Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:20 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:18 pm
Odd. You answer "yes" to the question of whether or not you have an example of meaning without something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting the two, and you've offered none.

Computers are not creatures. Therefore nothing is meaningful to the computer. It is meaningful to you and me. There's no exception here.
The EXPERIENCE of being driven by a robot from A to B is not meaningful to you? It sure is meaningful to me. Without it becoming a sing/symbol.

It's bloody useful!

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:21 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:13 pm
Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.
Drawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:23 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:21 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:13 pm
Furthermore. Experiences (like being being driven from A to B by a robot!) are meaningful to ME without being symbolised in any way. It's called utility.
Drawing correlations between being driven by a robot and other things...
Yes. It's meaningful. And it's not language. It's utility.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:26 pm

I've set out a criterion for what all meaning is existentially dependent upon. You've satisfied that criterion with each example.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:26 pm

I've never claimed that all meaning is language.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:28 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:26 pm
I've set out a criterion for what all meaning is existentially dependent upon. You've satisfied that criterion with each example.
But you provided no negative (exclusionary/falsification) properties for your criterion?

By definition and by Godel's ontoligical proof - any definition with only POSITIVE properties is basically an undisputable fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

So you are just guilty of confirmation bias.

It's the same backdoor all philosophers use ;)

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:31 pm

I'm guilty of getting it right.

There are no exceptions. All examples of meaning are existentially dependent upon what I've put forth. I arrived at that criterion by virtue of observation and deduction.

You'll have to do better than that.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:32 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:31 pm
I'm guilty of getting it right.

There are no exceptions. All examples of meaning are existentially dependent upon what I've put forth. I arrived at that criterion by virtue of observation and deduction.

You'll have to do better than that.
What would you consider to be a valid counter-example?

Because your claim that "There are no exceptions." sure hints at it being unfalsifiable ;) And so - confirmation bias.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:42 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:32 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:31 pm
I'm guilty of getting it right.

There are no exceptions. All examples of meaning are existentially dependent upon what I've put forth. I arrived at that criterion by virtue of observation and deduction.

You'll have to do better than that.
What would you consider to be a valid counter-example?

Because your claim that "There are no exceptions." sure hints at it being unfalsifiable ;) And so - confirmation bias.
An example of meaning which is not existentially dependent upon the criterion I've put forth. My claim that there are no exceptions is based upon the fact that the criterion was arrived at by virtue of determining what all attribution of meaning has in common.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:44 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:42 pm
An example of meaning which is not existentially dependent upon the criterion I've put forth. My claim that there are no exceptions is based upon the fact that the criterion was arrived at by virtue of determining what all attribution of meaning has in common.
The criterion you put forth is correlation. So you are saying that meaning is a function of correlation.

Can you define "correlation" in a way that it has some inclusionary/exclusionary properties? So that when I give you an example which is not correlation you don't move the goalposts?

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 12:40 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:44 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:42 pm
An example of meaning which is not existentially dependent upon the criterion I've put forth. My claim that there are no exceptions is based upon the fact that the criterion was arrived at by virtue of determining what all attribution of meaning has in common.
The criterion you put forth is correlation. So you are saying that meaning is a function of correlation.

Can you define "correlation" in a way that it has some inclusionary/exclusionary properties? So that when I give you an example which is not correlation you don't move the goalposts?
Don't make my argument for me. I've not mentioned "function". On my view, it is best to avoid unnecessary language use wherever and whenever possible.

On my view, thought, belief, meaning, and the presupposition of correspondence with/to reality are inextricably entwined. They all have precisely the same point of origen. They emerge by virtue of thought/belief formation. My position on this matter is based upon decades long study which includes actively seeking other people who disagree, because I want to know what that disagreement is grounded upon. During my study of epistemology, I realized long ago that philosophy proper had neglected to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. That's how my project began, by virtue of wanting to set out thought and belief. It led - accidentally - to the discovery and then the ability to situate the origen of meaning. That said... You ought expect me to point it out if and when you conflate what your example of meaning is existentially dependent upon with what your report of that example is existentially dependent upon.

The initial emergence of the attribution of meaning was prior to our awareness and/or knowledge of it. Thus, it existed in it's entirety prior to our report of it. As a result, we can get it wrong. The same is true of any and all things that exist in their entirety prior to our discovery of them. That said...

All attribution of meaning is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting, associating, and/or otherwise drawing mental correlation(s) between different things. That is a conclusion based upon the fact that all examples of meaning include these things even after all of the subjective particulars are removed. That is what's common to all cases and/or examples of meaning. It is adequate for the attribution of meaning, rudimentary thought/belief formation, and the presupposition of truth(as correspondence). It also effectively serves as an adequate outline by which we can explain how all thought/belief and meaning 'grows' in it's complexity.

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 3:11 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:30 am
Science not philosophy..
This works from the dubious presupposition that science is not philosophy that follows a methodological approach designed to avoid error. Philosophy done well. There's a reason PhD means something...

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 8:58 am

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:11 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:30 am
Science not philosophy..
This works from the dubious presupposition that science is not philosophy that follows a methodological approach designed to avoid error. Philosophy done well. There's a reason PhD means something...
Well, rather than try to unpack all the philosophical babble. Lets just test it.

Predict something about things which are meaningful to me.

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".

Only some PhDs are meaningful. Most of them aren't ;)

Averroes
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by Averroes » Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:07 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:43 pm
And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English.
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.
If English (or any other natural language) is “broken”, then don’t use English (or any other natural language). Choose another language which is not “broken.” So as from now, reply/post in a language which is not “broken.”
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm
And since proofs are isomorphic to algorithms English is the wrong tool for logic!
Why are you still arguing in English then? As from now, just choose another language which is not a natural language! I am so sure that you can't that I challenge you to post as from now in a language which is not English or a natural language.

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 7:14 pm

Averroes wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:07 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:43 pm
And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English.
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.
If English (or any other natural language) is “broken”, then don’t use English (or any other natural language). Choose another language which is not “broken.” So as from now, reply/post in a language which is not “broken.”
TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm
And since proofs are isomorphic to algorithms English is the wrong tool for logic!
Why are you still arguing in English then? As from now, just choose another language which is not a natural language! I am so sure that you can't that I challenge you to post as from now in a language which is not English or a natural language.
It seems you have changed your tune all of a sudden? It was your claim that all expression is language.

I did make an argument in Python. Over here: https://repl.it/repls/SilverCalculatingSorting
Even had the courtesy to add subtitles for you.

It is also out of courtesy that I am arguing in a language that you understand. And it takes that much extra effort to correct all the errors you are making when using English for logic.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest