Money

[Jeff.Guo]

The fact that we're trying to quantify it, even as an academic exercise; a debate in the popular academic sense (as in both redundant and moot) relies on language. If the thoughts cannot be related in some understandable manner; they cannot be deemed anything coherent. It would be like saying to someone that you will now guess what they're thinking, and deciding that what they're thinking is wrong... and THAT gets us back to language.

It's not a chicken and the egg thing, you do not need to be able to manifest your thoughts in order to have them...so you need not to be able to communicate your thought in order to possess it.

Short hand of one of the nail in the coffin argument I used.

1.) Thoughts require concepts.*
2.) Concepts are not mind-independent. I.E. Concepts cannot exist unless there is someone to conceive of them.
3.) A unit of language must represent a referent, or describe a referent. Otherwise it'd be gibberish.
4.) [From 2.) and 3.)] Someone must conceive of an concept before it can be represented linguistically.
5.) Language require the concept of language.
---------
6.) Concept of language was conceived of prior to its linguistic representation.
7.) Concept of language existed prior to language.

Basically, before the first (wo)man created the first language, (s)he must have had a coherent concept of language. Albeit not as complex as language is today, but sufficient for the simple language that (s)he would have been familiar with and a coherent thought nonetheless.

*It can be composed of many other elements, but this is generally what is considered to be essential component and a coherent thought can be composed of concepts alone. It's actually quite an interesting topic, and if you want to read up on it, I recommend Donald Davidson's "Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective" and "Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation". He actually shares your position, which I don't think is as widely accepted as it once was. Quine and Wittgenstein both also touches on this subject, but they share my view and tend to appeal to more of an naturalistic approach instead of a purely philosophical one.

[Brett_Henderson]

The problem with these discussions, is that they become over-thought (dare we go down that path..lol)..

But it's so much a chick-n-egg thing, that trying to explain how it is not, makes you admit that it is, per this statement:

Basically, before the first (wo)man created the first language, (s)he must have had a coherent concept of language

And then, coherency is irrelevant until someone (that's as far as my pronoun, political correctness goes) tries to draw a conclusion, from a drawn conclusion... Hence my reference to animals, and even infants. They have no concept about relating a thought, aside from reflexes like; I'm hungry, I'll cry.

My brother and I had this debate, though it was first centered around whether or not or family dog was capable of abstract thought. I said, "yes"; using the example that she knew to take leash into her mouth in order to minimize its effect on her choke-chain. No doubt a coherent thought process.. but utterly meaningless if she had no way to share it, for either judgement, or adaptation by another dog. That's where the validation by language comes in... else it's all a guessing game.

[CD.]

No.

Impossible.

[Jeff.Guo]

The problem with these discussions, is that they become over-thought (dare we go down that path..lol)..

But it's so much a chick-n-egg thing, that trying to explain how it is not, makes you admit that it is, per this statement:

Basically, before the first (wo)man created the first language, (s)he must have had a coherent concept of language

And then, coherency is irrelevant until someone (that's as far as my pronoun, political correctness goes) tries to draw a conclusion, from a drawn conclusion... Hence my reference to animals, and even infants. They have no concept about relating a thought, aside from reflexes like; I'm hungry, I'll cry.

My brother and I had this debate, though it was first centered around whether or not or family dog was capable of abstract thought. I said, "yes"; using the example that she knew to take leash into her mouth in order to minimize its effect on her choke-chain. No doubt a coherent thought process.. but utterly meaningless if she had no way to share it, for either judgement, or adaptation by another dog. That's where the validation by language comes in... else it's all a guessing game.

A concept of language is not language, far far from it. A concept of a chicken isn't a chicken, and the concept of mathematics is NOT mathematics.

It's not meaningless if you cannot share it. As you have seem to agreed to, it is clear and coherent in the animal's head.

Imagine a person stranded on a desert island with no one to share his thoughts with. Are you ready to make the implication that person cannot have thoughts because he cannot share them?

[Brett_Henderson]

Imagine a person stranded on a desert island with no one to share his thoughts with. Are you ready to make the implication that person cannot have thoughts because he cannot share them?

Of course not.. Unless he was stranded as an infant, he already HAS language. However, it could not be proved, or even pondered without language. Now of course there is a primal, instinctual language built into anything born with a brain-stem. Bees for example employ a language of dance without thinking about it. But for the sake of this discussion (and the context of the thread); (could people interact sans money)... There is no interaction for the stranded man. Now if he were stranded as an infant, it could be argued that he'd develop his own, conceptual language.. learn to gather more food than he needs at that moment.. and have some sort of image-based conversation with himself about the advantage of this behavior..

[TacitBlue]

My old flight instructor always said "If it weren't for money, we could all have a lot of fun".

In a pure communist society, if that philosophy actually worked, then yes we could live without money. The guy who started this thread mentioned Star trek, Didn't they have things called replicators that could make food or anything they wanted presumable just by being plugged in? That would go a long way in a society without money. But since no such thing exists in out current level of technology and likely never will given the physics involved I think it would take a lot more to realize a true money-less society. I said yes on the poll because it is possible, just not likely on any large scale.

Now for the language discussion that has sprung forth from this thread (like my use of language?). Certainly a person or animal can have thoughts without language. Watch you're family pet sometime. Cats are good at this, they usually wont get themselves into something that they don't have a way out of and that certainly takes some forethought. Even my big silly dog has demonstrated behavior that most certainly took some planning. I saw her stalk and kill a bird once, and I'm telling you that hunting something definitely requires a little bit of planning and anticipation. It probably requires more thought for the dog than it would for me. If I want to kill a bird, I would just wait for it to land then shoot it from 20 feet away. The dog has to get in close without the bird hearing or seeing it. Yes, I know hunting is just a way of getting food and getting food is an animal instinct, but animals, even wild animals have to be taught how to hunt. Learning in itself is a form of abstract thinking. The animals first urge is just run at the prey and bite it. Some experience and gained knowledge will tell it that staying concealed and getting close to the prey first will yield better results.

Also, communication does not require a spoken language. Again I turn to the family pet, you know when the dog wants out or is hungry and they never say a word.

[Jeff.Guo]

Imagine a person stranded on a desert island with no one to share his thoughts with. Are you ready to make the implication that person cannot have thoughts because he cannot share them?

Of course not.. Unless he was stranded as an infant, he already HAS language. However, it could not be proved, or even pondered without language. Now of course there is a primal, instinctual language built into anything born with a brain-stem. Bees for example employ a language of dance without thinking about it. But for the sake of this discussion (and the context of the thread); (could people interact sans money)... There is no interaction for the stranded man. Now if he were stranded as an infant, it could be argued that he'd develop his own, conceptual language.. learn to gather more food than he needs at that moment.. and have some sort of image-based conversation with himself about the advantage of this behavior..

[specter177]

It depends on what you classify as language. Spoken words are not the only types of language. Anything that communicates something, whether it be a bark or a tail wag or a word, is a language, IMO.

[Brett_Henderson]

We really don't disagree much.. and further we drift from the original context, the closer our points blur together. That was a well written post, and I enjoyed reading it.. but I think we're mis-interpreting certain points .. and they aren't provable enough to warrant continued circling

[U4EA]

No.

Impossible.

For centuries there was trade.

Without money(currency) there would simply be a reversion to trade.  We ain't talking rocket science.

[BFMF]

Are we talking about money being printed dollar bills and official government issued currency, or the concept of money/currency/time/wealth through trading goods, services, livestock, valuable/rare minerals and other natural resources such as gold, silver, ect?

[ShaneG_old]

Are we talking about money being printed dollar bills and official government issued currency, or the concept of money/currency/time/wealth through trading goods, services, livestock, valuable/rare minerals and other natural resources such as gold, silver, ect?

Both.

Tacit hit it on the head with the replicator thing. Such a technology would surely be needed to support such a society.
  The mere concept of people living and working for the sole purpose of the betterment, and furtherance of mankind's place in the universe, without the need for gaining wealth, seems so foreign that it also seems impossible. At least in our current circumstance. 

  We are conditioned from birth to want more than we have. Currently, the only way to do that, is to have more money. 

I thought about this a lot last night, wondering what sort of event would be required to make such a drastic shift in human priority take place. I didn't come up with much. 
It seems quite unfathomable at times.

[Hagar]

We are conditioned from birth to want more than we have.

I think this a natural human trait, not something we're conditioned into. Without an element of competition there would be very little progress.

[CD.]

No.

Impossible.

For centuries there was trade.

Without money(currency) there would simply be a reversion to trade.

[expat]

No.

Impossible.

For centuries there was trade.

Without money(currency) there would simply be a reversion to trade.