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 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:49 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
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.
That would explain your aversion to truth and love of self-contradiction.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:57 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
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...
And yet you've spent considerable time attempting to refute the position I'm arguing for, which could be called "ontological" although I wouldn't call it such...

Ever heard of a performative contradiction?

:mrgreen:

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:17 am

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:57 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
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...
And yet you've spent considerable time attempting to refute the position I'm arguing for, which could be called "ontological" although I wouldn't call it such...

Ever heard of a performative contradiction?

:mrgreen:
It isn't a performative contradiction because I accept the adage that all models are wrong. Even mine.

The difference is that "you know you got it right", whereas I know I merely got it less wrong.

I know why my model is incomplete and so I know how to falsify it. You don't.

:mrgreen:

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:32 am

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:49 am
That would explain your aversion to truth and love of self-contradiction.
It would also explain your delight for equivocation and false-positive classification of valid arguments as contradictions. In the language of statistics you are guilty of a Type I error.

Proofs (arguments!) compute. Algorithms contain no contradictions. Only bugs.

If you had spent your time getting a PhD in physics, mathematics or computer science instead of philosophy you might have learned why that's true ;)

Instead you've ended up as another adherent to the Correspondence theory religion.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:36 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:17 am
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:57 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:45 pm

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...
And yet you've spent considerable time attempting to refute the position I'm arguing for, which could be called "ontological" although I wouldn't call it such...

Ever heard of a performative contradiction?

:mrgreen:
It isn't a performative contradiction because I accept the adage that all models are wrong. Even mine.

The difference is that "you know you got it right", whereas I know I merely got it less wrong.

I know why my model is incomplete and so I know how to falsify it. You don't.

:mrgreen:
Talking about my conception/theory of meaning as if it were a model is prima facie evidence of not understanding how thought/belief works. Models are of something that they are not. Thought/belief is meaningful.

A performative contradiction is when someone's behaviour doesn't 'align' with what they are saying. Eating a vanilla ice cream cone while going on about how much they do not like dairy products would be a simple to understand example.
Last edited by creativesoul on Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:46 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:32 am
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:49 am
That would explain your aversion to truth and love of self-contradiction.
It would also explain your delight for equivocation and false-positive classification of valid arguments as contradictions. In the language of statistics you are guilty of a Type I error.

Proofs (arguments!) compute. Algorithms contain no contradictions. Only bugs.

If you had spent your time getting a PhD in physics, mathematics or computer science instead of philosophy you might have learned why that's true ;)

Instead you've ended up as another adherent to the Correspondence theory religion.
Again, you've put misunderstanding on display. You have used one term in more than one sense in the same 'model'. That is unacceptable. It is an invalid argumentative form. I pointed it out. I didn't make it up.

There are no false statements in Boolean logic. There are no false statements in binary code. There are no false statements in any computer 'language'. They are all inductive... purely inductive. The irony is that they are all true by definition... which is tautological. Godel's incompleteness theorem applies to these sorts of logics.

You do realize that he had a Completeness theorem as well, and it was about deduction?

I reject traditional Correspondence Theory, by the way...

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:53 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:36 pm
Talking about my conception/theory of meaning as if it were a model is prima facie evidence of not understanding how thought/belief works. Models are of something that they are not. Thought/belief is meaningful.
Claiming to understand how it works without having a conceptual/systematic model is absurd ;) Models are meaningful too.
model. [mŏd′l] A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories.
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:36 pm
A performative contradiction is when someone's behaviour doesn't 'align' with what they are saying. Eating a vanilla ice cream cone while going on about how much they do not like dairy products would be a simple to understand example.
Quite familiar with the term thank you.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:58 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:46 pm
Again, you've put misunderstanding on display. You have used one term in more than one sense in the same 'model'. That is unacceptable. It is an invalid argumentative form. I pointed it out. I didn't make it up.
And which term would that be? Are you sure I am using it in more than one sense or is that you just misinterpreting my use of it ? ;)
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:46 pm
There are no false statements in Boolean logic. There are no false statements in binary code. There are no false statements in any computer 'language'.
Here are some.
In [1]: 5 > 7
Out[1]: False

In [2]: False and False
Out[2]: False

In [3]: from random import randint as r

In [4]: r(1,100) < 50
Out[4]: False

In [5]: True ^ True
Out[5]: False
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:46 pm
They are all inductive... purely inductive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_language
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:46 pm
The irony is that they are all true by definition... which is tautological. Godel's incompleteness theorem applies to these sorts of logics.

You do realize that he had a Completeness theorem as well, and it was about deduction?
Indeed. I am familiar with all developments in logic for the last 150 years. As well as the Curry-Howard isomorphism.

Both inductive and deductive statements are true-by-definition. If your axioms are valid. That is why logic is mechanical.
Are your axioms valid? That's not something you can determine in logic ;)

Garbage in - Garbage out.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:07 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:53 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:36 pm
Talking about my conception/theory of meaning as if it were a model is prima facie evidence of not understanding how thought/belief works. Models are of something that they are not. Thought/belief is meaningful.
Claiming to understand how it works without having a conceptual/systematic model is absurd ;) Models are meaningful too.
There is a crucial and discernible difference between our reports and what we're reporting upon when what we're reporting upon exists in it's entirety prior to language itself. That difference is one of elemental constitution and existential dependency. Our reports are existentially dependent upon language. What we're reporting upon is not.

The trick is separating the two. Philosophy has failed. Can you?

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:09 pm

Using the term "false" in a line of code does not make the line say something that is not so.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:37 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:09 pm
Using the term "false" in a line of code does not make the line say something that is not so.
Oh? Can you think of a situation where 5 apples is more than 7 apples?

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:42 pm

That was an answer from a user... an input. Was it not?

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:42 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:07 pm
There is a crucial and discernible difference between our reports and what we're reporting upon when what we're reporting upon exists in it's entirety prior to language itself.
This is a truism. Anything we are reporting on exists before our report.
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:07 pm
The trick is separating the two. Philosophy has failed. Can you?
Sure. Semiotics. There is the signifier (language/label) and the signified (the object to which the language points).

And since you have some familiarity with computer code. Words are pointers to the actual object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointer_( ... ogramming).

I don't think in words. I think in pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_v ... on_ability

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:43 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:42 pm
That was an answer from a user... an input. Was it not?
it is an input. It doesn't have to be from a user.

It can be a real-time measurement of the surroundings. Temperature. Computer vision. Anything related to making a real-time decision. Calculating fastest route time in Google maps.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:47 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:42 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:07 pm
There is a crucial and discernible difference between our reports and what we're reporting upon when what we're reporting upon exists in it's entirety prior to language itself.
This is a truism. Anything we are reporting on exists before our report.
Not anything we're reporting upon exists prior to language itself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest