41–50 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is that it an example of explicitly non-linguistic thinking—hence not all thinking can be defined or limited by linguistic structures.
a counterpoint is that this example begs the question; it assumes a priori that “thinking about gears” is not a language itself. which, who knows, it might be!
People speak in tongues at church because they are expected to, have seen it before, and they lie about it. It seems that should be the presumption in the case of Delphi, too, rather than a biochemical mechanism or "antipositivism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues#Medical_re...
I think it's more likely they get really caught up in the moment or something among those lines. I am interested in what in what it would be like to go to a concert of a bar with one of these people.
People speak in tongues at church because they are expected to, have seen it before, and they lie about it. It seems that should be the presumption in the case of Delphi, too, rather than a biochemical mechanism or "antipositivism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues#Medical_re...
I don't think most people "lie about it", at least not intentionally. I think it's more likely they get really caught up in the moment or something among those lines. I am interested in what in what it would be like to go to a concert of a bar with one of these people.
I think it's worth noting-- there's some serious work exploring these kinds of things in the ancient world (Temple of Kykeon, Soma of the Rg Veda, Amrta, Cintamani) and it's still an open subject. Terence McKenna theorized that Psilocybin mushrooms might be responsible for, "mystical visions through substance" but as a practicing, "Hindu" (Chaitanya follower) I've come to find that in the case of the mystical substan…
A bit later I went over to the Zen booth and talked to a young monk. They had no materials in the booth, only a piece of paper with the swooshed circle symbol. After talking to him briefly I asked, "Do you visualize?". He looked at me calmly for just a moment and then replied, "I practice Zen." I then repeated myself, asking " Yes, but do you visualize?". Immediately he replied, "I practice Zen."
Later I would joke it was at the moment I became enlightened, but understanding this from a fundamental standpoint is both a choice of faith and a logical conclusion done by the mind.
People do visualize, but some people don't. Practicing Zen is about not adding to things, but living in the moment and being aware of your surroundings. The monk may have been able to visualize, but he knew that doing so would pull him out of the moment so he didn't.
Conversely, the Hari Krishna visualized at will, by his own admission when I was asking about it, and allowed it to be a thing he was aware of in the few moments we spoke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hard version of this, sometimes called Strong Whorfianism (after the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is relatively easy to discredit. Imagine a system of gears. Turn them and adjust them in your mind. You’re thinking in images rather than language. The soft version of this, that our thinking is influenced by the limits of language is almost certainly true. To give a very HN example, think about the work done in different…
I see your point but I feel it’s a little bit weakened by the fact that you’re limited to using words to describe it. Can you conceive of a thought experiment that is impossible to put into words? Yes or no is acceptable, but if the answer is yes I guess I’ll have to take your word for it.
Of course, when you deal with real language your language itself is constrained. If you need to invent a bunch of new words does that count?
Our question is: Why did the Pythia go into a frenzy? The major theory you hear about this is that the Oracle was ingesting some kind of drug, possibly a psychedelic derived from rye fungi - but who can say with any certainty? Maybe it was just similar to the 'speaking in tounges' religious phenomenon, which has examples from all over the world: https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/speaking-in-tongu...
Maybe it was just BS. Don't write off the simplest explanation.
Seems like the author is neglecting the possibility of human intervention. The priests and priestesses may have found a way to collect ethylene gas from the stream and released it intentionally at the right time. A trade secret so to speak. Hidden secrets in religion are not uncommon.
It's not clear what you mean here, could you give some examples?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think most people "lie about it", at least not intentionally. I think it's more likely they get really caught up in the moment or something among those lines. I am interested in what in what it would be like to go to a concert of a bar with one of these people.
I really don't care what it would be like to go to a social event with one of those people, nor do I care to deeply plumb the depths of the distinction between a lie and untruth.
Language shaping the way you think always feels off to me. Most languages are pretty much universal and unbiased and are capable of expressing an infinite amount of concepts. As easily as their negations, subtle variations, contextual dependencies, nuances, etc.
> Most languages are pretty much universal and unbiased and are capable of expressing an infinite amount of concepts. Yes, most of them are (or can be, with the addition of a couple of neologisms or borrowings). Just like you can do anything with any Turing-complete language. Languages and cultures still have biases and built-in world views. For example, to most Europeans, the idea that you would need to estimate you…
German is well known for having different pronouns based on social rank and familiarity.