Quotes

Ddavidd,
An excellent quote which serves to demonstrate that we perceive what we expect to see, whether sacred or profane, magical or rational.

It doesn't matter how fast your car is, how big your house is or how much money you have because our graves will be the same, stay humble always. ( or something like that )

Glad you like it Larry
Right, it also means that the world is corresponding.

Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.
_ Gottfried Leibniz _

"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. " Isaac newton

Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought and the thought has found words." - Robert Frost

Poetry is prose bewitched, a music made of visual thoughts, the sound of an idea." Mina Loy

O dear God please save me, from your believers.

(slang in my language)

"The only thing worse than not getting what you want is getting it."

_Oscar Wild_

We are all broken, that's how the light gets in - Ernest Hemingway

I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.

-- Johannes Kepler

The observer
is
the light!

We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves strong. The amount of work is the same.
Carlos Castaneda

By the way about this quote (six post above):
"Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought and the thought has found words." - Robert Frost

Robert Frost is(was) a good poet, but probably not a good thinker. Here he does not know what he is talking about. There are almost no thoughts ever possible without the words.

"I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am."
- Albert Einstein

^Ddavidd, I must disagree with your assessment. Not merely because of the fact that 30% of the population rely primarily on visual-spatial thinking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking].

In my own experience poetry starts in numerous ways. True, often times it begins with a thought composed of words. However, two other ways also happen: sometimes I have a mysterious emotional reaction which I fully experience, but which carries no intellectual content until I analyze it, thereby putting it into words.
Other times I have a instantaneous visual insight which more readily lends itself to words, but these words were not an original part of the realization.

In all these situations, the words that originally come up are not those which fully express the concept at the basis of the poem. It takes work to find the Right Words.

It is quite alright Larry being disagreed is healthy if it is not personal. For the reason of knowledge you can disagree with what I say as long as you are satisfied that that what I say hold water.

But here you did not pay attention that that your link actually supports what I have said. If someone think that we can process any thoughts only using visual images is absolutely mistaking. Animal can not think. That, would disregard the brain functions, and the meaning of consciousness, also its difference to awareness. people often are confused between these two.
quote from you link:
"Visual thinking has been described as seeing words as a series of pictures"
this is not talking about thought independent from words, it is about how some people could see WORDS as series of picture.

And yes if Frost said "right word" instead of the " word" he would have been right. devil is in the details.

Animal can not think.

^^

I, myself, am classify as an animal. "I think therefore I am" said Descartes. And I think, I think...

"There is not any thoughts ever possible without the words."

^ out of curiosity, and based on the above sentence, just assuming, it makes me wonder if deaf or blind or both (dead and blind) have thoughts, assuming again if they never learnt a language...

Animals can think. How else would they solve puzzles? Funny, I was having this conversation the other day. If we didn't have language, our thought patterns would be markedly different, but we would still think. Do you know the case of the feral child, Genie? There is a critical period when children must learn language or they lose that ability.

I agree....animals can definitely think. Just this afternoon I was out for lunch and gave the local magpies some problem solving tasks before they could get to the food on offer...they probably solved the puzzle way quicker than any toddler could. Mice/monkeys etc could also prove that animals most definitely can think.

There is not any thoughts ever possible without the words.

^^^

This statement I will agree with (theoretically) thought is a word so straight away a thought is a word...right? Emotion...also a word. There are many emotions but they are all described with words so...yip...IMO I agree with the statement.

If he would had say this instead:

there is not any poetry ever possible without the thoughts

I would have agreed.

Jane: that name sounds familiar, I'll have to take a look into that.

My cat Rudy grieved when his younger brother, Milo, died. He lost weight, cried throughout the night, and wandered far from home. I don't think he understood why he was hurting so much, but he was experiencing grief and he felt compassion and brotherly affection for Milo. He still perks his ears up when he hears Milo's name. Their kinship ran deep though they weren't biological brothers. Rudy mourned for almost a year. I know he doesn't really understand the concepts of "death" and "grief" in the way we do with words, so I guess that's what you guys are getting at?
It is possible to have memories and ideas without words though.

You guys obviously are not familiar with the difference between consciousness and awareness, even vegetables have awareness.
In the DE Anima Aristotle explains why animal are not able to think. Now everlasting assumes that she (or we) are animals so, we think therefore they (animals) could think as well. If you set your premises on the slop like this, of course your conclusion would fallow the same. WE are animal but "thinking animal". We have the thinking ability beyond those things that we share with animals.
Animals only act based on instinct, we do that too but the extra capacity of our brain is only and merely for processing thought. Animal some could solve puzzle but not because they think it through, their base it on merely experience, a rat in the maze correct its mistakes and memorizes which roads are blocked and solve the puzzle even faster than human, some even spray scent on the road that are blocked to not to go that way again.

So, tell me how could anyone visually process images such as feelings, beauty, pride, congratulation, comprehension, without using words, how Robert Frost even could make one sentence without using these words. We take languages for granted and are unaware that how complicated is forming even one sentence, never mind a paragraph, in their absent. And imagine how impossible is to process a single thought, and holding it without an internal dialog using grammar.

I don't know how reliable this blog is but I thought it was interesting to read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-without-language/amp/?client=safari

Language in my opinion is really important and helpful when it comes to expressing feelings and emotions to other people and also helpful when it comes to understand the emotions ourselves. However, I do think one can think without the inner dialogue that takes place in our heads. That's why I disagree with that sentence:

There is not any thought ever possible without words.

I think we can think in images but by actually "processing" (attempt at understanding) the images may require the language yet in my opinion we can still think without words.

Again the same as Larry's link. Your link is not a refutation of what I said. It complicates the issue for you to comprehend.
Deaf and mute they do not eliminate vocabularies they replace them with gestures, all those gesture in different varieties and combinations , mean real words. Without having words as the base they can not take off from the ground.
Let me explain it this way. It doesn't make any difference if you say Hi, salam, afto, Ciao, Hola, hallo ... or lift, or wave, your hand, or instead putting few stone on the ground when your audience know what the set stones mean, they all are words, they all mean hello.
Thinking without language is very primitive it is next to nothing. But if you still insist, you can hold on to your opinion as long as you need. It is democracy. Lights are only for those who are ready to be enlightened. I myself were not, at first, in this subject. It is a little tricky to comprehend.

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.
Immanuel Kant

I might add: Concepts without words are nonexistent.

Ddavidd, I ask that you treat others with the respect they treat you. Everlasting has been courteous.

May I ask if you've ever had a pet or a close bond with an animal? I disagree that animals behave purely from instinct. Aristotle was wrong about more than a few things: women, animals... he thought the earth is geocentric, etc.

Respect?? You again on my case?? Your grudge is not against me is against yourself. Obviously this, as everything else I say, do not make sense for you, but as I tolled you before, everyone is condemned by her/his "appetite".

Therefore I shall not answer your question.

Not sure what you meant by "you again", but I agree with Jane. Your last remarks came across as tongue in cheek. The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness support non-human or animal consciousness. Dolphins, great apes, elephants have shown that they are capable of thinking and have consciousness.

The problem is, that consciousness always is, mistaken by awareness. Now go see what 'The Cambridge Declaration' of awareness, supports. You wouldn't see much difference. If you want to find philosophical definitions in dictionary, that is fine by me.
When Descartes say: " I think therefor I am", it is about the state of conciseness, which it is in regard to concepts. And without concept thinking is not possible. And words are nothing but concept. There are other complications, that I do not feel to explain here anymore, because frankly, my stomach is turned.

What is your definition of consciousness, and awareness?

I was dying for someone to ask this question, but from here forward, I only answer privately.

Here is not safe!!

Grudge? Nonsense. I've voted to let you remain each time you've rejoined the site without permission following suspension. My comment was addressing the here and now, and I'm surprised if you can't see how you've been belittling those who disagree with you in this thread.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic that you've brought up, so back to the subject. I enjoyed reading this whole article today and recommend anyone else to read it who has time. The internet is flush with articles about this subject, and I'm sure there are more and better ones out there, but here it is: http://www.livescience.com/39803-do-animals-know-who-they-are.html

I knew about the mirror test to determine self awareness and that some animals pass this test, but I didn't realize so little is known about animal awareness in general.

From the article:
"So, do any animals, when looking at themselves, hearing themselves, or smelling themselves, exclaim "Wow, that's me"? Do they have a sense of "I-ness?" We really don't know, especially for wild animals. It's time to get out of the armchair and into the field. Speculation doesn't substitute for careful studies of behavior.

Some people don't want to acknowledge the possibility of self-awareness in animals because if they do, the borders between humans and other animals become blurred and their narrow, hierarchical, anthropocentric view of the world would be toppled. But Darwin's ideas about continuity, along with empirical data and common sense, caution against the unyielding claim that humans -- and perhaps a few other animals, such as other great apes and cetaceans -- are the only species in which some sense of self has evolved."

"Here is not safe!!"

Here is very safe. I haven't issued a penalty in years. I won't apologize for asking that you be more respectful. I wish I had private messaged you instead though.

Did someone mention Descartes? I remember learning about Descartes and his animals studies. He believed animals are unfeeling robots (that they can't reason or feel pain - emotional or physical - and deserve no compassion).

Ddavidd, I am interested in your definitions as well.

I have not read everything... I'm feeling too sleepy but but

I managed to read the last post from Jane...

I didn't know Dercates thought that way. But if I am not mistaken he was born before Darwin, and who knows, perhaps animals back then, weren't evolved in thought? (Just throwing random thought without actually researching anything, my inner self blindly believes animals in the future will talk like humans but but in the far far away future ... I guess I watchedtoo much cartoons)

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwD441CGgGM

The ghosts we make for ourselves ...
are the shadows that define our every sunny day.
- Sherlock, The Abominable Bride

Our failure to distinguish between being belittled, or being intellectually challenged, would cast us collectively in a cloddish cult.
"Don Ashman"

Even if you are a minority of one,
the truth is the truth.
"Mahatma Gandhi"

Negligence to apologies for our mistakes, drop by drop depletes us from our courage, and withers our capacity to distinguish them from right.
"Don Ashman"

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."
Ernest Hemingway

"When you choose to look down on something, you render yourself incapable of understanding it."
Stewart Stafford

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstein

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dear Jain I have given you the benefit of doubt and ask an old professor of mine to read my argument, actually I asked a few of them, and all of them did not find any "belittling" or " look down" in my writing, except some of them criticize my grammar and wording. They also recommended ( as I figured out already) that I should not continue this kind of dispute in such atmosphere.
I realize the atmosphere is such a right word. There are so many thing wrong with this atmosphere. I am somehow partially guilty for creating such atmosphere and single myself out like this. It is not pleasure to be in my shoes in this atmosphere, believe me.
Now here is only the clash of egos (our unsolved problem from the past) mine against collective. I know I have not belittled anyone. And you are so adamant that I did. You are a mod, you have your group and so many people to accept you without some even reading the conversation. But if you still believe I belittled anyone I aske a group of people such as Abby, Hellon, Michael D Nalley , Naughtymouse ... read the conversation and if they say I belittled anyone especially Everlasting I would apologize. I would also need to be explained were I have deviated the line of respect.
I have a little authority in the subject of the discussion; having such authority bothers some egos. Another thing, people do not like to be refuted, specially in subjects that they took for granted for long period of time.
There are also death going on in these forums. There are particular characteristics that this kind of atmosphere creates and vise versa. The atmosphere here is more relaxed in silence because there are little tolerance for words, unless they are complement. Look at here the discussion boards are all abandoned, evacuated by people like me. only the species of compliment and flattery would ever survive and land, or remain in this site. The silence of the forums are deafening, wouldn't you say so?
But I got the message. It is too late. There is no resuscitation, the cold coma already in action. I would not try to bring some warm blood anymore. I got my lesson.

Ddavidd, I have a fever, but I will do my best to respond. Thank you for addressing me so politely.

I'm tickled that you asked others to give their objective interpretation. I find that admirable. Hopefully you did not ask others whom you knew would agree with your viewpoint. Regardless, I assume these people know "real" you and the way you speak and present yourself, whereas I only know internet Ddavidd and interpret your tone based on my knowledge of you as a member here who posts on the main forums.

For example, I interpret this as belittling:
"But if you still insist, you can hold on to your opinion as long as you need. It is democracy. Lights are only for those who are ready to be enlightened. I myself were not, at first, in this subject. It is a little tricky to comprehend."
Rather than acknowledge that you could be wrong, which I have yet to see you do, you implied that you're enlightened and have grasped a tricky subject, but this member is not and has not. You suggested this member is stubbornly holding onto their opinion (which is untrue since they were engaging with you for the purpose of coming to a better understanding), and I would say the opposite is true. Rather than concede the possibility that you're wrong or that yours is only one theory of many, your intention with this comment was surely to make another feel intellectually inferior. Again, this is my interpretation and I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Second example:
"You guys obviously are not familiar with the difference between consciousness and awareness, even vegetables have awareness...Now everlasting assumes that she (or we) are animals so, we think therefore they (animals) could think as well. If you set your premises on the slop like this, of course your conclusion would fallow the same."
You assume because your interpretation is different than others, and because you have come to a different conclusion than others based on your definitions, others cannot grasp what consciousness and awareness mean. I think many of us grasp the difference and even understand your viewpoint and why you have it, but we disagree. It's that simple. And nobody is condescendingly telling you that you "obviously aren't familiar" with the terms simply because they disagree with you. Yes, to me, that's condescending. This is neither here nor there at this point, but evidence in the last 50 or so years indicates that animals have consciousness and awareness, though we don't know for sure - that I'll admit. So you could be right, but I don't think you are, that's all. We have both based our opinions on our knowledge of animals. Also, Aristotle was an intelligent philosopher for his time, but you must admit he was not always right AND we've come a long way in our understanding of animals since 2,000+ years ago. So to support or refute your point, I'd really like to see more recent evidence rather than a long dead philosopher's assumption.

I think you're partially upset because a mod made a modly request, publicly, which you are not accustomed to because we're practically regular members these days. We almost never exert our power in the forums, so even my polite request was seen as a personal affront. I hope it's clear that I respect you, just like every other member, since I am taking the time to respond, explain myself, and admit that maybe I'm wrong. For the record, nobody asked me to request that you be respectful. I think Mark was stating he could see why I made the request, but I know he wasn't trying to gang up on you.

"The silence of the forums are deafening, wouldn't you say so?"
Yes, PnQ has grown quiet throughout the years, but I disagree the forums are dead because of moderation. If that were true, the forums would've been much more dead over a decade ago when moderation was stricter and a disrespectful post could quickly result in penalties. The forums are dead now because new membership has drastically slowed over the years with the rise of other social networking sites, namely Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. These are sites that are constantly updated and keep up with modern technology, unlike PnQ. My guess is at least half of the active members here have been around for ages, and if they are like me, it's because they have over time developed a sentimental adoration of PnQ and can't imagine a world without it. I hope soon we will draw in new members with site updates, but increased activity will not be because of easing up on moderation. We're about eased up as we can possibly be...

Finally, I apologize if you thought I was insinuating "be respectful or you're outta here!" It would take a lot more than a little bit of belittling (again, solely my interpretation) for me to give you the boot. I understand now you did not see your posts as belittling and you've been hurt by my interpretation. I will try to read your posts in a less biased light in the future, and address what I view as disrespect privately rather than publicly. I hope you will make an effort to be more open and accepting of ideas different than your own, or at least try to be more patient with those who ask for elaboration.

Peace, Ddavidd :)

First of all, I apologize for not coming back to answer in this thread.

And secondly, I am someone who is not easily offended, but I could see why Jane felt like asking you to treat others with the respect they treat you with.

As far as this topic, I tried to sit down with my laptop and add some clarity to my thoughts to try to explain myself better,, and see if you could see where I am coming from, but to be honest, I'm really tired. This is an interesting topic that deserves honest feedback and full attention. Unfortunately,I'm currently unable to give my full attention. All I can say is that based on my poem "Roses Sweet" and a few others... I know that some thoughts are not just words, in other Words (no pun intended) that there are some thoughts without the words but I also know that there is no poetry without the thoughts, and that we need the language to express these thoughts that are not just words, but finding these words to express them is no easy task yet it can actually be. Sorry if any of what I say makes no sense. I tried.

With that being said, thanks for sharing your opinion. I am off. I really need a break from all of this.

"If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation."
Jiddu Krishnamurti

Jain said: For example, I interpret this as belittling:
"But if you still insist, you can hold on to your opinion as long as you need. It is democracy. Lights are only for those who are ready to be enlightened. I myself were not, at first, in this subject. It is a little tricky to comprehend."
--
I was referring to the fact that this subject seems very tricky in first and it might take long time to get the hang of it ( AS IT HAPPENED TO ME) and so I belittled myself if I did anyone, first _ I am much older than her. _ so I was giving hope not belittling. However what bothered you here is my authority in the subject, using the word enlightenment. I could've said knowledge. It is like that I did read a book or two on the subject and opposite party did not. I know the situation would be reverse perhaps if I discus mathematics with senyru, or talk to a professor in ancient philosophy, who has infinitely more knowledge on De anima than me. He might have said: the reason that I can not grasp Aristotle's interpretation of soul, is because my chain of reasoning is fallacious, or I put my promises on slop. Nothing is condescending and arrogant about that. it is a healthy way of discussion: one can go after a particular, ignorance, not after the person. It is how they conduct discussion out of this site. But if the person can not separate her/himself from a particular ignorance and feel threatened by being exposed that his / her knowledge does not hold any water, that person's resistance, is, the indication of ego not vice versa . Her/ his being upset mean that the ego is on his /her way of understanding. And we all know what happens in history when ego got mixed with knowledge. They burned people because they said earth is rounded and the sky is not as flat as they were mentioned in scriptures.

When I said, "you guys are not familiar...", I was stating a fact. It is not condescending to let the opponent know that his knowledge in that particular subject is not sufficient and still treat them like equal, otherwise Socrates dialogs were all complacent and wouldn't dominate the history of mankind's wisdom. (even though he also was executed by the mobs of his time, as I was in a way smaller scale so many times in this site.)
Once to a highly regarded professor I mentioned the same difference,( awareness and consciousness) she at first was confused. Later she agreed. Her agreement did not mean by any means, an admission of inferiority. It was an indication of a superior scientific mind who loves knowledge more than her ego; something that an average Joes would never be able to do.
The topic is very delicate that even experts sometimes are confused about it. Even dictionaries can not clarify the definition (how could they, in a line or two?). Because awareness and consciousness always are mixed up in many literature. And if you allowed yourself to learn, you would have known the difference by know, instead of letting your feeling block you from the knowledge of it. SEE pay attention I said KNOWLEDGE OF IT, not knowledge in general. That would be condescending.
About: building your promises on the slope. I was "right" and I proved it. If I did not let the opponent know what is exactly wrong with what s/he saying, and map it correctly, I haven't done my job of demonstrating right. If the opponent feel silly all the sudden by being exposed intellectually, that is not healthy. Knowledge do that to people. And if s/he instead of appreciating, start to get upset and throw more irrelevant, one minute surfing in internet, knowledge at you to just hold up his/her face, for the sake of audience, whose ego is on the line here??

My authority in some subjects, does not mean that I feel I am infallible. I hardly ever did what others do here: for the sake of not losing face, denying and hiding my ignorance in particular subjects. for example in case if those links provided on the subject, where proving that I were wrong, I would have kicked myself for any length I delayed admitting my wrong.
It is so hard to discus in such environment :we arguing, only fearing getting embarrassed that other might realize we were wrong. How would anyone learn is such environment??

In the end I am sorry for your fever and hope you get well soon, which I know you would. I saw your face in facebook, it exuberates health.