## Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:03 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:00 pm

It isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof.
OKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by unholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting.
By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.
I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:03 pm

OKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by unholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting.
By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.
I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.
By your own criterion mentioning of the proof is sufficient!

I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm

By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus.

Show me a contradiction.

Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless.
I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.
I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pm

I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here.
I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
So?

We started it in English. We can end it in Python.

We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right?

Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong.

I have handed you a falsifier on a silver platter!

You can’t even produce one measly contradiction in a proper language with objective rules for interpretation ?!?

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:25 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:13 pm

I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus.

This proving my case.
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
So?

We started it in English. We can end it in Python.

We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right?

Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong.

I have handed you a falsifier on a silver platter!

You can’t even produce one measly contradiction in a proper language with objective rules for interpretation ?!?
All through you had argued in English, and now you have run out of arguments in English and you don't have an argument in English to prove what you had said you could prove. Okay then, that's what I needed to hear from you. That's it! Thank you for the exchange.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:03 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:25 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm

We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
So?

We started it in English. We can end it in Python.

We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right?

Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong.

I have handed you a falsifier on a silver platter!

You can’t even produce one measly contradiction in a proper language with objective rules for interpretation ?!?
All through you had argued in English, and now you have run out of arguments in English and you don't have an argument in English to prove what you had said you could prove. Okay then, that's what I needed to hear from you. That's it! Thank you for the exchange.
Strawman.

You expected the proof in intuitionistic logic, not in English.

When I offered that we do it in Python (which is Constructive Lambda Calculus - which is very intuitive to me!) suddenly you insist on English.

Can you make up your mind?

If all expression is language (your words) why are you discriminating against Python all of a sudden? Proofs ARE programs.

Is it perhaps, because strongly normalising rewrite systems like Lambda calculus leave no room for sophistry?

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:14 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:03 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:25 pm

So?

We started it in English. We can end it in Python.

We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right?

Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong.

I have handed you a falsifier on a silver platter!

You can’t even produce one measly contradiction in a proper language with objective rules for interpretation ?!?
All through you had argued in English, and now you have run out of arguments in English and you don't have an argument in English to prove what you had said you could prove. Okay then, that's what I needed to hear from you. That's it! Thank you for the exchange.
Strawman.

You expected the proof in intuitionistic logic, not in English.

When I offered that we do it in Python (which is Constructive Lambda Calculus - which is very intuitive to me!) suddenly you insist on English.

Can you make up your mind?

If all expression is language (your words) why are you discriminating against Python all of a sudden? Proofs ARE programs.

Is it perhaps, because strongly normalising systems like Lambda calculus leave no room for sophistry?
The proof being in an intuitionistic framework does not prevent it from being in English! Everyone must be able to assess your reasoning as it has been done so far. You cannot escape from public assessment. So, after you have had multiple failed attempts at proving what was required of you in the logic framework of your own choice, you ran out of arguments and you gave up.

Python is a computer programming language. If you want to have a "philosophical conversation" with your computer which will not be able to argue with you, then you are free to converse with your computer! But if you want to have a conversation on this section of the forum with human beings who will argue with you and retort, then you will have to express yourself in the English language as all the conversations have been conducted by everyone participating on this thread. You will not escape public scrutiny, forget about that! Either you write your argument in English or I will consider that you gave up. I will let the other members who have been following this conversation draw their own conclusion from your sudden incapacity to express yourself in the English language!!

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
The proof being in an intuitionistic framework does not prevent it from being in English!
It does actually. English doesn't have type semantics, iterators, variables etc. Perhaps you don't understand the implications of the Curry-Howard isomorphism?

English is NOT a High-order logic! Far from it! If English was sufficient we wouldn't have invented Mathematics.
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
Everyone must be able to assess your reasoning as it has been done so far. You cannot escape from public assessment.
I am not escaping public assessment. I am just pointing out that if you want to be in a position assess my reasoning you need to learn to reason first. And since you seem to be uncomfortable in the domain of high-order logic and computational complexity - I hardly think you can add any value to my reasoning with your "assessment".
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
So, after you have had multiple failed attempts at proving what was required of you in the logic framework of your own choice, you ran out of arguments and you gave up.
Your very own claim was that my MENTIONING of the "unknown taste in my mouth" was sufficient to be called expression! So now I am MENTIONING the "proof which I cannot express", but that is insufficient?!? The goal posts have clearly shifted!

Either way. If I am to produce a proof - I chose to produce it in Python. You insist on adhering to the LNC when you can't even demonstrate a contradiction!
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
Python is a computer programming language.
So? It's still a language. These are your words, remember?
Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
Programming languages are language.
Oh yes!
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
If you want to have a "philosophical conversation" with your computer.
That's another strawman! I am merely insisting that you and I formulate OUR arguments IN Python (or any other Lambda calculus). We aren't arguing with the computer. We are merely using the computer to arbitrate the correctness of our arguments! So that we don't end up debating whether to accept or reject the LNC.

Objective arbitration of valid propositions, proof and/or disproof is all I am asking for! Again - this follows FROM the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm
You will not escape public scrutiny!
I am not running from it. I just insist I am scrutinized on my use of logic not English.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Maybe you don't understand the Curry-Howard isomorphism?
In short, we have shown that two simple models for apparently quite different domains
(natural deduction and computation of recursive functions) share both a deep syntac-
tic and semantic connection. The formula produced by a proof in natural deduction
is the type of a simply typed λ-term; this term in turn has a proof corresponding to
its type.
One of the stronger theoretical implications of this version of the Curry-Howard
isomorphism, briefly discussed by Sørensen and Urzyczyn [2], is that
proof normaliza-tion (the process of eliminating redundant steps from constructive proofs in natural
deduction) and β-reduction turn out to be two sides of the same coin. Intuitively this
can be grasped by thinking of proof normalization as a conclusion-preserving opera-
tion and, on the computational side, β-reduction as a type-preserving operation.
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morr ... /kazuo.pdf

So as soon as you produce the types definitions for "thought" and "language" in Lambda calculus I will get onto your proof or disproof

An ”intuitionistic proof” is synonymous with “software”! So why not Python?

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:08 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:05 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:32 am

I don't remember us discussing meaning which is prior to expression. I remember us discussing meaning that is a posteriori language to which you are yet to give me an example.
When it is the case that language already exists, correlations can be drawn between the language, it's use, and other things. This is meaning that is existentially dependent upon language:When part of the correlation is language, it is existentially dependent upon language.
Ok. That is a definition - not an example.

Can you be more particular?
Each and every particular case is existentially dependent upon language because part of the correlation is language. There are no exceptions.

Drawing correlations is about inference. So we are definitely in the realm of interpretation.
Well... perhaps...

All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. Drawing correlations is about the attribution of meaning. When the same correlations are drawn by a reader/listener/watcher that the writer/speaker/actor has already drawn, then the interpretation is correct and meaning is shared. All meaning consists entirely of correlations, some of which are novel to the creature drawing them.

And so it seems to me that you are talking about Lesk’s algorithm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesk_algorithm )

Or more broadly the field of automated disambiguation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation.
You'll find that what I'm arguing for underwrites each and every of these fields and/or schools of thought. It doesn't follow that that's what I'm talking about. The same with the other fields ans schools you've already compared to/with what I'm arguing for.
Last edited by creativesoul on Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:56 pm
I am not running from it. I just insist I am scrutinized on my use of logic not English.
And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English. As you are incapable of philosophizing in English anymore, then our exchange is arriving to an end. Anyway, it was an interesting discussion we have had until you got into this sudden English language technical difficulty. I hope your English abilities get better soon, for I hope to be able to exchange with you at another time, if God wills.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:43 pm
And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English.
Oxymoron.

English (and all natural languages) are broken - their Turing-completeness can't even be verified unless their grammar is formally defined. You don't get to insist on "proof" while also insisting that it be proven in a framework which lacks the grammar and semantics to express it. And since proofs are isomorphic to algorithms English is the wrong tool for logic!

Hindley–Milner type system are formally verified to NOT contain contradictions - and so when I am expressing myself with the INTENTION of being interpreted by a type-theorist (such as myself) but you claim that I have "contradicted myself" we clearly have an unresolvable problem.

We are playing by different rules - guess you are going to have to learn some high-order logic if you want to play this game?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindley–M ... ype_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence

There is a reason why they are called RATIONAL languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

So I guess that is that indeed. Carry on appealing to the false authority of the 'law' of non-contradiction Your false God.

I keep saying it - I and I shall repeat again. Philosophers are the 21st century theists!
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:03 am, edited 7 times in total.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

There's something queer going on...

Not everything that we call "language" can be translated to thought/belief. We do not think in numbers. We do not think in symbols. We do not think in syntax. We do not think in binary code.

We think solely by virtue of drawing correlations.

Here's the product of faulty reasoning...

It is possible to think without any and all forms of logic. All formal logic is named as "language".

None of it is needed to think.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Each of us is arguing for a position on whether or not it is possible to think without language. We're offering our own account, which is to say that we're reporting upon our own thought/belief about the matter at hand(assuming sincerity). All reports are existentially dependent upon language. It quite simply does not follow from that that what we're reporting on is also existentially dependent upon language. This is easily proven by the fact that we report upon all sorts of things that exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them, and thus prior to our report. We report upon trees, but trees are not existentially dependent upon our report.

So, there is a crucial distinction that it is imperative to draw and maintain between our report and what we're reporting upon.

In this situation, we're reporting upon thought/belief which adds another facet of consideration. If we're reporting upon our own thought/belief, then our report would consist entirely of statements and/or propositions that we believe. These are belief statements, and they are existentially dependent upon language. Are they equivalent to thought/belief? Sure, they are thought/belief that is existentially dependent upon language. They consist of correlational content that includes language. If we're proposing that some things are not existentially dependent upon language, then we're also proposing that these things are not existentially dependent upon our report of them.

Some thought/belief is existentially dependent upon language, and some thought/belief is not. The former cannot be formed/had without language. The latter can. The difference between the two is one of elemental constitution, and as such it can only be revealed by virtue of knowing what all thought/belief have in common combined with a good dose of critical reasoning skills. All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between different things. There are no examples to the contrary. Therefore, there is no stronger justificatory ground for assent. Thought/belief that is existentially dependent upon language consists of correlational content that includes language(at least one of the aforementioned "things" is language). Thought/belief that is not existentially dependent upon language consists of correlational content that does not include language(no correlational content is language). It is possible to form/have the latter without language.

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

### Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

All language consists - in part at least - of a plurality of different creatures drawing mental correlations between the same(or similar enough) things. All language use consists entirely of a plurality of different creatures drawing mental correlations between the same(or similar enough) things, and at least some of the content of the correlation is language itself - some shared sign/symbol along with it's significant/symbolic other.

To talk of "sign" or "symbol" as though the words themselves can be meaningful without their significant other is to speak nonsensically. What makes a sign what it is is the fact that it is a proxy for something that it is not. The same holds good for a symbol. The same holds good for a name. The same holds good for a definition. The same holds good for any and all abstraction by proxy.

A "sign" presupposes the existence of something that it is not. Without that something else "sign" is rendered utterly meaningless. What makes "sign" meaningful is being part of correlation with something else.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests