Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

[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.

[TimeSeeker]

Again, you're not very good at this, are you?

I was going to say the exact same thing...

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.

Yeah actually. You do need to know that in order to assert it. Because there are far too many counter-examples which make your sweeping generalization that "all language is meaningful" obviously false.

If you don't speak Swahili then you do not know if a particular sentence is even IN Swahili, let alone assert if it's meaningful or not. The best you can do is ask a Swahili speaker IF a proposition is meaningful. This "testability" thing science insists on - you can't escape from it.

Language is an ever-evolving system, not a thing. It requires multiple components for it to work. One of those components is SHARED context/knowledge/experience/memory!

Without such a shared context/knowledge/experience/memory the INTERPRETATIVE portion of the system that is language does not work. You can't even understand what I am saying in (what you might suppose is) English! Technical jargon is perfect example.

Is Meoritic script meaningful?
Are the writings of the Harappan civilisation meaningful?
Will Shakespeare's writings still be meaningful to anybody 5000 years from now when all of its context and cultural relevance are long forgotten?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

[creativesoul]

Again, you're not very good at this, are you?

I was going to say the exact same thing...

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.

Yeah actually. You do need to know that in order to assert it. Because there are far too many counter-examples which make your sweeping generalization that "all language is meaningful" obviously false.

Just one will do... yet you've not offered one.


Yes. Language is existentially contingent upon shared meaning. When all speakers die, then a necessary component is no longer there. So what? All this is irrelevant.

I need not know what all language use means in order to know that it is all meaningful. To argue otherwise is untenable... as it requires omniscience.

[creativesoul]

Nothing you've claimed is a problem for anything I've argued. Do you not see that?

[TimeSeeker]

I need not know what all language use means in order to know that it is all meaningful. To argue otherwise is untenable... as it requires omniscience.

But you do need to know what meaning IS for you to be able to assert that "all language is meaningful". Else it's a tautology.

Is Meoritic script language? Is it meaningful? It was meaningful.. no longer. It's still a language!

Meaning is not a necessary condition for "language", therefore not all language is meaningful.