Philosophy Now Forum

Further, there are things which I can express, but I cannot communicate.

How to ride a bike is one of those tings. Procedural knowledge requires experience.

IF you can express "I felt pain but despite my instincts I chose not to scream".... your stimuli-response just became language.

If the language is no more than " Damn!" it's not conceptual but if the language has 'I', or 'choose' , or 'instincts' in it as in your example the concepts of I, instincts and choose make it conceptual ? In fact, if you were to put your example into computer language as is your wont it would contain quite advanced logic wouldn't it?

Can a computer language say 'Damn!" and mean something?

On the other hand

Let a = I

Let b = instincts

Let c = chose

Let d= felt pain

Let s = scream

Given d , if and only if c then a and b not s

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:28 pm If the language is no more than " Damn!" it's not conceptual

Irrespective, it's expression of frustration, pain etc.

The OP is about "can you THINK without language", not "can you squeal like a pig when you feel pain".

Pretty much every animal expresses fear/pain through some auditory mechanism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:28 pm Can a computer language say 'Damn!" and mean something?

Probably not. Unless the machine feels pain.

But we COULD make it say "damn" to appear more human to the humans.

Hello forum members! Last time I posted the following:

Averroes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:12 am To all members of the forum who are interested:

A statement was made but the claimer found himself/herself incapable of backing it up even when challenged. It was claimed that there can be thoughts which cannot be expressed in language. (...)

My question to you all is as follows:

Can anyone here prove (or disprove) these claims either from classical logic or from intuitionist logic? One can use English or whatever formal or computer language that one wants to prove (or disprove) this claim.

I give you two months for that, but extensions will be given if required! (...)

Two months have passed already, and here I am again. No one has attempted my challenge. Timeseeker has already given up! No surprise here! So, I give some more time, two more months!

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 am So here is where i am at. I was wrong.

Hi Logik. This is the first time I am exchanging with you! And you are already saying that you were wrong! Alright, I can't argue that!

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 am Averroes is right.

And you also added that I am right. Alright. Thank you, but I already knew it!

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 am It is impossible to think without language.

Okay! If you have reached a final conclusion on the matter, then good for you.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 am That said not all languages are the same. As I have demonstrated in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26192
I am able to contradict non-contradiction by INVENTING a new language.

Indeed, you did go against the law of non-contradiction on that thread by making many contradictory statements! Hence, you made many logical errors. I will write a post on that thread showing the logical errors you had made after posting this present post, if God, the Almighty wills.
However, you did not invent a new language as your posts were written in English and your program was written in Python. And both these languages you did not invent! The Python interpreter was written by Guido van Rossum using the C programming language, and I really doubt that you are Guido! If you were, I will really be disappointed by his skills!

Now, an interesting fact about programming languages is that every statement made in all the commonly used programming languages can be translated into English (or any other natural language)! This is easily verified by everyone. Take any common programming language used nowadays, and one will find that the documentations, explaining the language constructs are written in the English language (in addition to other natural languages)! So, whether one were to use English or any known programming language, if one were to violate the law of non-contradiction, and make contradictory statements in one's discourse, then one would be making logical errors. And if one were to constantly indulge in such kind of discourses, there are high chances that the readers/audience would label the author as stupid and ignorant. Sometimes, these authors are even ridiculed and their discourse ignored. In many other cases people are even imprisoned or have to pay a penalty when they make contradictory statements! The later has happened and happens on a daily basis in courts of laws. Even presidents are not spared by this!

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 am Language is the expression of thought.

If you find yourself unable to express your thoughts then try another language. Invent it if you must.

You can still try inventing a new language and expressing yourself with it on the forum instead of using the English language or the Python programming language or any other programming language not invented by you. If you are also writing a new programming language, don't forget the documentations! Even Guido had to write the docs of Python in English! You, however, will have the choice of your new invented language to write your docs! There is much work in that enterprise, I agree. Therefore, I give you two months if you wish to take the challenge of inventing a new language and expressing yourself exclusively with it on the forum. Extensions will be given if you need it. Again you can take your time, I am not in a hurry! I will assess your work in two months, if God wills.

Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:53 am Hi Logik. This is the first time I am exchanging with you! And you are already saying that you were wrong! Alright, I can't argue that!

Logik == TimeSeeker. Lost my login.

Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:53 am And you also added that I am right. Alright. Thank you, but I already knew it!

Fair enough, but there are some things you don't know...

Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:53 am Indeed, you did go against the law of non-contradiction on that thread by making many contradictory statements! Hence, you made many logical errors.

This is where your understanding falters.

In a pure constructivist paradigm the LNC itself is a proposition: P ∧ ¬P ⇔ ⊥
So IF I can construct a mathematical object P such that P ∧ ¬P ⇔ ⊤ then that is a constructive proof for the existence of contradictions thus self-contradicting the LNC.

Demonstration: https://repl.it/repls/CommonCandidDrupal

Why am I able to do that? because the LNC does not apply to this universe.
contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense.

You can't evaluate P ∧ ¬P at the same time. Not unless you have a "pause" button for time.

Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:53 am I will write a post on that thread showing the logical errors you had made

Your post will count for nothing. You don't know what a 'logical error' is.

As you have made a claim that all thoughts can be expressed, please define "logical error" in a consistent and complete logic.

Take all the time you need

Logic wrote:
I can construct a complete AND consistent logic system in which they are routinely violated

How can a system be consistent and logical if it contradicts itself as that makes no sense

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:45 am

Logic wrote:
I can construct a complete AND consistent logic system in which they are routinely violated

How can a system be consistent and logical if it contradicts itself as that makes no sense

Why do you think it contradicts itself? You are looking at a computer algorithm. It runs on a real, physical machine and produces a result.

The result disagrees with your EXPECTATIONS ( that P ∧ ¬P => False )

The HOW and the WHY is right before you. Living proof. Evidence.

So what do you trust more? Your EXPECTATIONS of reality or reality itself?

Now if you believe that anything before you is in "error". Well - that's just your opinion

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:45 am How can a system be consistent and logical if it contradicts itself as that makes no sense

Every “system” that is split off from the whole (as such limited) will eventually contradict itself, simply because it opposes the unity of all.
On the other hand, a system that describes “all” makes no sense as it really describes nothing at all...

Logic wrote:
Because contradictions are man made concepts

Mathematics and science and philosophy are also man made concepts
And in fact all knowledge and understanding are man made concepts

There is nothing we know or understand that is mind independent or ever can be
Everything comes through the mind but that in itself is not a reason for rejection

We therefore have to separate the concepts that are useful to us from the ones that are not rather than reject them all
Simply saying something is a man made concept doesnt actually tell you anything about it from a pragmatic perspective

AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:09 am Every “system” that is split off from the whole (as such limited) will eventually contradict itself, simply because it opposes the unity of all.
On the other hand, a system that describes “all” makes no sense as it really describes nothing at all...

Every system that is part of the whole is a subset of the whole, and therefore - incomplete.
You can fully describe parts of the whole.

Logic is just the foundation of human thought.We are projecting it onto the universe.

Logic wrote:
Every system that is part of the whole is a subset of the whole and therefore - incomplete
You can fully describe parts of the whole

A physical system is constantly changing so it can never be mapped with absolute precision or in real time [ as it happens ]
And this is why all representations of reality are approximate and why the map should never be confused for the territory

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:29 am

Logic wrote:
Every system that is part of the whole is a subset of the whole and therefore - incomplete
You can fully describe parts of the whole

A physical system is constantly changing so it can never be mapped with absolute precision or in real time [ as it happens ]
And this is why all representations of reality are approximate and why the map should never be confused for the territory

And yet we expects axioms to remain fixed Wishful thinking?

If the map is to be useful it needs to resemble the teritory in SOME way. No?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:18 am Every system that is part of the whole is a subset of the whole, and therefore - incomplete.
You can fully describe parts of the whole.

Logic is just the foundation of human thought.We are projecting it onto the universe.

Agree, partially.
You cannot fully describe parts either, only selected aspects.
Take a billards ball, you can describe certain aspects, eg its weight, diameter etc but you can never describe it fully as it itself becomes a “new” whole. In essence, every part is the whole and can therefore never be fully described.

AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:07 pm You cannot fully describe parts either, only selected aspects.
Take a billards ball, you can describe certain aspects, eg its weight, diameter etc but you can never describe it fully as it itself becomes a “new” whole. In essence, every part is the whole and can therefore never be fully described.

Go smaller. Quantum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

We cannot measure both position and velocity. But we don't have to. Entanglement guarantees that two things are "the same" (opposite, but the same).

In an entangled pair the one describes the other. Now if you mean "description in English" - yeah Good luck.