Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

[TimeSeeker]

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

You have no premise - so you have no argument.

[creativesoul]

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

You have no premise - so you have no argument.

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

[TimeSeeker]

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

[creativesoul]

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.

It is a language because it was meaningful. All language is existentially dependent upon shared meaning.

[creativesoul]

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

Charming.

You do need to have a valid objection.

[TimeSeeker]

Step up then! Do some philosophy. I've offered numerous arguments in favor of what I've been arguing. Address those. Rhetoric alone is inadequate. I can do that as well... Can you also provide argument or at least something more than gratuitous assertion as a counter?

That's not how logical arguments work...

I am pointing the errors in your logic e.g the inability for you to draw the conclusions which you have drawn.I do not need to have a valid argument for your argument to suck.

Charming.

You do need to have a valid objection.

Correct. Your pre-suppositiong are trivially falsifiable as is your taxonomy.

[creativesoul]

More gratuitous assertion...

You'll have to do better than that.

[creativesoul]

It's clear that you do not understand how existential dependency works.

[creativesoul]

All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.

Got one?

[TimeSeeker]

All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.

Got one?

Yes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols (represented as bits - which are physical things) computers process information, make decisions and have a causal effect on reality. That is significant.

Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.

[creativesoul]

All meaning includes something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two.

That is a universal claim. It is true of all particulars. All it takes to negate it is one example to the contrary.

Got one?

Yes. Computers are not creatures. Based on symbols computers have causal effect on reality. That is significant.

Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.

Computers are not creatures. Therefore nothing is meaningful to the computer. It is meaningful to you and me. There's no exception here.

[TimeSeeker]

Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.

Computers are not creatures. Therefore nothing is meaningful to the computer. It is meaningful to you and me. There's no exception here.

The EXPERIENCE of being driven by a robot from A to B is not meaningful to you? It sure is meaningful to me. Without it becoming a sing/symbol.

It's bloody useful!

[creativesoul]

Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.

Drawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...

[TimeSeeker]

Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.

Drawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...

Yes. It's meaningful. And it's not language. It's utility.

[creativesoul]

I've set out a criterion for what all meaning is existentially dependent upon. You've satisfied that criterion with each example.