Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius
You are assuming what you're trying to prove in that whole post, not in the question itself. I'm saying that the labeling process(an aspect of thought) is not necessarily a function of the \"I\". I will conceed that when \"I\" percieve something \"I\" then percieve it's labeling. The problem is that most people see thought as an internal process, and go no farther than their own body when referring to themselves, this thread is reexamining that seemingly natural opinion. Instead, I suggest that you look at thought as something external, like images or sounds. You will then easily see where I am coming from. I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the \"I\" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.
\"I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the \"I\" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.\"
That does make more sense to me, percieved in the way you put that.
But I am not fully grasping it.
Although a perception would precurse a thought, the thought process , action or capability had to be there prior to any perception.
I am not trying to be difficult. Honest.[/b]
First of all let's get the definitions down, as this may just be a definitional arguement.
Perceive:
1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2.To achieve understanding of; apprehend.
I am using the word as described by the 1st definition, just to make that clear.
Thought does not preceed perception(in most cases). Before you learn a language in which to think(and label) you percieve things. Perception does not necessitate thought, as we see many things without thinking of them. The next point I want to make is that thoughts themselves are percieved. These percieved thoughts are perhaps the ones we are aware of, but other thoughts that exist in the subconscious, thoughts that we are not aware of and yet are still thought. It becomes clear that thoughts are yet another thing to perceive, which is the fundamental action of our conscious selves. Thought is a process which we do not fully understand or control, and so it would be hard to define ourselves by it. Perhaps the reason we hold thought as our personal activity is because perceptions of thought are not correlated by any of the other senses, if we hear something, we can seek it out and see it, if we see something, we can walk over and touch it, but thought is different. Another question is if the will is an aspect of our fundamental identity or just another external process that we call our own, but that is for another thread.
|
|
Bookmarks