language is a visual language; in effect you hear by sight. Speech is an aural language which you hear with your ears.

As visual, hearing is not necessary; as aural, sight is not necessary.

Why does something so obvious have to be pointed out! :roll:
As sign language is a bona fide language, it must also be included in the concept of speech, even though the literal (dictionary) meaning does not. There is no law that this must be so, as you know, but common sense is screaming loudly here, and I will abide by her wishes. I think you should too.
I don't deny that sign language is a "bona fide language" and in that sense linguistic though non-verbal. Since language denotes communication it can be no other. But the medium through which it communicates is not speech but sight being different processing areas of the brain. Speech is the movement of tongue and lips forming sounds. Sign language is the movement of arms and hands gesturing systematically along with facial expressions whose meaning is almost immediately understood.
Sign Language vs Spoken Language

The difference between sign language and spoken language is in the way they convey information. In the modern world, a number of languages are in use. Some of these are spoken languages while others are sign languages. These two types of languages are different from one another and should be viewed as natural languages. A spoken language can be understood as an auditory and a vocal language. A sign language is a language where gestures and facial expressions are used in order to convey information. This is the main difference between the two languages. However, it has to be stated that both languages can be used to convey all sorts of information. It can be news, conversations about day to day activities, stories, narrations, etc. Through this article let us examine the differences between the two languages.
There is a critical error here. Language simply does not communicate through a medium.
People communicate whereas language is one tool used by people to communicate. To suggest that language communicates is self projection into language and is arguably unhinged. If you see (or hear) language (as in my definition of thought) and it leads you to think about this or that then did that language communicated to you this or that? Or did you just come in contact with thought (logged speech) and that triggered more personal thought in you?
This also brings up another interesting point in my theory: I wouldn't agree that words written in any random place for any reason constitute speech. However, if a signer signs "bag" which is signed in American Sign Language as the letters "B" followed by the letter "a" followed by the letter "g" then I would accept that as speech because you have have a living being there presumably trying to say something and the word vanishes immediately as it is being said/shown (not logged). The letters are only speech when they are spoken or signed. That's the root of much misunderstanding about the difference between words and thought: what differentiate them is in how you come across them.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 29th, 2022, 7:56 pm Language simply does not communicate through a medium.
People communicate whereas language is one tool used by people to communicate. To suggest that language communicates is self projection into language and is arguably unhinged. If you see (or hear) language (as in my definition of thought) and it leads you to think about this or that then did that language communicated to you this or that? Or did you just come in contact with thought (logged speech) and that triggered more personal thought in you?
This also brings up another interesting point in my theory: I wouldn't agree that words written in any random place for any reason constitute speech. However, if a signer signs "bag" which is signed in American Sign Language as the letters "B" followed by the letter "a" followed by the letter "g" then I would accept that as speech because you have have a living being there presumably trying to say something and the word vanishes immediately as it is being said/shown (not logged). The letters are only speech when they are spoken or signed. That's the root of much misunderstanding about the difference between words and thought: what differentiate them is in how you come across them.
I think you're getting in too deep here. Language, whether spoken, signed or written, is a useful but imperfect tool we use for communication. We often try to represent our thoughts using language, with the aim of communicating with our fellows. Does that summarise what you're saying? Have I left anything significant out?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 30th, 2022, 8:32 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 29th, 2022, 7:56 pm Language simply does not communicate through a medium.
People communicate whereas language is one tool used by people to communicate. To suggest that language communicates is self projection into language and is arguably unhinged. If you see (or hear) language (as in my definition of thought) and it leads you to think about this or that then did that language communicated to you this or that? Or did you just come in contact with thought (logged speech) and that triggered more personal thought in you?
This also brings up another interesting point in my theory: I wouldn't agree that words written in any random place for any reason constitute speech. However, if a signer signs "bag" which is signed in American Sign Language as the letters "B" followed by the letter "a" followed by the letter "g" then I would accept that as speech because you have have a living being there presumably trying to say something and the word vanishes immediately as it is being said/shown (not logged). The letters are only speech when they are spoken or signed. That's the root of much misunderstanding about the difference between words and thought: what differentiate them is in how you come across them.
I think you're getting in too deep here. Language, whether spoken, signed or written, is a useful but imperfect tool we use for communication. We often try to represent our thoughts using language, with the aim of communicating with our fellows. Does that summarise what you're saying? Have I left anything significant out?
Thanks for apparently making an effort to see/ understand my position Pattern-Chaser. I sorry but no, your summary up there certainly does completely miss some key (and revolutionary) concepts that I am introducing here. No where in your brief summary is there any mention of the new basic understanding/discovery of what makes a though a 'thought' as opposed to 'speech'. If your summary of 'what I am saying' does not say anything about that, then you certainly haven't summarized what I saying here but thanks for trying.

Now if you had grasped what I am trying to say here, you would first have realized that the subject of my talk to you is centered upon --among other things--what you are are faced with upon logging in to this website. So, what's at stake here is your entire understanding of how communication takes place as you sit and read the forum. But it's not just your understanding here that's the focus but principally the misunderstanding of the entire human population in respect to this communication. I am claiming that the reason behind this misunderstanding is the failure to differentiate speech from thought.

For instance, as I say that I 'communicate' here with you, I believe to fully know and understand the nature of this 'communication' but I am uncertain whether your understanding is on the same page with mine.

Please, take the time to go with me over this to assess whether or not we're on the same page. First, I say that it's simply not possible for me, a blogger in one country to have a conversation with another blogger across a continent because a conversation presuppose speech back and forth between two living individuals. Well, in the case of bloggers writing on their computers and pressing 'enter' or 'submit' to 'speak' to the other is factually a misuse of the word 'speak'. Other ways to describe this common misuse of 'speech' is to call it 'thought fantasy' or an 'euphemism'.

You know, it will be asked of me --once my theory becomes accepted-- how did I come to finally grasp this when no one else was able to come up with this basic truth? (Yes, amazingly, I am exposing here a basic truth comparable to other such discoveries such as saying that all life forms originate from another life form.) Well, the reason is that back 20 years ago, I started deep philosophical investigations into machine power. I even wrote a book about it, 'Alert About Machines' and this investigation surprisingly revealed that there is no responsibility for the actions of machines. This extraordinary and true belief/ conclusion has not been easy to reconcile with what's going on in the world or what is being taught in our schools. So, my views, although entirely true ran completely outside of the cultural conservative boxes in which we live. As I have learned to live adapting my beliefs to a society that would simply dismiss my views, I suddenly and after many years was able to see the way in which people confuse speech and thought. (It's not all that different from learning to see how people appropriate the deeds of machines as their own deeds when they aren't.) At that point, I asked myself, 'why is that?' and that's when I came up with this theory that 'thought' is the logged form of speech. Once I realized this, it was like, 'ho wow!' this understanding will change the world. The reason it will change the world is that anyone who comes to understand what I understand is unlikely to go back to backwards mainstream viewpoints. The heat of the glaring truth will keep the reader with me. But then again, to clearly understand the basis of what I am saying here, you need to be willing to agree that as you press 'send' on the computer, you aren't sending anything yourself. You certainly allow the computer to send something but you aren't the computer (if you aren't unhinged).

So, to recap, as I speak to you here, if I am not communicating to you, then what exactly is it that I am doing? Well, here, at the computer, I log imaginary speech (the speech that's drawable from thoughts) onto the computer and allow the computer to share it along it's networks. Now, the reader may assess the logged speech (thought) and use his/her own imagination to come up with 'my speech' (and that will be an imaginary actor in his/her mind playing me. Yes, that may be me or an acceptable form of me but that's another story). Now, having said that, it becomes clear that the nature of my existence/presence through this device is limited to the imaginary world of the person reading about it, a continent away and is no evidence that I even truly exist elsewhere from the recipient's perspective. However, you may still have an interesting imaginary conversation with me this way and that conversation may light up in your mind about important things that you need to be informed about. It's like reading a fiction book where the characters you read about may be questioned and provide answer but all of this remains in the realm of imagination.

I would like to finish my post here by restating another key aspect of the difference between thought and speech: thought is directed at the imaginary whereas speech is meant to cover non-fiction and is meant to address issues that will impact the senses of non-fictional living beings. It's super important not to lose sight of this but in our lost world people clearly have lost sight of this, and I think I know why. Let me explain by going over what we do upon a person's death: Inheritance is passed on through the deceased person's will. From my perspective, a written will should have no power what so ever as it is logged speech and therefore it is thought and the realm of thought is the imagination and if you start applying thought to the non-fictional world, then obviously the thoughts are being taken as words, which is unhinged but perhaps super convenient and that's why it is being done. However, doing it that way is a source of mental illness and legitimizes untruthfulness as the acceptable way to go. It's a path that no philosopher worth anything would agree to take or find acceptable.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
Tom Butler
Posts: 107
Joined: February 23rd, 2017, 10:24 pm

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Tom Butler »

Here is an interesting article about the process of learning to read. My sense is that it bears on the discussion here. bears
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 30th, 2022, 2:44 pm … new understanding/discovery of 'thought' as opposed to 'speech' … understanding of communication … failure to differentiate speech from thought.

a conversation presuppose speech back and forth between two individuals. bloggers writing on computers and pressing 'enter' to 'speak' is a misuse of "speak"/"speech".

people confuse speech and thought. … as you press 'send', you allow the computer to send but you aren't sending anything

if I am not communicating to you, then what am I doing? — [logging] imaginary speech (the speech that's drawable from thoughts) onto the computer. … the reader may assess the logged speech (thought) and use imagination to come up with 'my speech' … you may still have a conversation with me this way … It's like reading a fiction book where the characters may be questioned and answer
I hope you'll forgive my savage editing of your words, but I found it difficult to distinguish your points from other connective words. 👍



Your first point is that you believe people fail to distinguish speech and thought. Thoughts are the original, the reference. They are (imperfectly) encoded as language so that they can be sent to others.

Conversation is a dialogue between people, comprising speech and body language. But communication is not limited to conversation. Remote communication is possible too, via video link, email, letter, or posts on a philosophy forum, using spoken or written language. Keyboards, computers, and the internet don't 'send' anything. I do the sending, using those tools.

As communication becomes more remote, body language, intonation, and the rhythm/pace of conversation are lost. But the words remain, carrying (encoded) thoughts. More remote = less precise. As the hearer decodes the words into thoughts once more, the losses are considerable, but far from complete.



Then we proceed to your final thoughts:
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 30th, 2022, 2:44 pm thought is directed at the imaginary whereas speech is meant to cover non-fiction and address issues that will impact [real] living beings.

a written will should have no power as it is logged speech and therefore thought and the realm of thought is the imagination and if you start applying thought to the non-fictional world, then obviously the thoughts are being taken as words … [this] legitimizes untruthfulness
I think thoughts are directed here, there, and everywhere, not just at "the imaginary".

Speech applies to "non-fiction" and fiction too. Consider story-tellers.

A written will is a compromise; all thoughts encoded as language are a compromise. Written words are encoded thoughts, as is speech. It's the thoughts that are the original, the master, the reference. The words, spoken or written, encode and represent the thoughts.

I, an enthusiast for honesty, can see no link here to any form of untruthfulness.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The difference between thought and speech

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 1st, 2022, 7:44 am
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 30th, 2022, 2:44 pm … new understanding/discovery of 'thought' as opposed to 'speech' … understanding of communication … failure to differentiate speech from thought.

a conversation presuppose speech back and forth between two individuals. bloggers writing on computers and pressing 'enter' to 'speak' is a misuse of "speak"/"speech".

people confuse speech and thought. … as you press 'send', you allow the computer to send but you aren't sending anything

if I am not communicating to you, then what am I doing? — [logging] imaginary speech (the speech that's drawable from thoughts) onto the computer. … the reader may assess the logged speech (thought) and use imagination to come up with 'my speech' … you may still have a conversation with me this way … It's like reading a fiction book where the characters may be questioned and answer
I hope you'll forgive my savage editing of your words, but I found it difficult to distinguish your points from other connective words. 👍



Your first point is that you believe people fail to distinguish speech and thought. Thoughts are the original, the reference. They are (imperfectly) encoded as language so that they can be sent to others.

Conversation is a dialogue between people, comprising speech and body language. But communication is not limited to conversation. Remote communication is possible too, via video link, email, letter, or posts on a philosophy forum, using spoken or written language. Keyboards, computers, and the internet don't 'send' anything. I do the sending, using those tools.

As communication becomes more remote, body language, intonation, and the rhythm/pace of conversation are lost. But the words remain, carrying (encoded) thoughts. More remote = less precise. As the hearer decodes the words into thoughts once more, the losses are considerable, but far from complete.



Then we proceed to your final thoughts:
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: July 30th, 2022, 2:44 pm thought is directed at the imaginary whereas speech is meant to cover non-fiction and address issues that will impact [real] living beings.

a written will should have no power as it is logged speech and therefore thought and the realm of thought is the imagination and if you start applying thought to the non-fictional world, then obviously the thoughts are being taken as words … [this] legitimizes untruthfulness
I 8) think thoughts are directed here, there, 8) and everywhere, not just at "the imaginary".

Speech applies to "non-fiction" and fiction too. Consider story-tellers.

A written will is a compromise; all thoughts encoded as language are a compromise. Written words are encoded thoughts, as is speech. It's the thoughts that are the original, the master, the reference. The words, spoken or written, encode and represent the thoughts.

I, an enthusiast for honesty, can see no link here to any form of untruthfulness.
It certainly isn't that which forms your biggest offense to me; In fact, I don't mind that editing. Actually, I am impressed and appreciative that you're willing to take the bull by the horn here, thank you for that. Most people would just dismiss my views. Being considered worthy of a reply is the best thing I can hope for.

So you now say that thoughts are the original. My problem with this is that when you are trying to put your finger onto what "thought" actually is, you need to use not 'thoughts' but words to say what it is. Think about it, can you say what a thought is? You seem to suggest that yes, you can. I argue that a said 'thought' is an opinion. Is an opinion a thought? Can you use thoughts to define 'thought'? I mean definitions (written words) are the ultimate reference, and you look up dictionaries for that. But here you say that thoughts are the reference. This is apparently unhinged.

What if the thing we are trying to define (put into words) refers to something that is prohibited from being put into words? What if the act of putting something into words metamorphoses it into something else? What if there truly was such a thing? How could we then talk about it or say what it is? We obviously couldn't. And that's what a 'thought' is. I mean, I used to consider this my opinion but now I realize this is a fact and presenting this fact is the main question of this thread.

So, when you mention that thoughts are the original, the reference, I feel that you are out of line as you cannot use words to 'picture' what 'thought' is. You can use words to say that what is beyond our power to describe with words are 'thoughts'. So, we can still know a little about thoughts but we certainly can't use words to define them because we know one thing about them: they can't be put in words and that's how we know about them. Some of our thoughts are so clear to us that we when we have them, we may have difficulty differentiating them from a voice. When that happens, we at least know that no one can hear us thinking (of course not--by definition) but the person thinking believes that they have access to words when the actual process taking place is that they transform thought into inner speech, a form of speech that can be logged. You can remember your inner voice but can't remember your thoughts and so you need to transform them into inner speech so you have a memory of what you've been thinking about. There, I hope this helps.

Your attempt to reason with me using the example of story telling (presumably using 'speech' to relay 'though') was definitely anticipated and certainly does not refute my position. It does however show that you are fully here and really trying to follow my concepts (I was going to use the traditional expression 'train of thoughts' here but I now find I need to find better words, ha ha.). And I appreciate this.

Thought is believed to appear in sync with the moment a decision (speech) is made. And although there is such a thing as 'evidence of a decision' there can be no logged evidence of thought; in can only be inferred. We cannot live in a world where fictive thinking is impossible for people to have. How would fiction exists if only reality exists for real?

The story teller performs an art. It's called oratory art. Art can communicate to you and so can the consequences of global warming. So, not all forms of communication involve language. Sometimes, only your intelligence is needed to get the message. The story teller acts as the mind that contains the world and that takes its audience along the way for a mind ride. It should be understood as the story teller 'speaks' that many of his/her thoughts aren't the story teller's own thoughts because the story teller may appear to speak from a mind that knows everything about all things. This is a key cue for the reader not to hear the speech as speech but to 'hear' it as if it were inner speech.

Also, would you consider the words spoken by someone speaking into a cellphone as they walk down the street as forming speech? I don't because I define speech as talking now about the current situation to people who are here to hear you. Passively logging words into a cellphone isn't speech and so it's not because you open your mouth an utter sounds that may make sense to someone that you are actually speaking. I guess one could argue that unhinged speech is still speech. I reject that notion.


You keep saying that thoughts are encoded in language.
I am uncertain where you are going with this as it's just boldly assert contradictory principles from mine. I take that as simple rejection of what I am saying by asserting your differing point of view which is not compatible with mine.
But as I re-read your comments, The words, spoken or written, encode and represent the thoughts. I get to wonder, don't thoughts drive the words rather then represent them? If you have no thoughts to drive what you say, how can you say it? And if your thoughts do indeed drive what you say, then why do you insist the words represent the thought? Does the hand playing the puppet is being represented by the puppet? To me, that's just plain non-sense.

I am quite certain that you (if you agree to consider yourself a blogger and not a computer) don't send anything using a computer. So, the two of us certainly aren't on the same page, and I'm not sure I'll be able to make you realize this or that you have any interest in seeing the truth here, even if you claim to enjoy it. But your viewpoint is expected because when you are willing to compromise a lot, you end up compromising the truth too and then the truth isn't the truth any more, just a compromise. I am no longer willing to accept the compromise and will keep being a whistle blower on this topic.

So, you do the sending, right? The electricity going down the wire, it's been driven there by Pattern-chaser, right? You keep appropriating as yours the deeds of machines. That is so unhinged, if you ask me.

There are a few some circumstances where written words (logged speech) is something that's beyond mere thought. For instance, the stop sign you see on a street sign has almost power of speech. It has legal power. What is more important, speech or logged thinking? That's another side question that would be welcome here for debate.

8) My own thought has never been directed. My thoughts always direct, always in the present. The fact that you appear to think that thinking needs direction (and from what? certainly not from thought because you suggest it's in need of direction). You cannot speak of my past thoughts because I disown past thoughts as I believe they go with the wind. Only what is logged does have an author and so, I agree to past things that I have authored but it would be unfair to me to recognize as my own the thoughts that were mine in a time that is no longer now because that's spreading a misunderstanding about the nature of thoughts.

After writing all this, I realize that there is quite a big heap of things the two of us can't agree with. Still, this is an important topic as thinking matters and if we don't know know or can't agree as to what it means, it would certainly be worth our time to take a moment to getting our act together.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021