Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

[creativesoul]

Whether "the symbols of programming languages are themselves meaningful" becomes just another topic of philosophical masturbation.

We simply fail to distinguish the various use-cases: language for reasoning/decision-making (computation) versus language for communication (communication protocol). Language for self-expression (poetry)

Language is a tool. It serves a purpose in a particular context.

No argument with the last two claims... generally speaking, that is.

Distinguishing between the various use cases is done, so I've no idea what you're trying to say here. You just did it. Besides...

It's careful contemplation and consideration of the content of correlation that matters most. It is key and requires an adequate framework.

All the historical confusions stemming from objective/subjective, internal/external, map/territory, and all the other miserably failed attempts at distinguishing between things that are existentially dependent upon language and things that are not are dissolved by virtue of getting thought/belief right. Unfortunately, it seems that you've followed some of the same academic paths that lead to a gross misunderstanding of thought/belief.

[TimeSeeker]

Programming languages use rigid designators. So what?

So what? It means their grammar and semantics are complete. That's like a BIG thing for a logic!

Latin isn't a programming language, and it's not open for interpretation any more or less than binary code. All language can be interpreted. It is all 'open for interpretation'...

Incorrect. Interpretation is a process. Fundamentally - it's disambiguation of meaning.

The difference between programming languages and natural languages is that programming languages can INTERPRET THEMSELEVES.
That is - I can write an interpreter for language X in language Y. And once I have an interpreter for language X I can write an interpreter for language X in language X. Recursion!

Go ahead and define the rules of interpretation for Latin in Latin. I'll wait.

Surely you're not claiming that computer language(s) do not use signs/symbols that stand in for what they are not themselves? Surely you would not deny the fact that all the signs and symbols used to write computer language and/or code stand for something else... say... a command to perform a specific operation?

That's a philosophical red herring. It doesn't matter what the symbol "stands for". What matters is the consequence of the symbol's interpretation.

That you've decided to call a pizza "pizza" or "smulregop" doesn't matter. I want smulregop for lunch!

The consequence of wanting smulregop for lunch is that I get in my car and go to the smulregop restaurant.

And you actually had the gall to accuse me of irrelevancy and Red Herring...

Pots and Kettles.

Science not philosophy. Consequential differences, not equivocation.

[creativesoul]

Programming languages use rigid designators. So what?

So what? It means their grammar and semantics are complete. That's like a BIG thing for a logic!

So what? The signs/symbols are meaningless without their significant other(what is significant/symbolized).

Latin isn't a programming language, and it's not open for interpretation any more or less than binary code. All language can be interpreted. It is all 'open for interpretation'...

Incorrect. Interpretation is a process. Fundamentally - it's disambiguation of meaning.

The difference between programming languages and natural languages is that programming languages can INTERPRET THEMSELEVES.
That is - I can write an interpreter for language X in language Y. And once I have an interpreter for language X I can write an interpreter for language X in language X. Recursion!

All interpretation is attributing meaning to that which is already meaningful. You are not a programming language. Nothing you've said here supports the nonsensical notion that words/signs/symbols are not meaningful.

[TimeSeeker]

So what? The signs/symbols are meaningless without their significant other(what is significant/symbolized).

You seem to be concerned only with the descriptive use of language. That's not an exhaustive list of language's uses!

All interpretation is attributing meaning to that which is already meaningful.

Again. Descriptive use of language. All that is meaningful needs not be described in language. And yet we do. Why?

Nothing you've said here supports the nonsensical notion that words/signs/symbols are not meaningful.

I see. So what does 'grobmunf' mean?

[creativesoul]

So what? The signs/symbols are meaningless without their significant other(what is significant/symbolized).

You seem to be concerned only with the descriptive use of language. That's not an exhaustive list of language's uses!

All interpretation is attributing meaning to that which is already meaningful.

Again. Descriptive use of language. All that is meaningful needs not be described in language. And yet we do. Why?

You're concerned with particulars and all sorts of other shit that doesn't really matter here... in this conversation between you and I. I'm providing what's true of them all.



All language is meaningful. What I'm arguing underwrites all meaning. Thus, it underwrite all language use. Thus, it underwrites everything you've said, everything I've said. It underwrites everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered. Remarkable that your rejoinders are of the kind that would be argued by someone who hasn't seemed to grasp this yet. Odd, because I think you do. Am I overestimating how well you understand the position I'm arguing for and/or from?

[creativesoul]

And for fuck's sake... please try to provide some substance that is not riddled with irrelevance and/or incoherence(self-contradiction).

[TimeSeeker]

You're concerned with particulars and all sorts of other shit that doesn't really matter here... in this conversation between you and I. I'm providing what's true of them all.

Yeah... That's is a premise I don't accept.

What I'm arguing underwrites all meaning.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

All language is meaningful. Thus, it underwrite all language use.

And you have missed the point entirely is that this is neither here nor there. Unless you can extract the meaning (by SOME process) - to you, it means nothing. Go ahead and tell me the meaning of 'grobmunf'. And so I guess you have failed to underwrite interpersonal communication?

It underwrites everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered.

You have left out so many other mechanisms for thought-expression I don't even know where to begin...

Am I overestimating how well you understand the position I'm arguing for and/or from?

Definitely. Because I don't understand it.

[TimeSeeker]

And for fuck's sake... please try to provide some substance that is not riddled with irrelevance and/or incoherence(self-contradiction).

It was a very long tirade on a different thread where I had to explain why the law of non-contradiction is a lie (which is why I reject it).

It has to do with high order logic, consistent semantics and grammar of Hindley–Milner type systems (which is the language I speak in my head - type theory). Because I am forced to express high-order semantics in a low-order logic (English) some content MAY be lost in translation.

And so the fact that you notice any contradictions simply signals misunderstanding. Semantic errors at best. You are simply having trouble extracting my meaning. Which is exactly the substance I am arguing for.

Communication is hard! Especially when you pre-suppose that we speak the same language just because it LOOKS like English to you. I doubt you speak type theory...

[creativesoul]

Or not I suppose...

[creativesoul]

And for fuck's sake... please try to provide some substance that is not riddled with irrelevance and/or incoherence(self-contradiction).

It was a very long tirade on a different thread where I had to explain why the law of non-contradiction is a lie (which is why I reject it).

It has to do with high order logic, consistent semantics...

What's wrong with this picture???

Consistent semantics cannot be self-contradictory. Equivocation is self-contradiction. A pattern of equivocation is consistent evidence of self-contradictory language use(incoherency).

You're not very good at this are you?

[creativesoul]

And so the fact that you notice any contradictions simply signals misunderstanding. Semantic errors at best. You are simply having trouble extracting my meaning..

There's nothing to be misunderstood. Your claims are chock full of self-contradiction. Equivocation is adequate evidence. Do you really want me to pick it apart and spell it all out?

[surreptitious57]

All language is meaningful

Language is meaningful but it is not always understood

For example when it is information [ not understood ] rather than knowledge [ understood ]

[creativesoul]

What I'm arguing underwrites all meaning.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cue irrelevant cliche...

I have offered the criterion for all meaning that I work from on several occasions in this thread. There are no exceptions. That is a strong claim. Easy enough to refute. Provide one example to the contrary.

[TimeSeeker]

Consistent semantics cannot be self-contradictory. Equivocation is self-contradiction. A pattern of equivocation is consistent evidence of self-contradictory language use(incoherency).

You're not very good at this are you?

You seem to lack understanding of high order logics. You can neither equivocate nor contradict yourself in a constructive logic.
The worst you can do is a syntactic error. Do some homework on Hindley–Milner type systems - they render all the laws of classical logic moot.

Here is an example of a perfectly sound logical argument in Python: https://repl.it/repls/AlarmingThoughtfulDemand

from random import randint as r
for _ in range(10):
a = r(1,101)
b = r(1,101)
print(a > b)

By your premise "all language is meaningful" - tell me what this sound logical argument means.

[creativesoul]

Consistent semantics cannot be self-contradictory. Equivocation is self-contradiction. A pattern of equivocation is consistent evidence of self-contradictory language use(incoherency).

You're not very good at this are you?

You seem to lack understanding of high order logics. You can neither equivocate nor contradict yourself in a constructive logic.
The worst you can do is a syntactic error. Do some homework on Hindley–Milner type systems - they render all the laws of classical logic moot.

Here is an example of a perfectly sound logical argument in Python: https://repl.it/repls/AlarmingThoughtfulDemand

from random import randint as r
for _ in range(10):
a = r(1,101)
b = r(1,101)
print(a > b)

By your premise "all language is meaningful" - tell me what this sound logical argument means.

Again, you're not very good at this, are you? I need not know what some linguistic expression means in order for it to be meaningful. I cannot speak Swahili either, but it is meaningful.