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 9:36 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:23 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:18 pm
Computer language and logic are existentially dependent upon natural language.
The fact that we have made programming languages friendlier for the humans to write software in is neither here nor there.
The code is interpreted. What the processor understands is only 1s and 0s. Nothing natural there.

Machine learning algorithms are pure mathematics.
Machine vision algorithms are pure mathematics.
Algorithms for self-driving cars are pure mathematics.

They make real-time decisions based on real-time data using various mathematical equations. No natural language there.
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:18 pm
Natural language is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief. Whatever non-linguistic thought/belief consists of, computer languages and logic are existentially dependent upon.
Don't think so.
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm not arguing against anything you've claimed above aside from your denial of existential dependency which is patently absurd if you think about it.

Everything you mentioned above is existentially dependent upon complex problem solving skills. Those skills are existentially dependent upon natural language. Natural language is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief. Everything you've mentioned is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.

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 9:39 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:36 pm
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm not arguing against anything you've claimed above aside from your denial of existential dependency which is patently absurd if you think about it.

Everything you mentioned above is existentially dependent upon complex problem solving skills. Those skills are existentially dependent upon natural language. Natural language is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief. Everything you've mentioned is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.
Well sure - the causal chain is required at first. A human had to write the software/algorithm and bootstrap the system. But once the system is running - the dependency is no longer there.

This is the distinction between build-time and run-time dependency.

Self-managing/self-replicating systems are par for the course nowadays. That is what automata is for! Automated decision-making for mundane tasks. So that humans don't have to do it (anymore).

We have absolutely no idea how machine learning algorithms work. That is - if they go haywire at runtime, we can't fix them! Because their internal (mathematical) state is gibberish to a human.

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 9:45 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:39 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:36 pm
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm not arguing against anything you've claimed above aside from your denial of existential dependency which is patently absurd if you think about it.

Everything you mentioned above is existentially dependent upon complex problem solving skills. Those skills are existentially dependent upon natural language. Natural language is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief. Everything you've mentioned is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.
Well sure - the causal chain is required at first. A human had to write the software/algorithm and bootstrap the system. But once the system is running - the dependency is no longer there.
Existential dependency doesn't change. It will always be the case that algorithms are existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.

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 9:46 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:45 pm
Existential dependency doesn't change. It will always be the case that algorithms are existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.
Then I have no idea what that means. When I die - the automata I've written continues with or without my thought/belief being around.

It depends on electricity and my monthly bill to my cloud provider being paid.

My stock broker will still see me "trading".
My bank will still see me authorising monthly transactions.
My girlfriend will continue to receive random gifts (I think she will be pissed when she figures 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 9:52 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:45 pm
Existential dependency doesn't change. It will always be the case that algorithms are existentially dependent upon non-linguistic thought/belief.
Then I have no idea what that means. When I die - the automata I've written continues with or without my thought/belief being around.
The automata would have never came into existence to begin without non-linguistic thought/belief. Whatever non-linguistic thought/belief consists of, the automata is existentially dependent upon it.

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 9:55 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:52 pm
The automata would have never came into existence to begin without non-linguistic thought/belief. Whatever non-linguistic thought/belief consists of, the automata is existentially dependent upon it.
And I wouldn't have come into existence if my dad didn't bang my mom. But now that it's done...

The automata no longer depends on it. What about self-replicating automata?

Now that the dependency to thought/belief is severed it's only existentially dependent on other automata.

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 10:10 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:55 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:52 pm
The automata would have never came into existence to begin without non-linguistic thought/belief. Whatever non-linguistic thought/belief consists of, the automata is existentially dependent upon it.
And I wouldn't have come into existence if my dad didn't bang my mom. But now that it's done...

The automata no longer depends on it. What about self-replicating automata?

Now that the dependency to thought/belief is severed it's only existentially dependent on other automata.
You'll appreciate this, I think. This is about existential dependency. Existential dependency has the broadest scope of rightful application possible. Knowledge of it requires natural language. Existential dependency does not. There's a fatal flaw in your logic.

When A is existentially dependent upon B, A cannot exist prior to B. When A exists prior to B, A cannot be existentially dependent upon B.

Fill in the variables, and you'll soon see that you're attempting to use more than 2 values for the 2 variables. The existence of automata after your death is not the existence of automata prior to.

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 10:12 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:10 pm
You'll appreciate this, I think. This is about existential dependency. Existential dependency has the broadest scope of rightful application possible. Knowledge of it requires natural language. Existential dependency does not. There's a fatal flaw in your logic.

When A is existentially dependent upon B, A cannot exist prior to B. When A exists prior to B, A cannot be existentially dependent upon B.

Fill in the variables, and you'll soon see that you're attempting to use different values for the same variables. The existence of automata after your death is not the existence of automata prior to.
Sure. I am not sure what you are pointing to other than causality (under the fancy term "existential dependency") ? I created the automata. I caused it to exist. I replicated some of my thinking into code. And?

Now it replicates itself.

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 10:19 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:12 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:10 pm
You'll appreciate this, I think. This is about existential dependency. Existential dependency has the broadest scope of rightful application possible. Knowledge of it requires natural language. Existential dependency does not. There's a fatal flaw in your logic.

When A is existentially dependent upon B, A cannot exist prior to B. When A exists prior to B, A cannot be existentially dependent upon B.

Fill in the variables, and you'll soon see that you're attempting to use different values for the same variables. The existence of automata after your death is not the existence of automata prior to.
Sure. I am not sure what you are pointing to other than causality (under the fancy term "existential dependency") ? I created the automata. I caused it to exist. I replicated some of my thinking into code. And?

Now it replicates itself.
It's distinct from causality, although related.

Since you're agreeing to this, and this is part of the basis fro my argument/position concerning meaning, perhaps we can revisit the meaning aspect and how this applies?

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 10:20 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:19 pm
It's distinct from causality, although related.
I think causality is a more general/universal term. If it's different - you need to explain this difference to me.
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:19 pm
Since you're agreeing to this, and this is part of the basis fro my argument/position concerning meaning, perhaps we can revisit the meaning aspect and how this applies?
OK. Carry on.

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 10:23 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:55 pm
Now that the dependency to thought/belief is severed it's only existentially dependent on other automata.
The only thing severed by such talk is the understanding of the speaker by virtue of equivocation(using more then 2 values for 2 variables).

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 10:26 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:23 pm
The only thing severed by such talk is the understanding of the speaker by virtue of equivocation(using more then 2 values for 2 variables).
Language is full of synonyms. Try all you want - people will always invent new words to say the same thing.

It's why phenomenology comes first when one observes. Language comes later.

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 11:11 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:20 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:19 pm
It's distinct from causality, although related.
I think causality is a more general/universal term. If it's different - you need to explain this difference to me.
It's not important.

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:20 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:19 pm
Since you're agreeing to this, and this is part of the basis fro my argument/position concerning meaning, perhaps we can revisit the meaning aspect and how this applies?
OK. Carry on.
The OP asks a question that you and I both agree is possible. A difference between our views is how it is possible to think without language. Yours seems to work from a semiotic framework, where what's signified is at first only known to the thinking/believing creature. It is only after that particular creature uses and/or employs a signifier of it's own invention(pace your earlier examples) and further explains to another that shared meaning exists. Since all language is dependent upon shared meaning but the initial invention/creation/usage of new signifiers does not require such a thing, but it does require thinking, you've concluded that it is possible to think without language. Here, I would describe that invention/creation of word and referent as an example of the initial attribution of meaning. Sometimes, this initial attribution of meaning is not possible without language. This would be all cases where the content of correlation included and/or was existentially dependent upon pre-existing shared meaning.

It seems, based upon this most recent discussion about existential dependency, that a remarkable difference between our views regards what exactly counts as being without language. On my view, that which exists without language is not existentially dependent upon language.

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 11:14 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:26 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:23 pm
The only thing severed by such talk is the understanding of the speaker by virtue of equivocation(using more then 2 values for 2 variables).
Language is full of synonyms. Try all you want - people will always invent new words to say the same thing.

It's why phenomenology comes first when one observes. Language comes later.
The severance of one's understanding does not have anything to do with synonyms. It has everything to do with failing to draw and maintain the distinction between different time periods of existence.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:40 am

creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:11 pm
The OP asks a question that you and I both agree is possible. A difference between our views is how it is possible to think without language. Yours seems to work from a semiotic framework, where what's signified is at first only known to the thinking/believing creature. It is only after that particular creature uses and/or employs a signifier of it's own invention(pace your earlier examples) and further explains to another that shared meaning exists. Since all language is dependent upon shared meaning but the initial invention/creation/usage of new signifiers does not require such a thing, but it does require thinking, you've concluded that it is possible to think without language. Here, I would describe that invention/creation of word and referent as an example of the initial attribution of meaning. Sometimes, this initial attribution of meaning is not possible without language. This would be all cases where the content of correlation included and/or was existentially dependent upon pre-existing shared meaning.

It seems, based upon this most recent discussion about existential dependency, that a remarkable difference between our views regards what exactly counts as being without language. On my view, that which exists without language is not existentially dependent upon language.
To continue...

Some cases of the initial attribution of meaning consist of a creature drawing a mental correlation between that which is existentially dependent upon language and something else. While these cases are prima facie examples of how not all meaning is shared, and perhaps how there can be cases of private meaning, they are not good examples of thinking without language for the content of the correlation includes language itself.

Einstein's notion of space-time.

If Einstein's first thinking of "space-time" counts - by some criterion - as an example of thinking without language, then that framework and/or conceptual scheme neglects to take all the relevant facts into account. Einstein's "space-time" consists of correlations drawn between pre-existing language concepts . Einstein's thought is existentially dependent upon language, despite the fact that the first time he drew the correlation(s) between the linguistic concept of space and the linguistic concept of time and invented "space-time" there was no shared meaning of "space-time". His thought is not existentially dependent upon the shared meaning of "space-time". However, it consists - in part - of that which is existentially dependent upon language, for it consists - in part - of language itself. Being existentially dependent upon the shared meaning of "space-time" is not the only way for Einstein's notion of "space-time" to be existentially dependent upon language.

It is clear that being a case of inventing novel language does not equate to being a case of thinking without language.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests