Is how it's supposed existence is demonstrated, right? They usually use this binary prompt-response scenario. Like "Think of a city. Now did you
pick the the specific city or was it
random?" And I think that's the
wrong way to conceptualize it.
Hym "So, my problem with determinism (at least in this example of determinism) is that although I don'
t choose the specific city, I still activate the 'mode' that searches for city and I can choose not to do it and prevent a city from coming to mind OR I can misfire. It's like a hat with with slips of
paper in it and, on the slips of
paper, are the names of cities. Now, you can prompt me to think of 'city.' I can choose to reach into the hat. And only then do I get a
random city. But what I DON'
T get is 'Nissan' or 'helicopter' or 'banana' or 'dog.' I activate the mode that searches for city and I reach into the hat. See, as I have it conceptualized, thought exists in this nebulous, un-articulated format. So, to get language I need to activate some kind of process. And prompt response ISN'
T THE SAME as what I'm doing when I'm monologing. I'm running that nebulous, un-articulated thought-matter through a lexicon that corresponds with my native language. But I am that which activates modes. I can can turn it on or off like a
switch. It can also misfire while I'm not paying attention. So, yeah... I think it's a
failure to properly conceptualize and a
failure to compartmentalize."
