Religion and Language

[mfbukowski]

Courage is a representation of nothing, and it is not hormones.

Where is "freedom"?

Hormones are hormones, courage is courage.

This is a linguistic problem. Read some Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations or Blue or Brown books will do fine.

Read two of these and call me in the morning.

[mfbukowski]

I'll make it easy on you. Emphasis added.

Linguistic criticism of the mind-body problem

Each attempt to answer the mind-body problem encounters substantial problems. Some philosophers argue that this is because there is an underlying conceptual confusion.[54] These philosophers, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and his followers in the tradition of linguistic criticism, therefore reject the problem as illusory.[55] They argue that it is an error to ask how mental and biological states fit together. Rather it should simply be accepted that human experience can be described in different ways - for instance, in a mental and in a biological vocabulary. Illusory problems arise if one tries to describe the one in terms of the other's vocabulary or if the mental vocabulary is used in the wrong contexts.[55] This is the case, for instance, if one searches for mental states of the brain. The brain is simply the wrong context for the use of mental vocabulary - the search for mental states of the brain is therefore a category error or a sort of fallacy of reasoning.[55]

Today, such a position is often adopted by interpreters of Wittgenstein such as Peter Hacker.[54] However, Hilary Putnam, the originator of functionalism, has also adopted the position that the mind-body problem is an illusory problem which should be dissolved according to the manner of Wittgenstein.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind#Linguistic_criticism_of_the_mind-body_problem

[mfbukowski]

It is not a thing, it is a point of view.

Yes, it is about language use, but you see that is all we have. Every sentence on this board, every thought you think is about language use. Ever y scientific idea, every perception you tell us about, every alleged "fact", is about language use.

To avoid this problem, please do not use language in your next post.

[Montgomery Price]

1. If courage is a representation of physical processes, should we expect to find the physical substance of "courage" in our brains?

(Or, should we expect to find physical water in a photo representation of water?)

Hint: The answer is no. We don't expect to find a physical substance. A physical substance would be a duplication, not a representation. A representation does not always have the same properties as what it represents.

2. Are you denying that what you perceive as "courage" has any physical root in your brain?

3. Can you prove that courage is non-physical? Or, can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

4. Your question "Where is freedom?" assumes that freedom exists. Define freedom, and prove that it exists.

Also, while we are at it. I would lean towards the idea that freedom is a representation of a physical process, so... If it really is a representation or perception of a physical process. Then would we expect to find what is representation, as a duplication in our brains?

Hint again: No. If freedom is not physical itself, but a representation of physical processes, then we would not expect to find physical "freedom" in our brains. We would expect to find the physicals neural process that creates our non-physical concept, perception, or representation of freedom.

If you want to go on about how we don't know exactly what physical process creates this perception of "freedom", or if we even have an freedom. This only points out ignorance on the subject (which I'm going to college to attempt to replace with knowledge), and does not prove either of us wrong.

If the physical roots of what we perceive as freedom are unknown. This does not mean that it is known that freedom is spiritual and supernatural or what have you. The unknown is unknown.

Seriously, watch the video.

[Mordecai]

I don't expect you to assert that consciousness is part of the body. Do you wish to assert that consciousness is not part of the body?

Consciousness is not part of the body anymore than gravity is part of the earth. If you're in a spacecraft and are in range of earth's gravity, do you say, "We made it to earth! Time to get out of our spacecraft!" Just because the gravity has roots in what is physical, doesn't mean it makes logical sense to speak as if they're the same. You lose linguistic integrity, when you don't differentiate between things whose properties are profoundly different. Consciousness, while obviously incorporated into the body, can't accurately be described as being part of the body... at least if you want language to make sense.

"Courage" is a representation of the physical components of your brain. So, when you ask "where is courage?"... The neural processes and chemical reactions that create what you perceive and represent as "courage" are located in your brain.

Courage is not a representation of anything. A person's courage is his or her predisposition to feel and behave in certain ways. That stems from one's character, which is obviously incorporated into a body. That doesn't mean that character is something physical. The properties of information are different enough from the properties of physical matter to warrant a different designation, not unlike how energy or potential energy is not considered part of a stretched rubber band, despite the fact that the potential energy is inseparable from the physical rubber band. Can you touch potential energy? What is it? Well, scientifically, it's the same stuff as matter, but clearly, a stretched rubber band doesn't weigh more than one that isn't stretched. Where is the "stuff" that comprises the potential energy in a stretched rubber band? It doesn't seem to have a location, it can't be weighed, and you can't touch it. The profound difference in the quality of potential energy demands a different linguistic designation, as the point of language is to clarify and categorize.

As mfbukowski pointed out, your error is in categorization. You make a gross error in claiming that courage is part of the body, just as you would in claiming that potential energy is part of the body of a stretched rubber band. That's "crazy talk," and if everyone were to adopt your philosophy of language, it would damage our ability to communicate about reality. It's just your compulsion to promote materialism that demands you distort language in such a way.

According to Joseph Smith, spirits are a finer form of matter. This is also true of energy and information. Should we start calling energy "matter?"

[Montgomery Price]

Consciousness is not part of the body anymore than gravity is part of the earth. If you're in a spacecraft and are in range of earth's gravity, do you say, "We made it to earth! Time to get out of our spacecraft!" Just because the gravity has roots in what is physical, doesn't mean it makes logical sense to speak as if they're the same. You lose linguistic integrity, when you don't differentiate between things whose properties are profoundly different. Consciousness, while obviously incorporated into the body, can't accurately be described as being part of the body... at least if you want language to make sense.

Courage is not a representation of anything. A person's courage is his or her predisposition to feel and behave in certain ways. That stems from one's character, which is obviously incorporated into a body. That doesn't mean that character is something physical. The properties of information are different enough from the properties of physical matter to warrant a different designation, not unlike how energy or potential energy is not considered part of a stretched rubber band, despite the fact that the potential energy is inseparable from the physical rubber band. Can you touch potential energy? What is it? Well, scientifically, it's the same stuff as matter, but clearly, a stretched rubber band doesn't weigh more than one that isn't stretched. Where is the "stuff" that comprises the potential energy in a stretched rubber band? It doesn't seem to have a location, it can't be weighed, and you can't touch it. The profound difference in the quality of potential energy demands a different linguistic designation, as the point of language is to clarify and categorize.

As mfbukowski pointed out, your error is in categorization. You make a gross error in claiming that courage is part of the body, just as you would in claiming that potential energy is part of the body of a stretched rubber band. That's "crazy talk," and if everyone were to adopt your philosophy of language, it would damage our ability to communicate about reality. It's just your compulsion to promote materialism that demands you distort language in such a way.

According to Joseph Smith, spirits are a finer form of matter. This is also true of energy and information. Should we start calling energy "matter?"

Sigh. I don't claim that courage is part of the body.

I was mistaken for phrasing my statements in this way. But there were several statements I made that clearly indicated that we should not expect courage itself to be physical, but the processes it represents.

Courage is the representation of a physical process.

What we label "courage" is an idea, and is not physical itself, but most likely representative of a physical process.

To say "where is courage?" is a category error. We shouldn't expect to "find" courage itself. We expect to find the physical reactions and processes that create this non-physical representation, idea, concept, perception of courage.

I don't believe I'm making any linguistic error. It's those who ask questions about physically finding ideas.

It's as pointless as attempting to find physical water in a photo of the ocean.

[Montgomery Price]

Also, mordecai.

I suggest you retract these statements:

As mfbukowski pointed out, your error is in categorization. You make a gross error in claiming that courage is part of the body, just as you would in claiming that potential energy is part of the body of a stretched rubber band. That's "crazy talk," and if everyone were to adopt your philosophy of language, it would damage our ability to communicate about reality. It's just your compulsion to promote materialism that demands you distort language in such a way.

And your "materialist" assertions. Because this is not what I am doing.

You also claimed that courage is not a representation. Then what is it, exactly? And why can it not be a representation?

[Mordecai]

You also claimed that courage is not a representation. Then what is it, exactly? And why can it not be a representation?

It's completely nonsensical to claim it is a representation. I don't know where to start in explaining how wrong that is. It is not a representation at all. As I said, it's a predisposition stemming from one's character.

[Montgomery Price]

It's completely nonsensical to claim it is a representation. I don't know where to start in explaining how wrong that is. It is not a representation at all. As I said, it's a predisposition stemming from one's character.

What is this predisposition? I assume that it is non-physical? I assume that it is an idea, or a concept? Or is it something you physically interact with?

Where does this predisposition come from? Where and how does it originate?

And, again. How can it not be a representation of physical processes. How can it not be just what we perceive of the physical? How can it not be this idea, concept, or predisposition that we use to represent the physical?

[mfbukowski]

1. If courage is a representation of physical processes, should we expect to find the physical substance of "courage" in our brains?

(Or, should we expect to find physical water in a photo representation of water?)

Hint: The answer is no. We don't expect to find a physical substance. A physical substance would be a duplication, not a representation. A representation does not always have the same properties as what it represents.

2. Are you denying that what you perceive as "courage" has any physical root in your brain?

3. Can you prove that courage is non-physical? Or, can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

4. Your question "Where is freedom?" assumes that freedom exists. Define freedom, and prove that it exists.

Also, while we are at it. I would lean towards the idea that freedom is a representation of a physical process, so... If it really is a representation or perception of a physical process. Then would we expect to find what is representation, as a duplication in our brains?

Hint again: No. If freedom is not physical itself, but a representation of physical processes, then we would not expect to find physical "freedom" in our brains. We would expect to find the physicals neural process that creates our non-physical concept, perception, or representation of freedom.

If you want to go on about how we don't know exactly what physical process creates this perception of "freedom", or if we even have an freedom. This only points out ignorance on the subject (which I'm going to college to attempt to replace with knowledge), and does not prove either of us wrong.

If the physical roots of what we perceive as freedom are unknown. This does not mean that it is known that freedom is spiritual and supernatural or what have you. The unknown is unknown.

Seriously, watch the video.

You have no comprehension of anything I said, you have totally misquoted me and your reply makes no sense. As usual. I don't even think you read my post. I said courage is NOT a representation.

I was hoping we could actually get some communication going, and you could learn something. I know you are barely out of high school if indeed you are. With all due respect, you need some education in philosophy if you ever want to argue with anyone who knows anything.

You are a bright kid, but have a lot to learn. And you have a real touch of arrogance, you need to learn to listen.

You will get no further responses from me until you learn at least to read my posts, I don't want to waste my time.

Read the Wittgenstein, and if you have an intelligent comment, I will respond.

Seriously, read the book. The video is stupid.

[mfbukowski]

No one I know is a substance dualist, and Mormons certainly are not. I don't even know what substance is much less postulating two kinds of the stuff.

Maybe Catholics are, but not Mormons.

[Montgomery Price]

You have no comprehension of anything I said, you have totally misquoted me and your reply makes no sense. As usual. I don't even think you read my post. I said courage is NOT a representation.

Question 1 does not assert that courage is a representation. It says "if" it is a representation.

Question 2 does not say courage is a representation.

Question 3 only asks you to show how courage is not a representation.

The rest don't have anything to do with courage...

I don't see any problem in answering these questions. Especially because the majority of what you were saying is not what I am talking about.

I'll get to you may think I am miscomprehending. But, if what I'm about to go over is what you believe I am actually missing... These questions are a separate conversation, and I don't see why you can't answer them.

I was hoping we could actually get some communication going, and you could learn something. I know you are barely out of high school if indeed you are. With all due respect, you need some education in philosophy if you ever want to argue with anyone who knows anything.

You are a bright kid, but have a lot to learn. And you have a real touch of arrogance, you need to learn to listen.

You will get no further responses from me until you learn at least to read my posts, I don't want to waste my time.

Read the Wittgenstein, and if you have an intelligent comment, I will respond.

Seriously, read the book. The video is stupid.

I'm still a senior in highschool... and I wonder what you would say if I read your book and then responded...

"The book is stupid."

Quite the "intelligent comment".

But, anyways. In your quote, it says that the search for a mental state should not be looked for in terms of the physical brain. I say, why not? You say that it's an categorical error... but what category error, exactly, is made by claiming that courage is a representation of a physical process of the brain, and not physical itself?

Courage remains a mental state. It remains an abstract idea, perception, or predisposition. A non-physical concept. The image of water, but not the water itself.

But, this mental/abstract/conceptual/non-physical courage is representative of physical brain processes.

What is the error of language made here?

If anything. To claim that courage should be "found" in our brain is a categorical error. If this question is in response to, and in the context of my "representation" claim... then why do you expect an abstract representation to portray the same qualities of what it represents? But back to your perspective, not mine, you obviously don't think "courage" represents anything.

So, back... to the questions.

3. Can you prove that courage is non-physical? Or, can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

and also, according to you:

What is courage?

You are very quick to claim what courage is not... So then, what exactly is it?

[Mordecai]

What is this predisposition? I assume that it is non-physical? I assume that it is an idea, or a concept? Or is it something you physically interact with?

A predisposition is not unlike the potential energy in a stretched rubber band. It's far more real than the information found in your brain, as that, in itself, is just a bunch of information. Without interpretation and function, information is junk. To say that courage represents the information in our brains is ridiculous. If anything, the information (or perhaps something more profound) in our body would represent courage.

Where does this predisposition come from? Where and how does it originate?

Where does potential energy in a stretched rubber-band come from? Partly from the character of the molecules that comprise the rubber band and partly from outside influence. Similarly, there is nature and nurture in a soul that explains courage.

And, again. How can it not be a representation of physical processes. How can it not be just what we perceive of the physical? How can it not be this idea, concept, or predisposition that we use to represent the physical?

This is nonsense. Is the potential energy in a stretched rubber band representing a physical process? No. It is potential energy and not a representation of anything.

[Montgomery Price]

A predisposition is not unlike the potential energy in a stretched rubber band. It's far more real than the information found in your brain, as that, in itself, is just a bunch of information. Without interpretation and function, information is junk. To say that courage represents the information in our brains is ridiculous. If anything, the information (or perhaps something more profound) in our body would represent courage.

Then what is courage if the physical is represented by it.

You haven't explained what it is at all.

Where does potential energy in a stretched rubber-band come from? Partly from the character of the molecules that comprise the rubber band and partly from outside influence. Similarly, there is nature and nurture in a soul that explains courage.

Explains it?

What is it? Is it the nature and nurture itself? Or is it something independent of the nature and nurture?

What is a soul?

This is nonsense. Is the potential energy in a stretched rubber band representing a physical process? No. It is potential energy and not a representation of anything.

I see no reason to expect potential energy to represent anything. I'm not a physicist. But, I would point out a categorical error here. You can't make "potential energy" a concept of physics, analogous to "courage" a concept of mind.

What applies to the mind does not necessarily apply to physics. I think a new metaphor would clear this up, but I can indulge any how.

What is potential energy?

You say "It is potential energy."

I say OK, we've established this. I'll ask: What is potential energy?

What is the predisposition of courage?

Describe it. Don't tell me what influences it, because this does not tell me what is being influenced. Don't tell me what it is analogous to, because you haven't explained how the subject of the analogy can be explained in the same way. Don't tell me what it is not. Don't tell me it's a "predisposition", because this does not answer the question.

What is courage?

Courage is the predisposition to act with courage.

This doesn't explain what courage is. It tells us nothing about courage. What is it.

You can also go back and answer the questions 1-4 in post #29, if you like. If not, then the only question I'd like you to answer is this:

3. Can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

[mfbukowski]

Courage is a word, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I cannot help myself.

[Montgomery Price]

A word that describes what...

[mfbukowski]

A word that describes what...

You are stuck in a dualist universe. What precisely does any word "describe"?

How do you know what a word describes? Is there a world outside of human experience? I don't see it.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/investigations.html

Wittgenstein describes language as a game in which words may be used in a multiplicity of ways: for example, to describe things, to ask questions, to report events, to speculate about events, to make requests, to give commands, to form hypotheses, to solve problems, and to perform other acts of communication.

The meaning of a word may be defined by how the word can be used as an element of language. A word may be given different meanings, according to how it is used in a language-game. However, the rules of a language-game may change, and different rules may be applied to different games. According to Wittgenstein, there is no single rule which is common to all games.

The rules of a game may (or may not) leave doubt about how the game should be played. The rules of a game may be definite or indefinite, clear or unclear. If the rules are unclear, then they may still be understandable enough to be used for playing a game.

Wittgenstein explains that the meaning of a word may not depend upon whether the word refers to something that actually exists. For example, if something ceases to exist, the word or name for that thing may still have meaning. If we say that the name for something exists, we may affirm that the name has meaning, even though the name may refer to something which no longer exists.

Thus, the word "pain" may have meaning, even if it refers to something which no longer exists. A person may understand what it means to have pain, even if he or she is not actually having pain.

Each word or name may be used in more than one language-game, and thus each word or name may have a family of meanings. A word or name may be useful without having a fixed meaning. The meaning of a word may be fixed or variable, definite or indefinite. A word or name for something may have multiple uses to express or designate that thing.

Words may be empty of meaning, or may have some meaning, or may be full of meaning. Words may be given meaning by the way in which they express thoughts and feelings. However, words may have different meanings when they are used differently to describe thoughts and feelings. Words may have either an essential or unessential (accidental) meaning, according to how they are used in a language-game.

Words may have a simple meaning, or may have a composite meaning. Simple aspects of meaning may be combined to produce composite aspects of meaning. Composite aspects of meaning may be combined to produce more complex aspects of meaning.

According to Wittgenstein, the meaning of a word is not what is referred to, or designated by, by that word, but is the use which the word has as an element of language. If we want to define the meaning of a word, we must define how the word is used an an instrument of language.

Edit: formatting

[Montgomery Price]

I am not a dualist.

The word "courage", if just a word... cannot then be anything that is not a word.

So, according to you, there is no "concept" or abstraction of courage. There is no perception of courage. There is no predisposition of courage. There is no representation, no idea, etc. of "courage"... Because ideas, abstractions, ideas, predispositions, and the like are not words themselves.

Or, are we making another mistake of language here?

If you just responded to what I just typed like this:

"Hey! "Idea", "abstraction", and "concept" are words. They're made up of letters and you've typed them!"

This is obviously not what I mean. I mean the concept that is in your mind. Not the letters, but the sort of conceptual idea or abstraction that requires no words.

If you claim that "courage" is just a word. Then it can't be anything but meaningless letters. I think it's safe to say that you don't believe the concept, feeling, or idea of courage that we perceive is just meaningless letters used in language. We use letters to make words so that we can communicate what we perceive. To say that courage is a "word", is to say that it's only use is communication. And, again, I don't think that you think courage is just communication between two human beings.

So, what is courage?

[Mordecai]

Then what is courage if the physical is represented by it.

That it is represented by information in the brain (and perhaps elsewhere) doesn't change what it is. Can it be described as physical? Everything is physical, in the end, including energy. Technically yes. So what?

You haven't explained what it is at all.

As I said, it is a predisposition toward certain behavior.

What is it? Is it the nature and nurture itself? Or is it something independent of the nature and nurture?

Wow, you're confused. It is the result of the effects of nature and nurture. Once it is in place, it is independent of the nurture, but it couldn't possibly be independent of the nature. This should be evident by definition.

What is a soul?

A soul is a living person and everything that entails.

I see no reason to expect potential energy to represent anything. I'm not a physicist. But, I would point out a categorical error here. You can't make "potential energy" a concept of physics, analogous to "courage" a concept of mind.

Why can't I make them comparable? They're analogous on a few different levels.

What is potential energy?

You say "It is potential energy."

Energy is about work or change in matter. Potential energy is energy that has not been expressed or one might say that it is energy that can readily change form so that we can perceive it.

What is the predisposition of courage?

If you're asking what is courage, it is a predisposition to behave in certain ways. You're getting confused here.

Don't tell me it's a "predisposition", because this does not answer the question.

If you don't know what a predisposition is, you won't know what courage is. How do I explain courage, if you don't understand predisposition? A stretched rubber-band is predisposed to be restored to its unstretched state. In that case, energy is converted to a different state, doing work to act upon the matter in the rubber-band. For a courageous person, the character of their soul is such that, provided reasonable circumstances, they are not controlled by fear and instead, act out of faith. In other words, they carry with them perception and understanding as well as physical attributes that enable them to act and feel in ways that are based on confidence. Not unlike the stretched rubber band, their body has incorporated into itself properties that are then transformed under certain circumstances to express themselves in a predictable way.

3. Can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

I can tell you that this is complete nonsense and is so wrong, it's hard to explain just how wrong it is. It's based on a lack of comprehension on your part, which I am having trouble fathoming.

[Montgomery Price]

Consider this sentence:

"Love is just a word."

You can have two interpretations of this sentence. One is true, but trivial. The other is blatantly false, and would be earth-shattering if true.

(1) Love is just a word. It is a set of letters, combined to convey a message. This interpretation is true, but trivial. It doesn't matter.

(2) Love is not just a word. This claim is obviously false. Love could be a certain set of emotions. It could be a chemical process in your brain. It could be something that makes all of life worthwhile. It could just be an illusion... but we know for sure, that the concept of "love" is not a word.

The same for courage.

[Montgomery Price]

That it is represented by information in the brain (and perhaps elsewhere) doesn't change what it is. Can it be described as physical? Everything is physical, in the end, including energy. Technically yes. So what?

Did you just claim that courage is physical. I asked you what courage is, and you say that it is part of "everything", and it is physical.

Are you sure.

Wow, you're confused. It is the result of the effects of nature and nurture. Once it is in place, it is independent of the nurture, but it couldn't possibly be independent of the nature. This should be evident by definition.

I'd say you're the one that is confused... But, ok.

It is the "result".

What is this result.

A soul is a living person and everything that entails.

Never mind. I don't want to get into this. The courage discussion is enough.

Why can't I make them comparable? They're analogous on a few different levels.

Energy is about work or change in matter. Potential energy is energy that has not been expressed or one might say that it is energy that can readily change form so that we can perceive it.

But not on many others I would guess.

You've told me how potential energy acts. You haven't told me what it is. You say that it hasn't changed into a form we perceive. This doesn't describe the form that it is in.

If you're asking what is courage, it is a predisposition to behave in certain ways. You're getting confused here.

I just asked you "what is the predisposition of courage?" and you say that it is a predisposition?

Are you serious?

These behaviors, you must claim, make up courage. What are these behaviors? Do you mean to say that the concept of courage is abstract, and only representative of the combination of behaviors that one is predisposed towards?

If you don't know what a predisposition is, you won't know what courage is. How do I explain courage, if you don't understand predisposition? A stretched rubber-band is predisposed to be restored to its unstretched state. In that case, energy is converted to a different state, doing work to act upon the matter in the rubber-band. For a courageous person, the character of their soul is such that, provided reasonable circumstances, they are not controlled by fear and instead, act out of faith. In other words, they carry with them perception and understanding as well as physical attributes that enable them to act and feel in ways that are based on confidence. Not unlike the stretched rubber band, their body has incorporated into itself properties that are then transformed under certain circumstances to express themselves in a predictable way.

I know what a predisposition is. You can say that it is a predisposition to act courageously, but it still doesn't tell me what courage is. It just tells me that someone can be predictably act in certain ways. It doesn't tell me what courage is, it just tells me how someone who is "courageous" might act. Are you saying that "courage" is something abstract and representative of something else? That "something else" being the predisposition to act in a certain way.

I can tell you that this is complete nonsense and is so wrong, it's hard to explain just how wrong it is. It's based on a lack of comprehension on your part, which I am having trouble fathoming.

Trouble fathoming, or just wrong?

Wouldn't you say that I am just wrong?

If you don't believe courage to be representative of any physical process, then why isn't it.

Why is the perception of courage, the predisposition to act in a certain way, not representative of a physical process. A physical process that does not physically contain any "concept" of courage, but is the physical subject of our representational concept.

[mfbukowski]

I am not a dualist.

The word "courage", if just a word... cannot then be anything that is not a word.

So, according to you, there is no "concept" or abstraction of courage. There is no perception of courage. There is no predisposition of courage. There is no representation, no idea, etc. of "courage"... Because ideas, abstractions, ideas, predispositions, and the like are not words themselves.

Or, are we making another mistake of language here?

If you just responded to what I just typed like this:

"Hey! "Idea", "abstraction", and "concept" are words. They're made up of letters and you've typed them!"

This is obviously not what I mean. I mean the concept that is in your mind. Not the letters, but the sort of conceptual idea or abstraction that requires no words.

If you claim that "courage" is just a word. Then it can't be anything but meaningless letters. I think it's safe to say that you don't believe the concept, feeling, or idea of courage that we perceive is just meaningless letters used in language. We use letters to make words so that we can communicate what we perceive. To say that courage is a "word", is to say that it's only use is communication. And, again, I don't think that you think courage is just communication between two human beings.

So, what is courage?

Honestly, I have tried. I think you are not even reading anything I say.

You don't know how to listen.

Wittgenstein was probably the most important philosopher of the 20th century, and you are obviously interested in philosophy. If you don't even want to understand his point of view, there is not much I can do about it.

Drop the arrogance and learn something. That is not an insult, it is advice from an old man who has been around the block a few times.

Print out this thread, and read it in a few years and you will find I am right. It has nothing to do with Mormonism or atheism, you just lack credibility due to your attitude.

These are things I might tell my own son, so don't feel I am putting you down. You are honestly very bright, but you need a little humility and you neeed to learn how to listen and actually communicate with people.

[Montgomery Price]

Maybe I don't understand what you are getting at, because you're not making any sense. I responded to what your philosopher said, and I don't see how I am making any error. What didn't I read? What did I miss? Explain!

You said that courage is just a word, and I responded to this.

I'm not getting any specific responses at all. At least tell me what error I make when I say the non-physical concept of courage is representative of a physical process.

I'm not describing courage, a mental process, as part of biology. I'm describing it as a representation of something biological. How does Wittgenstein discredit this? Please, answer this specifically. I could be getting it all wrong, and could be mad. Whatever. Just either answer the question, or tell me why the question is confused. Don't just tell me I'm confused and then say I need to grow up.

So, If you still want to respond:

1. How do you respond to my interpretations of "just a word"? Are you only saying that it can be interpreted as communication, and is still trivial (Interpretation #1). Or, are you saying that the concept of courage, itself, is only communication (#2). Or something else?

2. What category error am I making, specifically?

[Mordecai]

What is this result.

A predisposition to act in certain ways.

You've told me how potential energy acts. You haven't told me what it is. You say that it hasn't changed into a form we perceive. This doesn't describe the form that it is in.

You have poor reading comprehension. I did explain what it is. Read carefully: energy is a quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force. Potential energy is energy that can readily change into a form that can be perceived.

I just asked you "what is the predisposition of courage?" and you say that it is a predisposition?

I didn't quite answer your question, because you asked the wrong question. Once you start asking the right questions, that will tell me that you are actually thinking and paying attention instead of stubbornly sticking to your own suppositions.

Are you serious?

No. I'm hilarious, aren't I?

These behaviors, you must claim, make up courage. What are these behaviors? Do you mean to say that the concept of courage is abstract, and only representative of the combination of behaviors that one is predisposed towards?

I'm obviously not saying that, because as I said, courage doesn't represent anything. It is a predisposition.

I know what a predisposition is. You can say that it is a predisposition to act courageously, but it still doesn't tell me what courage is. It just tells me that someone can be predictably act in certain ways. It doesn't tell me what courage is, it just tells me how someone who is "courageous" might act. Are you saying that "courage" is something abstract and representative of something else? That "something else" being the predisposition to act in a certain way.

No, I'm not saying that it is representative of something else. I'm saying it is a predisposition. A predisposition isn't representative of anything.

If you don't believe courage to be representative of any physical process, then why isn't it.

For the same reason that potential energy isn't representative of anything. It is what it is.

Why is the perception of courage, the predisposition to act in a certain way, not representative of a physical process.

I wasn't talking about the perception of courage. I'm talking about courage itself.

A physical process that does not physically contain any "concept" of courage, but is the physical subject of our representational concept.

Sounds like more drivel. You're not comprehending something here again. I suspect mfbukowski's recommendation that you study philosophy might be the way to go. You're pretty lost.