Well, I class thought as part of the perception stream, maybe without justification, I dont know. Also, according to QI ( a bbc tv program) we have more than 5 senses, eg sense of balance.

Bravo, a good effort.

Carlo, I am not going to trawl through your post and pick out everything that catches my eye, rather just say "it sounds like you are making **** up". What do you base your statements on?

Are you suggesting that we had these senses, lost them, and are now going to re-evolve them?

You'll have to go beyond physical senses as you now know them. First off, at the beginning as noted in the Old Testament mankind entered into the earthly sphere but not in toto as you and I today. As mankind progressed and developed over many ages the earthly senses also became more apparent and there was a correspondingly diminishment of the human being's ability to see into that world from which he had left. Humanity saw the earth in advancement but lost his atavistic clairvoyance.

the price for this loss of ancient clairvoyance was the individual man's ability to obtain self consciousness. so long as he was ensconced within the supersensible he was not free but the freedom came and in fact the materialistic ethos was important for mankind in order to progress in self consciousness for the inability to be dependent upon the supersensible literally placed man in individuality.

Now the aspect which some might miss is that not only is Mankind in evolution and obviously changing but so is the supersensible world. An example will suffice: prior to his fall into the earthly realm the human being did not have self consciousness and in fact saw the supersensible world through the eyes of higher beings. He lived within the consciousness of higher beings.

the future sees man as again seeing this supersensible world on his own as he develops this ability to project his being consciously into this higher realm; this as an individual.

There is plenty in my posts for you to consider and as I've said before I am vested in anthroposophical spiritual science; also known as an esoteric comprehension of Man and the cosmos.

the best I can offer is for you to consider that mankind was not like we are today and especially his cognitive and thinking faculties. there is/was a progression of the human soul capabilities and these matters are better understood if note is made of this. From atavistic clairvoyance to straight ego consciousness is not difficult to comprehend.

An example in the normal flux of present philosophy; Aristotle is considered the father/originator of logic. this obviously implies that mankind, at one time, did not deal with logic and did not have this power. So what was going on before Aristotle? Its a relevant issue for study and can be enlightening; Man changes as does the world.

I'm not sure how the QI show does it, but it seems to me that "sense of balance" is reducible to the touch (location of inner ear fluid) and sight (using the horizon). I'm not sure how it's a "different" sense as much as it is a combining of senses. But then a thought like "1 + 1 = 2" becomes a completely abstract thing and I'm no longer sure how it would be classified. I don't "sense" the statement "1 + 1 = 2."

Sight is also a completely abstract thing, in that you are not "seeing" the light that hits the light sensitive cells, you are seeing some abstract mental construction. I would say that you do in fact "sense" thoughts, in that they are "objects" in awareness. You can observe them appear and disappear. yes, you cant point to them, but you cant point to sights or sounds either.

While true, the initial stimulus is purely mechanical. It's hard to make the same claim for thoughts like "1+1=2."

You're going to have a harder time justifying how this can be meaningful. I can, in fact, point to a light source. I can, in fact, point to a source of sound.

well I can make a tentative claim that at least some thoughts have an initial mechanical stimulus. Eg looking at a photograh and a memory pops up about your girlfriend who is in the picture, or seeing a coke can and having the thought "I need to go to the shops for food" or hearing a sound and having the thought "I like this band"

With your 1+ 1 = 2 thought. I could claim that me asking you what 1+ 1 is would stimulate the thought 1+ 1 = 2


Possibly, yes.

Sure.

That's fine, but that's not good enough for all situations. I'm not arguing that such a thought is never mechanically stimulated. But if I just sit in a dark room and just let my mind wander and think about whatever random things it does, it's not at all clear to me that there's a physical stimulus driving those thoughts. And those thoughts are not (at least as far as I can tell) traceable to any sort of external stimulus.

I am not sure what the point of this little exchange between neeeel and aaron is. I will say that brains are very complex, so while at times they may react due to proximate physical stimulus (sensation of pain due to touching burner), other times brain states are due to a highly complex combinations of physical stimuli over years. So while it may be true that we can't exactly trace to a recent and singular stimulus the reason why our wandering minds happen to think about 1+1=2, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that our brains are anything more than products of nature and nurture. Is this interchange trying to lead to some idea of a soul or a deity or whatever else that injects itself in some way beyond this?

This is fine as an assertion, but as far as this being demonstrable, it's highly questionable that this is a meaningful statement. But that's no where hte conversation really is.

There really isn't anything here about nature/nurture or a soul or anything like that. It's really more a matter of attempting to characterize thoughts in the framework of "senses." We started with the 5 senses, but then it was expanded to include things like "sense of balance." The challenge comes when we start to consider what it means to "sense" mathematical objects in some meaningful way. It does not appear to be tied to the 5 senses in the same way that "sense of balance" is.

Well, I never stated you could sense mathematical objects, I stated you could "sense" thoughts. The thought "1+1=2" is the same as "I am having eggs for my breakfast" in that both thoughts appear, are recognised and then disappear. That both are "sensed". The content of the thought may be different, but as far as the actual thought goes, they are the same. Its an "object" in the sense stream.

Do you think it is possible for a thought to be about something? In other words, is it possible for me to e.g. think about the moon?

Some interesting thoughts here, but I think they are not relevant to the discussion here. Science and its institutions are neither secularism nor should they be identified with the state.

But this is still entirely different from something like a "sense of balance." Our sense of balance is tied to our interaction with our environment. What are we interacting with when we consider mathematical objects?

One sec, is this discussion supposedly about the experience of thinking generally (including thoughts about moons and eggs) or specifically about thoughts whose subjects are things with more questionable ontological statuses (such as mathematical objects)? I seem to be missing the point of this whole exchange. As in, while I doubt anyone is contesting that we "experience" or "feel" thoughts in some way, it seems to be that Aaron just doesn't want to use the word "sense" in the sense (lol) of it being one of the five canonical sense (the actual list is probably larger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense#Other_senses). Sure, thinking about math is not the same experience as seeing eggs, but is there a difference here that implies something (about souls? about ontological status of math? something else? or is this just a discussion without some deeper point?)

Two points. First, in my experience you are incorrect that they would accept a demonstration on scientific grounds for evolution. I've talked with a few Christians who reject evolution, and it is relatively easy to demonstrate on scientific grounds that in fact evolution is true--but nonetheless they still reject it. They'll do this by either special pleading (for instance, appealing to a universal skepticism about knowledge--but applying it only to evolution), or by simply denying that the data is correct, or by ignoring this demonstration and claiming that there are other reasons why it must be wrong, etc.

Second, it is in my view a rejection of science to reject the testimony of proper scientific authorities. Science is not a solitary pursuit of a single person proving all that has come before zhim. Rather, it relies on collaboration with everyone that has come before.

This is the situation as I see it. Lots of people with "unsophisticated" theological views accept evolution. Lots of people with "unsophisticated" theological views reject evolution. Lots of those with sophisticated theological views accept evolution and lots reject it. So I see no help in your (correct) claim that many of those who reject evolution have unsophisticated theological views as exactly the same is true of those Christians who accept it. So when you focus on gritmonkey or his equivalent among the Christians who reject evolution you are just cheating. I could just as easily find Christians who accept evolution and show how little they understand their own theology.

I am making a claim about the truth of the matter. Sure, the answersingenisis people think they are not rejecting the data, facts, etc. But they are wrong--they are. Their "alternate narrative" of data interpretation is a narrative that is not true to the facts. Or, I am not a postmodernist.

The example of "sense of balance" is driven by specific interactions with our environment. It's a very specific interaction. General thoughts don't fit in that category in the same way.

That's okay. It's not really clear that there's a specific point we're going after.

Probably the last one.

Edit:

From wiki:

This would preclude thoughts as being sensed, I think.

Would you accept that thoughts are "experienced" or "felt"? Maybe it is just a minor linguistic quibble...where you don't want to use the word "sense" for our experience of thinking because it doesn't necessarily have a proximate physical stimulus, something you require to justify the word sense.

Im not sure what you mean. I would say that the content of the thought is what its about, but I dont think that really answers your question.

It is possible for a sequence of thoughts to happen, all referencing the moon, yes.

Each thought is a separate "object", in that none of the thoughts "thinks" the next thought, I am not even sure that a following thought references the previous thought, although a thought may affect the brain state which would affect the next thought.

You could have 10 thoughts about the moon, and then a random "Im hungry" thought comes up , and then immediately after, "Hey, Im thinking about the moon here", but that is also a thought, undirected, spontaneous, its not you redirecting your thought processes back onto the moon again.

Im pretty sure this hasnt answered your question, so if you could clarify it a bit I can have another go.

Sure.

Well, this all started from Carlo's statement about supersensible, so I'm not sure how sensible the sense conversation really is.

"In an anthroposophical light, all that may be called a human sense which induces a human being to recognize the existence of an object , being or process in such a way as to justify placing its existence into the physical world." From "Anthroposophy, a fragment".

Approached in this way we have a general approach to what we may call the"Sense of Life". this sense exists only when there appears to be disorder in our inner physical body. We do not hear or see this sense but it evidences itself within. It is important to note that there is no judgment between the sense and its manifestation. As what one sees or hears does not contain a judgment such as "this is good" or "this is bad" unless it is brought about afterwards as a person can "feel bad" would be a judgment but the actual feeling is without preconceived judgment. This sense is always present but becomes majorly noticeable with disruption of physicality.

A second sense, aside from the "sense of life" is the "Sense of Movement". This is known within the medical and physiological science of the day as the "kinesthetic sense". This is the "sense of self movement" which in contrast to our "sense of life" call for an inner movement whereas the life sense can occur without movement.

A third sense, as discussed in this forum above, is our "Sense of Balance". Medically and physiologiclly this sense has been related to the inner ear and the three semicircular canals which when there is injury, dizziness occurs; the diagnosis being some form of "labyrinthitis", also known as vertigo if a Alfred Hitchcock fan (very old movie but very good-Vertigo).

The three above senses refer to mans perception of himself, or physical existence. I'll copy again: "it will appear that through the senses of life, self movement, and balance the soul opens its doors to our own bodily existence and perceives this as the physical external world nearest to it."

I'll stop here and continue when able but would clarify again that the moment "judgment" enters into the perception it would not be correct to speak of a "sense". Of course there are more "senses".

Okay. Then I submit any main disagreement with neeeel is semantics at best. He is talking about how we experience things in our brain, and wants to call them senses, but you are not objecting to the phenomenon he describes you just want to be strict on the use of "sense".

That's because what he has pointed to is not consistent with that interpretation of "sense." I don't object to your word choice, but your word choice has nothing to do with the present conversation.

Specifically, introducing senses like "sense of balance" to be considered in addition to the 5 senses removes the language you have chosen from consideration. Even the wikipedia link you provided supports that position.

I would say that "sense of balance" is not experienced in the same way as "thoughts" are experienced. And that seems to be consistent with neeeel's view, at least as far as I understand it.

Edit: You viewpoint looks like it reduces to "What is there other than that which we experience?"

I agree that nobody was claiming balance and conscious thinking were precisely the same experience, merely that we DO have experiences/feelings/sensations/something (running into linguistic barriers) of thinking. Since you don't disagree with that, and your claim here is as you say consistent with neeel's view, it would appear there is no actual disagreement except possiblly the minor linguisitic point that you don't want to call it "sense" unless there is a proximate physical stimuli.

I really should refrain from letting my quietist leanings run rampant.

Okay. But how is this different from saying that there is nothing that we experience that isn't experienced?

If you want to call it a "linguistic point" you can. You can redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean as long as you're clear about what you're saying.

And I'm somewhat doubtful that we're in any sort of true disagreement in the first place. It's more of an exploration of ideas at this point. If you hold X, then Y seems to be a consequence of that belief. And that Y may be difficult to reconcile with Z.

Probably. I'm not exactly sure how just saying that we "experience thoughts" actually reduces confusion in any way. It just sweeps the conversation under the rug.

Your interjections have a feel of you saying "It makes sense to say this." Well, maybe it does. Good for you. But that's not really what we're talking about.