Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:17 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:58 am

The fact that your yourself can't tell us how to falsify your theory already hints at the fact that you have built an elaborate tautology, but we will get to that in a minute, but you may need to introspect on this quote: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing".
That quote is utterly irrelevant. Everything is a goat. The position I argue for and from is not a TOE.

Facts cannot be false. What you've called 'fact' above are false statements. The fact that I've argued several times here that we can be wrong about that which exists in it's entirety prior to language ought serve to better temper any false charges of tautology. The presupposition of truth(as correspondence), the attribution of meaning, and thought/belief all exist in their entirety prior to our ability to become aware of them and/or take proper account. It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat.

The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.

You're beginning to bore me.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:23 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:17 pm
That quote is utterly irrelevant. Everything is a goat. The position I argue for and from is not a TOE.
Precisely because it's not a TOE then it is falsifiable, eh? Tell us how to falsify it then. It's your theory.
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:17 pm
The fact that I've argued several times here that we can be wrong about that which exists in it's entirety prior to language ought serve to better temper any false charges of tautology. The presupposition of truth(as correspondence), the attribution of meaning, and thought/belief all exist in their entirety prior to our ability to become aware of them and/or take proper account.
I see. So it's untestable? You could have said that right from the start ;)
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:17 pm
You're beginning to bore me.
Translation: I have run out of bullshit to say.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm

It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat. The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.

Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.

:)

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:35 pm

It's also verifiable, testable, and thus falsifiable... It's based upon neither pure induction nor logical possibility alone. I've no idea why you cannot seem to grasp this.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:41 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat. The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.

Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.

:)
I don't understand your argument or your goal posts to give you a counter examples and it seems that since you are the only one who does there is nothing stopping you from claiming that any counter-example I give you fits your model.

So I guess even in a way of reproducibility your hypothesis fails. You can't even teach me how to use it in practice...
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
You must be the first person I know who celebrates the non-falsifiability of their hypothesis :lol: :lol: :lol:

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:42 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:35 pm
It's also verifiable, testable, and thus falsifiable... It's based upon neither pure induction nor logical possibility alone. I've no idea why you cannot seem to grasp this.
Then define what a falsifier would look like...

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:22 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:41 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat. The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.

Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.

:)
I don't understand your argument or your goal posts to give you a counter examples and it seems that since you are the only one who does there is nothing stopping you from claiming that any counter-example I give you fits your model.
That could be true. I'm not certain of your sincerity. Either you are and do not understand or you are not and do. I've found that many so-called 'professionals' do but will do everything they can to minimize the impact of what I bring to bear for it's either that or admitting to having something wrong at a fundamental level. Rhetoric is easier than revisiting the scope of logical consequence.

What's confusing to you?

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:32 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:41 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
You must be the first person I know who celebrates the non-falsifiability of their hypothesis :lol: :lol: :lol:
Your failure to provide a single example to the contrary has no negative bearing upon what I'm arguing for and from.

You're beginning to bore me.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:39 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:42 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:35 pm
It's also verifiable, testable, and thus falsifiable... It's based upon neither pure induction nor logical possibility alone. I've no idea why you cannot seem to grasp this.
Then define what a falsifier would look like...
How many fucking times do you need to see the criterion? A falsifier would be an example of the attribution of meaning that does not include something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:40 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:32 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:41 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
You must be the first person I know who celebrates the non-falsifiability of their hypothesis :lol: :lol: :lol:
Your failure to provide a single example to the contrary has no negative bearing upon what I'm arguing for and from.

You're beginning to bore me.
The person who best knows where you hypothesis is flawed is YOU.

If you don't know how to falsify it, it's a little odd that you expect me to do it in 30 minutes.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:44 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:39 pm
How many fucking times do you need to see the criterion? A falsifier would be an example of the attribution of meaning that does not include something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things.
Well, lets see - you have no testable/bounded definition for 'meaning' and so I don't know what you mean by ATTRIBUTION of meaning.
You have no testable/bounded definition for 'significance'.

And so it's unclear what consequences you are predicting.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm

All swans are white.

:roll:

If you do not know how to falsify a universal claim about each and every example of the attribution of meaning it's not my problem.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:46 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm
If you do not know how to falsify a universal claim about each and every example of the attribution of meaning it's not my problem.
Well yeah, that's probably because nobody knows what 'meaning' is. The best definition I have is Shannon information.

It seems to me that you claim to have solved this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:46 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm
If you do not know how to falsify a universal claim about each and every example of the attribution of meaning it's not my problem.
Well yeah, that's probably because nobody knows what 'meaning' is. The best definition I have is Shannon information.

It seems to me that you claim to have solved this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:45 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
Well. I have my framework. Thought is computation. Belief is software. Knowledge is memory.

It's an adequate framework for me - because it works in practice.

Beyond that I don't care about ontological claims about thought/belief. All models are wrong - some are useful.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest