From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 18:13:20 GMT
> [Erin]
> Let me put it this way and maybe you can help clarify at where I lose
> you.
> I don't have a problem saying that the tree intellect is the same type
> as my intellect but I what I don't know is the tree
> perspective....does the tree intellect not percieve my intellect? does
> it appear different? does it also appear the same?
>
> [Case]
> If the tree's type of intellect is the same as your's, shouldn't you
> be able to answer these questions for yourself?
[Erin]
No not necessarily. If the same type of intellect is all it required then
yes (but that would be an assumption). It may not just require the same
type of intellect but also the same level of intellect.
[Case]
Most definitions I can find for intellect require at minimum a nervous
system. Tree don't have them.
[Erin]
Case this is the kind of posts that I was referring to when I said it
frustrates when people argue against Scott's theory with not taking into
consideration his reconceptualization of language.
This is what you sound like....well if you think language is _____then it is
crazy to think this about language. Scott has repeatedly said he does not
think language is ____ so in my opinion your point is pointless. If you
want to poke holes in his argument than you need to do so by showing why his
conceptualization of language is wrong or use his reconceptualization and
show how that leads to other possibilities.
[Case]
I have been searching high and low for where this reconceptualization is but
can't find it. If you could point me to a coherent explaination I will
sincerely try to be less sarcastic. I have looked at Scott's 11/2 in MD
Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level which alluded to Barfield's insight
but there he does does not say what it is. There was further reference to
Barefield in the post where I was critical and where you are critical of my
critism, I was unable to see much insightful in Barfield's insight. It seems
that inorder to keep up with Scott we need to redefine a sizable chunk of
the English language. Or at least we need to expand the meaning of terms
like intellect and symbol to be so inclusive as to be meaningless.
Upon reflection I can see that classical conditioning could be regarded as
semiotic since it does rely on repeated presentations to occur. Classical
conditioning has been shown to occur even in cockroachs, I believe. But I
don't see what using the terms of semiotics brings to the table and I still
don't think semiotics has any relationship to reflexes. Or to innate
behaviors in infants.
Scott seems to be building a case against materialism and I eagerly await
his answer to the question of whether he or Barfield think that human
consciousness is not dependant on brain activity of any kind.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 21:27:30 GMT