Originally Posted by kesh
but we wouldn't understand each other. i could as much argue about thought as someone untrained in maths could argue about algebraic k-theory, it's really that specialist
i don't agree with that.
algebra is, as science, bound by specific rules and laws that defines it and it's application.
of course someone untrained in maths couldn't argue algebraic theory.
what the **** kind of specialist are we talking about with regards to this
debate, anyway? a "thought" specialist? anyone
can argue philosophy, and that's what we're doing here.
a neurologist might argue from a scientific, biological point of view, knowing and understanding terms, processes, known facts about the brain and it's mechanics that i wouldn't know.
but i don't believe that "thought" necessarily comes down to simply neurology and science.
and thus the argument becomes philosophical again, which is what the argument is
as long as all parties understand terminology used (which obviously can happen when "laymen" discuss philosophy - see euphoriamorning's last post), i don't see what the problem is with philosophical
before we ask questions we have to be sure the questions are meaningful, which again goes to understanding, see above blah blah blah
it is important to ask meaningful questions but i'd like to know what criteria anyone is expected to use when determining whether or not a question is "meaningful".