[Article ] Conciousness: Where are Words?

[occam]

An article from The New York Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/12/27/consciousness-where-are-words/

"Words are really not so different from sofas and armchairs. They are
external objects that do things in the world and, like other objects,
they produce effects in our brains and thus eventually, through us, in
the world."

I despair whenever I hear such opinions which essentially say "words are
real objects".

Given the vast range of thoughts, emotions and hard-to-grasp concepts
expressed with words. That anyone can still make such statements is
beyond me.

New Year's resolution: This weekend I am thinking of moving religion.
Can anyone recommend a U-Haul equivalent for transporting my faith? I
have some awkward concepts that need shifting and possibly storage for
future use.

[arthu...@gmail.com]

The paragraph you quote is strange. It mentions some common features of words
and certain objects and concludes that they are very similar. It is like saying
that seven-headed dragons and pitbulls are very similar, except that the
latter are not imaginary beings.

As for your religion, there are a few options:
a) believe in yourself
b) believe in John and Yoko
c) sell it on the internet
d) become a televangelist and give me a cut of your earnings
e) let it be
f) dissolve it in alcohol
g) ...

Speaking of alcohol, I gotta go.

Respectfully,
Navi.

[Paul Wolff]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> posted:

You should be able to get most of your baggage into a well-tempered
pantechnicon, if it lives up to its name.
--
Paul

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 5:24:27 AM UTC-5, occam wrote:
> An article from The New York Review of Books:
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/12/27/consciousness-where-are-words/
>
> "Words are really not so different from sofas and armchairs. They are
> external objects that do things in the world and, like other objects,
> they produce effects in our brains and thus eventually, through us, in
> the world."
>
> I despair whenever I hear such opinions which essentially say "words are
> real objects".
>
> Given the vast range of thoughts, emotions and hard-to-grasp concepts
> expressed with words. That anyone can still make such statements is
> beyond me.

I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to talk with about "consciousness,"
but Tim Parks is a science writer who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.

The assertion that

"it has come to seem that the self is very much a thing
made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating itself and
reconstituting itself in language. In line with the dominant, internalist
view of consciousness, it is assumed that this all takes place in the
brain—specifically, two parts known as Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in
the left hemisphere"

is an inaccuracy left over from 19th-century brain study when the only research tool was
the post-mortem inspection of lesions. It is now well known that the notion of two "language areas,"
Broca's and Wernicke's areas, is a vast oversimplification.

Going just past the sentence you objected to, it transpires that Manzotti (who is nowhere identified
on this page is nearly a pure Watsonian Behaviorist and can safely be ignored.

> New Year's resolution: This weekend I am thinking of moving religion.
> Can anyone recommend a U-Haul equivalent for transporting my faith? I
> have some awkward concepts that need shifting and possibly storage for
> future use.

What does "moving religion" mean? Have you adapted the British idiom "move house" (AmE "move") to
say "changing my religion," i.e. converting?

[Whiskers]

Well, armchairs and words are abstract intellectual concepts, but one
has a material counterpart you can sit on whereas the other ... hasn't.

If you're storing up awkward concepts rather than resolving them or
abandoning them, any movement is illusory. Wherever you run to, there
you are,

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

On 12/29/2017 3:32 AM, arthu...@gmail.com wrote:

> The paragraph you quote is strange. It mentions some common features of words
> and certain objects and concludes that they are very similar. It is like saying
> that seven-headed dragons and pitbulls are very similar, except that the
> latter are not imaginary beings.
>
> As for your religion, there are a few options:
> a) believe in yourself
> b) believe in John and Yoko
> c) sell it on the internet
> d) become a televangelist and give me a cut of your earnings
> e) let it be
> f) dissolve it in alcohol
> g) ...
>
> Speaking of alcohol, I gotta go.
>

> Repeatedly,
> Navi.
>
>
>
>
Must this limey twat hump nearly everybuddy's poast?
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[dolf]

Dear Gordon,

How do you feel about this faith of yours cursing the Sovereign Queen, God
and Country?

Gordon Brown's hiding of his faith was unfair – all politicians should feel
able to be open about what they believe.

<http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/gordon-brown-hide-christian-faith-nick-clegg-knighthood-bitcoin-michael-heseltine-sense-brexit-a8133371.html>

It is for the courts to decide upon all the evidence which is before them
and the State / Federal Attorney General in substantial and meticulous
detail *AND* *CONCERNS* *ALLEGED* *TREASON* WHERE THE ONUS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY IS PLACED ON THE DEFENDANT OVER MATTERS OF ALLEGED TREASON
UNDER SECTION 9A CRIMES ACT OF VICTORIA (1958) ARE REPORTED TO A CONSTABLE
OF POLICE AND WHICH IT CLEARLY WAS ON 19 MARCH 2017.

Will you now repent of such a grievous sin before you make any further
public comments about extolling such public disrespect as your immutable
faith?

Do you have any conscience whatsoever for such unrepentant evil: “Gordon
Brown has praised Catholicism for often being the ‘conscience of the
nation’ as the three party leaders addressed faith in the runup to the
general election.” [Guardian 1 April 2010]

<https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/01/gordon-brown-catholics-uk-conscience>

FALSE PROPAGANDA ABOUT ANZAC IDENTITY AND THE BOER WAR MEMORIAL
COMMEMORATIONS HELD ON SUNDAY AND NOT SATURDAY EVENTS:

But I do have only an informal self educated experience within metaphysical
/ metempirical thought as the realm where the architecture of the document
most successfully belongs so as to facilitate process with them temporal.

YOUTUBE: "[OFFICIAL VIDEO] Bohemian Rhapsody – Pentatonix"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojRj2JK5oCI>

— RACHEL WEEPING —

"*GORDON* IS MY ROCK,
I SO LOVE DILDO {[vulgar slang] a stupid or ridiculous person} GRANITE.
PEOPLE NOW CIRCLE THE BLOCK,
JUST TO LOOK AT JANET {God is merciful}."

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Janet.jpg>

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/OATH%2020170608%201510%20-%202.jpg>

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/BOER%2020170610%201153%20-%201.jpg>

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/BOER%2020170610%201153%20-%204.jpg>

[IMAGES @ (TOP LEFT) 1058 HOURS ON 17 MARCH 2017: FUNERAL RIGHTS AND
CELEBRATING THE DEATH OF A STATE AS PLAQUE INSTALLATION @ (TOP RIGHT) 1510
HOURS ON 8 JUNE 2017 {#413 as #1, #30, #10, #300, #2, #70 = n. God of Oath,
Elisabeth / #383 as #3, #300, #80 = To stroke, caress; / #30, #300, #2, #6,
#70, #5 = shebuw`ah (H7621): {#6 as #383} 1) oath, curse; 1a) oath; 1a1)
attesting of innocence; 1a2) curse; 1b) oath (of Jehovah)} BY A CONTRIVED
SAINT ANDREWS CAUSE CÉLÈBRE IMPOSITION OBSERVED @ 1153 HOURS ON 10 JUNE
2017 (SHOWN BOTTOM LEFT / RIGHT) BEING MADE UPON THE BOER WAR MEMORIAL AS
THE ONLY SUBJECTIVE MEMORIAL OCCASION.

THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK, GIVEN WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCIL'S CLEAR AND
STUBBORN REFUSAL TO CLARIFY THEIR BELLICOSE JINGOIST CONDUCT, WHICH BEGAN
ON SATURDAY 8 OCTOBER 2016 AND SYDNEY GLBTI COMMUNITY MARDI GRAS ON
SATURDAY 4 MARCH 2017 AS THE INTENTIONED IMPOSING OF A SUBSTITUTED VIRTUE
UPON OUR ANZAC TRADITION:

IF IT WAS SO CLEARLY A NON SUBSTITUTED VIRTUE AND NOT A PERVERSION OF STATE
AUTHORITY AND SOVEREIGNTY YOU WOULD BE CAPABLE OF AN ANSWER FOR YOUR
ACTIONS, BUT ALAS I CAN FIND NO OTHER MEDIA REPORTS OF ANY SUCH TOWN HALL
ASSEMBLAGES FOR THAT GIVEN DATE—CAN YOU ASSIST IN THAT REGARD?

IT'S GOING TO COURT ON THE 12 APRIL, 2017]

GORDON (noun):
* from the marshes {#100 as #6, #1, #3, #40, #10, #40 = 'agam (H98): {#0 as
#44} 1) pool, troubled pool; 1a) troubled or muddy (gloomy) pools, marshes;
1b) any pool, pond; 1c) swamp reeds, reeds, rush(es)
* #46 as #40, #3, #2, #1 = gebe (H1360): {#4 as #6} 1) *cistern*, *pool*;
1a) *cistern*; 1b) *pool*, *marsh*;
* #46 as #6, #3, #7, #30 = gezel (H1499): {#5 as #40} 1) *robbery*,
*plunder*;
* s[c/k]eptic narcissistic swampy pool

The London Scottish (1900-1902) was a Volunteer infantry regiment of the
British Army. Formerly a regiment, the unit is now 'A' (London Scottish)
Company of the London Regiment and is not associated with either the later
Flanders field poppy of World War I or Australian Boer War troops to which
the Shrine is representative.

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Scottish_(regiment)>

However our Boer War Day commemorates the first war in which Australia
fought as a nation. In 1899 NSW Lancers were the first to join in this war
followed by all of the other colonies and after Federation in 1901
Australian units. *THE* *BOER* *WAR* *WAS* *ALSO* *THE* *FIRST* *WAR* *IN*
*WHICH* *AUSTRALIANS* *FOUGHT* *ALONGSIDE* *NEW* *ZEALANDERS*. 31 May is
the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging (PRON:
Ver-en-ig-in) that ended the South African War in 1902. Boer War Day itself
is held on the Sunday before 31 May to enable working people to attend.

— ST EVEN ROGERS —

"PERHAPS IT'S ALL IN THE TUNE,
THIS SOULLESS SENTIMENTALITY.
BUT A FUNERAL ⚰️ SONG,
AS SOMEONE GOES TOO SOON,
HARDLY CONSTITUTES A REALITY."

[In Memory of Steve {crowned} Rogers, Security Guard and Friend to
Others, Assassinated: 16 July, 2001 at Melbourne's Fertility Control
Clinic]

Let me explain that to you in relation to advice given to our Prime
Minister (with whom I have previously corresponded over Jewish Holocaust
issues and he had the self same day taken suitable action) who is later
today to sign an agreement with Israel:

"On the PROPAGANDIST consideration that: Battle of Beersheba 'should be the
cornerstone of Australia's identity'

<http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/10/29/battle-beersheba-should-be-cornerstone-australias-identity>

No the Boer War is the cornerstone of Australian identity as ethos of
"OBEDIENT, AIDING AND ASSISTING" and we reject CATEGORICALLY your
unreasoned disloyalty by INTELLECTUAL assent given to Foreign Powers {ie.
especially Irish, Scottish, RSL / Freemasonry / Roman Catholic Saint
Andrews Cause Célèbre} as all unconscionable attempts to impose a
substituted ethic @5 against the INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTUS whether
by NEGLECT or forced WILL upon our War Dead and to usurp @1 the Sovereignty
embodied within the Governor General as ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE.

Such a statement of value [as demonstrated by the inclusion of the State of
Israel's flag amongst the calvary of cavalry as 100 year anniversary
re-enactment of the Battle of Beersheba] is a priori, not mantric as dogma,
requires no apologetics and proffers the utmost tactical, endearing and
enduring advantage for posterity as prosperity...

#1 - Captain James Cook wrote in a journal on 22 August 1770 of his
discovery as the east coast of Australia: "[Since I] may land no more upon
this eastern coast of New Holland, and on the western side I can make no
new discovery the honour of which belongs to the Dutch navigators and as
such they may lay claim to it as their property."

#2 - Solar Eclipse: 21 August 1914 [During World War I: 28 July 1914 to 11
November 1918]

#3 - Refusal of Communion and Solar Eclipse: I have ascertained in
accordance with my deliberate protest of conscience and arrest made upon
Saturday 21 August 1999 and earlier evidence which was tendered at the
extra-ordinary Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing of 7
December 2001, that the Roman Catholic refusal of communion perpetuated by
then Archbishop George PELL at Saint Patricks Cathedral Melbourne upon
according to their ecclesiastic traditions Pentecost Sunday of 31 May 1998
and 21 June 2000 is then associated to an eclipse occurring upon the
following year of 21 June 2001.

#4 - Solar Eclipse: 21 (UTC) / 22 August 2017 (AEST)

This suspected eclipse treason {#41, #320, @1 / @5, and #308} plot as Saint
Andrews / {Sino-Vietnamese: NIHN} cause célèbre sedition perpetuated by
Vietnam Veterans / Returned Services League {RSL} / Freemasons {Knights
Templar International} / Roman Catholic Church et al religious / state /
organisation entities has been foiled.

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Non-Fascist%20Knights%20Templar.jpg>

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Fascist%20Knights%20Templar.jpg>

[IMAGE: MORPHOLOGICAL SYM-BULIMIA as Non-Fascist Knights Templar {shown
top} / Fascist Knights Templar {shown bottom} AS IMPETUS {#390 = 1, #100,
#80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious,
ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a robber}]

I HAVE IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE ALLEGATION OF A SUBSTITUTED ETHIC
IMPOSED UPON OUR WAR DEAD:

It did thunder within the village @ 0322 hours immediately after that
message was sent.

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:1,row:2,col:5,nous:77&idea:{77}&idea:{551}&idea:{473}>

.jackNote@zen: 1, row: 2, col: 5, nous: 77 [Time: 0320 hrs, Super: #551 /
#77 - Natural Guide, Heaven's Reason; I-Ching: H12 - Obstruction,
Standstill (stagnation), Selfish persons; Tetra: 57 - Guardedness, Ego:
#473 / #77 - Natural Guide, Heaven's Reason; I-Ching: H12 - Obstruction,
Standstill (stagnation), Selfish persons; Tetra: 57 - Guardedness]

#473 as #40, #400, #1, #2, #30 = abal (H56): {#0 as #33 **THIS IS AN
INTERFERENCE ***} 1) to mourn, lament; 1a) (Qal) to mourn, lament; 1a1) of
humans; 1a2) of inanimate objects (fig.); 1a2a) of gates; 1a2b) of land;
1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to mourn, cause to mourn (fig.); 1c) (Hithpael); 1c1) to
mourn; 1c2) play the mourner;

#473 as #20, #3, #50, #400 = gannah (H1593): {#1 as #58 **THIS IS AN
INTERFERENCE ***} 1) garden, orchard;

#473 as #6, #400, #7, #2, #8, #10, #40 = zabach (H2076): {#2 as #17 **THIS
IS AN INTERFERENCE ***} 1) to slaughter, kill, sacrifice, slaughter for
sacrifice; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to slaughter for sacrifice; 1a2) to slaughter
for eating; 1a3) to slaughter in divine judgment; 1b) (Piel) to sacrifice,
offer sacrifice;

#473 as #5, #80, #8, #100, #20, #5, #200, #5, #50 = eparkeo (G1884): {#12
as #1011} 1) to avail or be strong enough for; 1a) to ward off or drive
away, a thing for another's advantage; 1a1) a thing from anyone, to defend;
1b) to aid, give assistance, relieve; 1b1) to give aid from one's own
resources;

#473 as #20, #1, #300, #1, #100, #1, #50 = katara (G2671): {#13 as #423} 1)
an execration, imprecation, curse;

It would behove us to at a convenient time examine the:

<http://www.grapple369.com/gematria.html>

For each of the UMBRA / GEMATRIA entries associated to the INTELLECTUAL
TETRAD as seemingly associated to the ANKH 𓋹 symbol of life:

#33
#58
#17
#473

We can by dialectic distinguish within this ethereal system a beginning {#1
- #YOD / #CENTRE AS POSITION}, middle {#41 - #MEM / DELIMITATION} and end
{#81 - #TAU / CIRCUMSCRIBE} which is both compatible with the DAOist
HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER as perennialist heritage and that of our Letters
Patent to Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia. We are compelled to
envisage this eternal process under the *FORM* *OF* *TIME*, *TO* *APPLY*
*TEMPORAL* *DISTINCTIONS* *TO* *THAT* *WHICH* *IS* *EXTRA*- *OR*
*SUPRA*-*TEMPORAL* and deploys the DAOist meta-descriptor prototypes and an
agreed #72 mathematical elements as the anthropic principle overlay {viz a
viz the Greco-Roman / Sudoku (鼠毒) puzzlement as magic square}:

41 1 57
49 33 17
9 65 25 = #99 / #297 {#ONE} <-- *AS* *THE* *FOUNDATION* *STONE*
(*USURPING* @1 = *SOVEREIGN* / #CENTRE @5 = *LAST* *WILL*, *TESTAMENT* *OF*
#INR *BEING* *THE* *BINDING* *NORM* (*NORMA* *OBLIGANS* ) *ON* #33 AD)
*MAGIC* *SQUARE*

<http://www.grapple369.com?idea:{99}&idea:{297}>

#1 (9) - OUHOUYAH (King-Seraphim) = #1
#9 (8) - HAZIEL (King-Cherubim) = #10
#17 (7) - LEVYAH (King-Throne) = #27
#25 (6) - NETEHYAH (King-Dominion) = #52 <-- *THEY* *ARE* *NOT* *THE*
*SONS* *OF* *GOD*

#33 (5) - YHOUYAH (King-Powers) = #85
#41 (4) - HEHAHEL (King-Virtues) = #126
#49 (3) - OHOUEL (King-Principalities) = #175 <-- *VENUS* (7x7 = #49 /
#175) *USE* *OF* *MARRIAGE* *AS* *AN* *ANTHROPIC* *PROTOTYPE*

#57 (2) - NEMAMYAH (King-Archangels) = #232
#65 (1) - DAMBYAN (King-Angels) = #297

ANGEL CORRESPONDENCES TO SATURN (#15)

42 2 58
50 34 18
10 66 26 = #102 / #306

<http://www.grapple369.com?idea:{102}&idea:{306}>

#2 (9) - ILYEL (Seraphim-Throne) = #2
#10 (8) - ELDYAH (Cherubim-Throne) = #12
#18 (7) - KALIEL (Throne-Throne) = #30
#26 (6) - HAEYEH (Dominion-Throne) = #56
#34 (5) - LAHAHAYH (Powers-Throne) = #90
#42 (4) - MIKEL (Virtues-Throne) = #132
#50 (3) - DANIEL (Principalities-Throne) = #182
#58 (2) - YEILEL (Archangels-Throne) = #240
#66 (1) - MANQYAH (Angels-Throne) = #306

USURPER: #1 {First Number in the Square}
GUIDE: #9 (3x3) {Last Number in the Square}
MYSTERY: #10 {First Number + Last Number}
ADJUSTER: #15 {Total Sum of a Row}
LEADER: #45 {Total Value of All Rows}
REGULATOR: #60 {Total Sum of a Row + Total Sum of All Rows}
GENERAL GOVERNOR: #120 {(Total Sum of a Row Total Sum of All Rows) x 2}
HIGH OVERSEER: #1080 {((Total Sum of a Row Total Sum of All Rows) x 2) x
Last Number in the Square}

HETEROS (GK: ετερους = #1080): STRONGS: G2087 as NUMBER as other or
different and obtained by Pythagorean reduction as the sum of each Magic
Square Line: @1 (#ONE) ... @5 (#TWO) ... #15 [@6 (#THREE)] ... #34 [@7
(#FOUR)] ... #65 [@2 (#FIVE)] ... #111 [@3 (#SIX)] ... #175 [@4 (#SEVEN)]
... #260 [@8 (#EIGHT)] ... #369 [@9 (#NINE)]:—altered, else, next (day),
one, (an-) other, some, strange

As an abnormal clustering which we have observed within the CATEGORY OF
UNDERSTANDING #473 within the Nous: #77 - Natural Guide, Heaven's Reason;
I-Ching: H12 - Obstruction, Standstill (stagnation), Selfish persons;
Tetra: 57 - Guardedness;

74 81 76
79 77 75
78 73 80 = #231 - #108 = #123 / #693 - #369 = #324 {#TEN} AS RETURN TO
GRECO-ROMAN MAGIC SQUARE BEING ITSELF

So as to determine a concise MENS REA by an appreciation obtained from the
lexicon spectrum which will elucidate our understanding of any extent to
the MODUS OPERANDI.

- dolf

Initial Post: 30 December 2017

--


SEE ALSO: *INVALIDATING* *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN* *CATHOLIC*
*CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND*
*FRAUDULENT*

Private Street on the edge of the Central Business District dated 16th
May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice of
an Application for Planning Permit

- <http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTATIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF
NATURE-genesis [James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial
tetragrammaton x 4.5 day = #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER
which is an amalgam of the 64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as
trinomial tetragrammaton rather than its encapsulated contrived use as the
microcosm to redefine the macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean
[Babylonian] as binomial canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF
NUMBER.

- <http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006
defines a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is
permissible to extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING
AS A CONSCIOUS REALITY OF HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN
THE TEMPORAL REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE.

- http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS

[David Kleinecke]

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to talk with about "consciousness,"
> but Tim Parks is a science writer who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>
> The assertion that
>
> "it has come to seem that the self is very much a thing
> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating itself and
> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the dominant, internalist
> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this all takes place in the
> brain—specifically, two parts known as Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in
> the left hemisphere"

Is, to me, a parade example of:
There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.

I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I
learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics community
where the verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
thinkers are geometers.

I personally am a geometer but defensively I have had to
learn many algebrists skills - even linguistics which is
the quintessential verbal research area.

PS: Noam Chomsky seems be one of those verbal thinkers who
have trouble appreciating visual thinking.

[Janet]

>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> posted:
> >An article from The New York Review of Books:
> >http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/12/27/consciousness-where-are-words/
> >
> >"Words are really not so different from sofas and armchairs. They are
> >external objects that do things in the world and, like other objects,
> >they produce effects in our brains and thus eventually, through us, in
> >the world."

I have sat on many different sofas, and done other things on sofas
too. In my experience, words can be bounced around for ever but the same
is never true of sofas.

> >I despair whenever I hear such opinions which essentially say "words
are
> >real objects".
> >
> >Given the vast range of thoughts, emotions and hard-to-grasp concepts
> >expressed with words. That anyone can still make such statements is
> >beyond me.
> >
> >New Year's resolution: This weekend I am thinking of moving religion.
> >Can anyone recommend a U-Haul equivalent for transporting my faith? I
> >have some awkward concepts that need shifting and possibly storage for
> >future use.

Just give away any awkward old beliefs you don't need or like any
more. People who have none of their own are often glad of some
secondhand ideas.

Janet.

[David]

I am still ill with my neighbors.


"dolf" wrote in message
news:YJCdnalT8u7NHNvH...@giganews.com...

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:11:09 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to talk with about "consciousness,"
>> but Tim Parks is a science writer who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>>
>> The assertion that
>>
>> "it has come to seem that the self is very much a thing
>> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating itself and
>> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the dominant, internalist
>> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this all takes place in the
>> brain—specifically, two parts known as Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in
>> the left hemisphere"
>
>Is, to me, a parade example of:
> There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
> Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
> them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.

I don't object to the estimate of 70-30, but I don't remember
previously seeing an estimate of verbal-visual thinkers. (Is that
the split for everybody or for the split of people who /talk/ about
it?)

It seems to me that when I was first reading about "consciousness",
what I read was dominated by the verbal folk who could not
imagine (as you say) anything else. Geometers and artists
provided the counter-examples. Since I intuited my math as
geometry, the purely "verbal" arguments were not convincing.

>
>I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I
>learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics community
>where the verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
>thinkers are geometers.
>
>I personally am a geometer but defensively I have had to
>learn many algebrists skills - even linguistics which is
>the quintessential verbal research area.
>
>PS: Noam Chomsky seems be one of those verbal thinkers who
>have trouble appreciating visual thinking.

I hope that your "visual" is itself a metaphor for "everything else".
Musicians think in music, athletes think in movement, etc.

I'm still learning to write better as I learn to translate my ideas
into words. The ideas don't start out as words.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-12-29 19:11:09 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to
>> talk with about "consciousness,"> but Tim Parks is a science writer who
>> used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>> The assertion that>> "it has come to seem that the self is very much a
>> thing> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating itself
>> and> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the dominant,
>> internalist> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this all takes
>> place in the> brain—specifically, two parts known as Wernicke’s area
>> and Broca’s area in> the left hemisphere"
> Is, to me, a parade example of:
> There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
> Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
> them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.
>
> I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I

> learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics communitywhere the

> verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
> thinkers are geometers.

Hmm. That makes me a verbal thinker. When I was studying both geometry
and algebra at elementary school I found algebra trivially easy and
geometry very difficult.

>
> I personally am a geometer but defensively I have had to
> learn many algebrists skills - even linguistics which is
> the quintessential verbal research area.
>
> PS: Noam Chomsky seems be one of those verbal thinkers who
> have trouble appreciating visual thinking.

--
athel

[Snidely]

Athel Cornish-Bowden is guilty of <faotgs...@mid.individual.net> as
of 12/29/2017 11:28:39 PM

I think of myself as a verbal thinker; the inner voice (reference to
article published earlier this year) is going almost all the time, and
I use words to conjure up (internal) visual imagery.

But I found both algebra and geometry easy (Cartesian preferred),
calculus over the real numbers not too bad (using the infintessimals
concepts, including for limits), vector calculus hard (especially
finding delta balls for the epsilon balls in limits), group theory
challenging, and complex analysis a real struggle. [In the latter, I
could usually understand other people's proofs for the homework, but
couldn't come up with many myself ... almost all were proof by
contradiction, going the long way around the barn, and I tried to just
push forward.]

Dunno what conclusions you can draw from that.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Snidely]

Stefan Ram wrote on 12/29/2017 :

> occam <oc...@invalid.nix> writes:
>> An article from The New York Review of Books:
>> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/12/27/consciousness-where-are-words/
>> "Words are really not so different from sofas and armchairs. They are
>> external objects that do things in the world and, like other objects,
>> they produce effects in our brains and thus eventually, through us, in
>> the world."
>> I despair whenever I hear such opinions which essentially say "words are
>> real objects".
>

> I basically agree with you.
>
> The quoted part, however, does not say "words are real
> objects", but "words are external objects".
>
> To proceed, we'd need a definition of both "word" and
> "external object".
>
> Usually, a "word" is an abstraction: The written word "the"
> and the spoken word(s) /D@/, /DI/, /Di:/ often are deemed to
> be the same word, althought they are completely different
> things physically. Using a custom binary code, the same word
> might be represented as "00111011". So, how - precisely - do
> we define the word "the" or the concept of a word? It does
> not consist in the letters nor the sounds, but in the
> function it fulfills in a sentence.
>
> And "external object" - does this mean "object existing
> independently of humans"? If all humans would disappear,
> printed renditions of the word "the" might still continue to
> exist on paper and recordings of the spoken word might
> continue to exist on tape and binary renditions might
> continue to exist as "00111011" on a hard disk, but these
> renditions are not the same as the word itself.

>
>> New Year's resolution: This weekend I am thinking of moving religion.
>> Can anyone recommend a U-Haul equivalent for transporting my faith?
>

> A word surely is not a physical entity (that one can
> exchange energy with). It is an abstract concept.
>
> And what we deem to be physical entities might also
> be abstract concepts in the end - but concepts of a
> different model than the model words exist in. Insofar,
> what one can say is: A certain chair and a certain word
> do have in common that both are concepts, but that does
> say very little, because "everything" is a concept.

You aren't quite quantum dynamic enough.

Think of a word as a virtual particle emitted by one brain and absorbed
by another [inner voices, of course, don't get emitted, but do have
effects in different regions of the brain]

This transfers an "abstracton" of mental energy from transmitter to
receiver. This transfer involves something external to each brain.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[occam]

This is where the divergence begins. There are 'verbal' people who claim
when they think of the number 'three', they visualise the letters
't-h-r-e-e' (e.g. text). There are 'visual' people who see the picture
of a '3'. No doubt some musical people 'hear' the sound of uttering
three as a musical phrase.

And then there are those who see the colour yellow when they hear a
sound e.g. spoken three. But that's another story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

[occam]

On 30/12/2017 08:28, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 19:11:09 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>
>> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to
>>> talk with about "consciousness,"> but Tim Parks is a science writer
>>> who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>>> The assertion that>> "it has come to seem that the self is very much
>>> a thing> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating
>>> itself and> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the
>>> dominant, internalist> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this
>>> all takes place in the> brain—specifically, two parts known as
>>> Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in> the left hemisphere"
>> Is, to me, a parade example of:
>>    There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
>>    Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
>>    them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.
>>
>> I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I
>> learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics communitywhere the
>> verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
>> thinkers are geometers.
>
> Hmm. That makes me a verbal thinker. When I was studying both geometry
> and algebra at elementary school I found algebra trivially easy and
> geometry very difficult.
>>

I wonder if it is that simple.
When I tell you "that's and exponential function", do you see, in your
mind's eye, the mathematical expression f(x)=e^x ?

Or do you conjure up the classical exponential curve:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialFunction.html

I always go for the second as my first instinct, even if I am very
familiar with the mathematical representation of an exponential
function. I do not associate visualisation ability with mathematical
skills.

You mention algebra and geometry. How well did you cope with set
theory? And how? Did you eschew the diagrams in favour of the (A ∪ B) \
(A ∩ B) or (A \ B) ∪ (B \ A).?

[occam]

On 30/12/2017 16:01, Stefan Ram wrote:

> occam <oc...@invalid.nix> writes:
>> I wonder if it is that simple.
>

> Dr. Hans-Peter Nolting writes in his book "Abschied von der
> Küchenpsychologie" ("Farewell to folk psychologie") in
> section 11.1 that the popular idea of different types of
> learners (such as visual, auditory, reading/writing, and
> kinesthetic) is just a myth and that all attempts to
> substantiate these ideas by psychological research and
> neuroscience failed.
>

Dr. Hans-Peter Nolting can write whatever he wishes. When I perceive a
difference in the way I learn compared to others, his findings become
irrelevant. (Note, "failure in substantiating ideas by psychological
research", is NOT the same thing as saying are no such differences.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 1:48:52 AM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:11:09 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to talk with about "consciousness,"
> >> but Tim Parks is a science writer who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
> >> The assertion that
> >> "it has come to seem that the self is very much a thing
> >> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating itself and
> >> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the dominant, internalist
> >> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this all takes place in the
> >> brain—specifically, two parts known as Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in
> >> the left hemisphere"
> >Is, to me, a parade example of:
> > There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
> > Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
> > them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.
>
> I don't object to the estimate of 70-30, but I don't remember
> previously seeing an estimate of verbal-visual thinkers. (Is that
> the split for everybody or for the split of people who /talk/ about
> it?)

Could it maybe have come from the pop psychology "left brain ~ right brain" stuff?

[Jerry Friedman]

You seem to be forgetting the illiterate. And no doubt there are
literate people who more or less hear /Tri/.

I see the words I'm hearing or saying as if they were written in my
mind's eye, but that might make me rather visual, or literal.

> And then there are those who see the colour yellow when they hear a
> sound e.g. spoken three. But that's another story.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

More or less what I do.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Rich Ulrich]

I agree with each of your points.

I think that Nolting is refuted, in principle, by the existence
of individuals who have exceptional memories and abilities of
one sort /or/ another (which is the hub of the "multi-brain" studies).

If he is somewhat justified in saying "all attempts ... failed", then
I make the assumption that there are a lot of people in those
studies whose abilities fall in the middle.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Cheryl]

On 2017-12-30 3:58 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 19:11:09 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>
>> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to
>>> talk with about "consciousness,"> but Tim Parks is a science writer
>>> who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>>> The assertion that>> "it has come to seem that the self is very much
>>> a thing> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating
>>> itself and> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the
>>> dominant, internalist> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this
>>> all takes place in the> brain—specifically, two parts known as
>>> Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in> the left hemisphere"
>> Is, to me, a parade example of:
>>    There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
>>    Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
>>    them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.
>>
>> I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I
>> learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics communitywhere the
>> verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
>> thinkers are geometers.
>
> Hmm. That makes me a verbal thinker. When I was studying both geometry
> and algebra at elementary school I found algebra trivially easy and
> geometry very difficult.

I found both algebra and geometry easy, but calculus very difficult,
whatever that implies by my thinking processes.

If I were to guess, I'd say I'm very much a verbal thinker and not
terribly good at visual thinking.

--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[David Kleinecke]

The dichotomy between algebrists and geometers has been known
to the mathematical community since its origins (based on
anecdote and inference - I can't give you a respectable
reference even today) Euclid (per his work) was a visual
thinker. But whoever originated his proof that there are an
infinite number of primes would seem to have been an
algebrist. Diophantos surely was.

But, of course, there is more to the world than mathematics.
As has already been pointed out - the dichotomy is surely
between verbal thinkers and every other kind of thinker. I
don't have any feel for how many of each there are in the
entire wild world. Mathematics could attract or repel verbal
thinkers.

But the bottom line is that some verbal thinkers cannot
imagine any other kind of thinking.

[Tak To]

On 12/30/2017 2:58 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 11:21:44 AM UTC-8, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30 3:58 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-29 19:11:09 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know who Riccardo Manzotti is, or why he would be someone to
>>>>> talk with about "consciousness,"> but Tim Parks is a science writer
>>>>> who used to specialize in astronomy-type things.
>>>>> The assertion that>> "it has come to seem that the self is very much
>>>>> a thing> made of words, a verbal construction forever narrating
>>>>> itself and> reconstituting itself in language. In line with the
>>>>> dominant, internalist> view of consciousness, it is assumed that this
>>>>> all takes place in the> brain—specifically, two parts known as
>>>>> Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area in> the left hemisphere"
>>>> Is, to me, a parade example of:
>>>>    There are verbal thinkers and there are visual thinkers.
>>>>    Verbal thinkers predominate (perhaps 70-30) and many of
>>>>    them cannot imagine visual thinking as thinking.
>>>>
>>>> I have never seen a formal statement of this notion but I
>>>> learned it as folk knowledge in the mathematics communitywhere the
>>>> verbal thinkers are algebrists and the visual
>>>> thinkers are geometers.

I don't understand the folk dichotomy of algebrist vs
geometer except in the very narrow context of a group of
problems that can be formulated using either algebraic
(or differential) equations or Euclidean geometric
diagrams. Outside of this context, there are numerous
subfields in mathematics in which this dichotomy makes
no sense -- combinatorics, mathematical logic, game theory,
etc. Is anyone who uses symbols to aid one's think
automatically an algebrist? Is anyone who uses diagrams
automatically a geometer?

Likewise, I reject the idea of "verbal thinking" as
being too vague, except perhaps in the narrow context
in which one solves a (verbally stated) problem without
any using any symbols or diagrams (even in one's head).
And even that is hard to define because symbolic
representation is built into every language (e.g.,
pronouns).

----- -----

[...]

>
> The dichotomy between algebrists and geometers has been known
> to the mathematical community since its origins (based on
> anecdote and inference - I can't give you a respectable
> reference even today) Euclid (per his work) was a visual
> thinker. But whoever originated his proof that there are an
> infinite number of primes would seem to have been an
> algebrist. Diophantos surely was.

See above.

> But, of course, there is more to the world than mathematics.
> As has already been pointed out - the dichotomy is surely
> between verbal thinkers and every other kind of thinker.

Not if the concept of "verbal thinking" itself is ill
defined.

> I
> don't have any feel for how many of each there are in the
> entire wild world. Mathematics could attract or repel verbal
> thinkers.
>
> But the bottom line is that some verbal thinkers cannot
> imagine any other kind of thinking.

I use the term "word chauvinist". And they do recognize
that there are modes of thinking that do not involve words
-- anyone who has played with jigsaw puzzles would realize
this -- even though they opine that such modes are somehow
"inferior".

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Tak To]

But it might be that there is no *salient* difference.

It has been pointed out many times here in AUE that
the genetic differences between "races" is very small
compared to the diversity within a "race". Well, perhaps
the perceived differences in learning are just like that
-- superficial when compared to the overall cognitive
capability of the average mind. After all, every child
manage to learn a language, right? No small feat considering
that many adults cannot do that.