### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Posted:

**Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:49 pm**For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.

https://forum.philosophynow.org/

Page **15** of **47**

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:49 pm**

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:51 pm**

Are you giving up then?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:49 pmSorry. That is an appeal to authority. Such a 'law' does not exist.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:52 pm**

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:59 pm**

On your promise of proving that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language in intuitionistic logic? You said this previously:

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:50 pmYou have set yourself up for disappointment. You have contrived an impossible challenge. A game that cannot be won given the rules you seem to be playing by. You are asking me to prove a negative while at the same time it appears you are holding me accountable to the laws of Aristotelian/Classical logic.

The only way I know how to prove a negative is to abandon Aristotelian logic and embrace constructive/intuitionistic logic. Which necessarily means abandoning the laws of excluded middle AND the laws of non-contradiction!

It is only in that framework where proof-by-contradiction becomes a viable strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

So, lets embrace constructive logic and ASSUME that all thought can be expressed in language and see what absurdities/paradoxes this leads to.

Of course, now the game is rigged in my favour because I KNOW you have no empirical/ontological/scientific grounding for what a 'thought' is and isn't

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pm**

But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I have contradicted myself.

This is precisely what software compilers do - syntax/semantic verification.

From where I am standing the statement was perfectly coherent. Maybe you are missing information? There's a fine line between abductive and deductive reasoning you know...

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:42 pm**

So, that's you final say on the matter?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pmBut I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:48 pm**

No? You left out the three paragraphs that followed.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:42 pmSo, that's you final say on the matter?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pmBut I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:52 pm**

So, that would be your final say then?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pmBut I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I have contradicted myself.

This is precisely what software compilers do - syntax/semantic verification.

From where I am standing the statement was perfectly coherent. Maybe you are missing information? There's a fine line between abductive and deductive reasoning you know...

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:00 pm**

It isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:52 pmSo, that would be your final say then?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pmBut I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I have contradicted myself.

This is precisely what software compilers do - syntax/semantic verification.

From where I am standing the statement was perfectly coherent. Maybe you are missing information? There's a fine line between abductive and deductive reasoning you know...

Show me a contradiction in the language of Python.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:03 pm**

OKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by upholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:00 pmIt isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:52 pmSo, that would be your final say then?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pm

But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I have contradicted myself.

This is precisely what software compilers do - syntax/semantic verification.

From where I am standing the statement was perfectly coherent. Maybe you are missing information? There's a fine line between abductive and deductive reasoning you know...

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm**

By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:03 pmOKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by unholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:00 pmIt isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pm**

I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pmBy the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:03 pmOKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by unholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:00 pm

It isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pm**

By your own criterion mentioning of the proof is sufficient!Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pmI am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pmBy the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.

I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm**

We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pmI can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pmI am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm

By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.

This proving my case.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:25 pm**

So?Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pmWe are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pmI can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.

We started it in English. We can end it in Python.

We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right?

Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong.

I have handed you a falsifier on a silver platter!

You can’t even produce one measly contradiction in a proper language with objective rules for interpretation ?!?