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 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:35 pm

Blather...

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 10:37 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:15 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:13 pm
You believe that everything you've written is true; is the case at hand; is an account of the way things are; corresponds to fact/reality... etc.
Again...You need to describe "belief" with some other words. What happens when you "believe" is it a feeling? A decision? A recognition of an event taking place in your mind? Is it a priori? A posteriori?

No matter how many times you say it - I am hearing the same thing. A word I don't know how to parse.

Everything I've written is as I have imagined it given my knowledge of self.

To ask me is it true?; or Do you believe it? I will simply respond: how do I tell if I do or I don't believe it? How do I tell if it is or isn't true?
I do not know what you mean by any of the words you've used... you'll have to describe every one of them with some other words....

:roll:

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 10:38 pm

If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:39 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:37 pm
I do not know what you mean by any of the words you've used... you'll have to describe every one of them with some other words....

:roll:
OK, but you aren't even making an effort. I've given you like 3 different strategies to try and elucidate it. A timeline. Using other words which I use when I speak about my mind. Words are imprecise tools. Surely you know how to describe something more than one way?

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:40 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:38 pm
If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...
You have reached an incorrect conclusion. And I can't even tell you why - because I don't know what your alternative hypothesis is...

Atla
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by Atla » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:02 am

creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:38 pm
If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...
See? Timeseeker doesn't have a normally functioning neocortex. He can't grasp the concept of truth/falsehood, can't grasp the concept of objectivity, can't grasp the concept of logic. He thinks that logic and language are synonyms, and has no idea what philosophical discourse is about.

Which is why it's actually pretty dangerous to assume that truth is presupposed in all thought, belief, and statements thereof. Such an assumption can set one up for exploitation.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:20 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:02 am
creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:38 pm
If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...
See? Timeseeker doesn't have a normally functioning neocortex. He can't grasp the concept of truth/falsehood, can't grasp the concept of objectivity, can't grasp the concept of logic. He thinks that logic and language are synonyms, and has no idea what philosophical discourse is about.

Which is why it's actually pretty dangerous to assume that truth is presupposed in all thought, belief, and statements thereof. Such an assumption can set one up for exploitation.
There's a far simpler explanation than attributing it to some "unqualified brain disorder".

True/false is a bi-modal/dichotomized way of thinking. It's the most primitive thought-pattern there is. Just about every human is born with it because evolution.

I prefer to think along continuums. And so the notions of "more/less likely'" and "more/less unlikely" are far more useful to me. Bayesian approach. Quantifying one's (un)certainty on the decibel scale.

There was a time (20+ years ago) when I used to use the words "belief" and "truth" - I no longer find that vocabulary useful for the problems I am working with day-to-day.

But you should observe that there was a time I used to use your vocabulary. So you ought to wonder - what external forced contributed to this shift in perception?

And if my neocortex could undergo such a shift - what do you call this transformation/process? Learning? ;)

The distinction is as basic as recognising our individual preferences for quantitative vs qualitative way of thinking...

I like precision/control/exactness. You don't.

To claim that you "know" what a "normal brain" functions like (translation: how a brain OUGHT to work) is to be openly shameless of your bigotry and ignorance.
Not that I give a shit - you are free to be a bigot. And I am free to explo^H^H^H^H err. I mean sell you stuff :)

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:39 pm

Atla wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:02 am
creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:38 pm
If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...
See? Timeseeker doesn't have a normally functioning neocortex. He can't grasp the concept of truth/falsehood, can't grasp the concept of objectivity, can't grasp the concept of logic. He thinks that logic and language are synonyms, and has no idea what philosophical discourse is about.

Which is why it's actually pretty dangerous to assume that truth is presupposed in all thought, belief, and statements thereof. Such an assumption can set one up for exploitation.
I saw just fine. Timeseeker is not speaking sincerely. Even in his bid for better language use s/he presupposes truth(as correspondence). All language use does, aside from those with rigid designators, and even those could be made a case for their values corresponding to the way things are. You underestimate him/her.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:20 am
Atla wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:02 am
creativesoul wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:38 pm
If you do not know how to tell if any statement is true or not, then you do not know what they mean either...

You're lying my friend...
See? Timeseeker doesn't have a normally functioning neocortex. He can't grasp the concept of truth/falsehood, can't grasp the concept of objectivity, can't grasp the concept of logic. He thinks that logic and language are synonyms, and has no idea what philosophical discourse is about.

Which is why it's actually pretty dangerous to assume that truth is presupposed in all thought, belief, and statements thereof. Such an assumption can set one up for exploitation.
There's a far simpler explanation than attributing it to some "unqualified brain disorder".

True/false is a bi-modal/dichotomized way of thinking. It's the most primitive thought-pattern there is. Just about every human is born with it because evolution.

I prefer to think along continuums. And so the notions of "more/less likely'" and "more/less unlikely" are far more useful to me...
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...

:roll:

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:04 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...

:roll:
So X,Y and Z are axiomatic? Pre-suppositions? Inputs to the black box? Starting conditions?

I can narrate the sequence of events unfolding in 10 different ways and I don't need the word "truth". Why do you insist on using it?

I have no use for "truth" outside of the way it's used in logic. Any statement which does not contradict the axiomatic pre-suppositions.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:20 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...

:roll:
Are you familiar with Rodney Brooks' work? There is no need for symbolic representation of reality and 'truth'. Real-time orientation is sufficient for decision-making and intentionality.

The internal representation (holistic model) is only necessary for strategic (big picture, systematic) decision-making e.g voting, charity work, activism etc. Since you aren't about to rediscover all of scientific findings - you are at the mercy of the knowledge you've acquired by proxy and your trust in the institution of science.

For tactical (day to day) decision-making real-time information processing produces much better results because you are dealing with up-to-date information. You don't need a map for the territory. Avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_AI
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1752988

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:27 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:04 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...

:roll:
So X,Y and Z are axiomatic? Pre-suppositions? Inputs to the black box? Starting conditions?

I can narrate the sequence of events unfolding in 10 different ways and I don't need the word "truth". Why do you insist on using it?

I have no use for "truth" outside of the way it's used in logic. Any statement which does not contradict the axiomatic pre-suppositions.
Because X, Y, and Z are true...

C'mon Time, you can say whatever you like, but you - just like everybody else who is a language user - presuppose truth(as correspondence).
Last edited by creativesoul on Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:37 am, 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 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:29 am

Not sure why you believe that not using the term "truth" somehow eliminates the presupposition of correspondence. It doesn't.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:33 am

Don't get me wrong, I'm as against truth with a capital "T" just as you are. However, I also realize that that is an inherently inadequate conception that usually conflates truth and belief or truth and reality. The church doesn't negate how thought/belief work. They just made the term "truth" something of a pariah, instead of how they used it. Well, at least they did so for people who don't know any better.

Others avoid talk of truth for more malicious purposes.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:19 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:20 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:41 pm
All such thinking presupposes truth as well... There are givens that are presupposed to be true. Because X, Y, and Z are the case then the likelihood of A is...

:roll:
Are you familiar with Rodney Brooks' work? There is no need for symbolic representation of reality and 'truth'.
No.

Who claimed there was a need for symbolic representation of "truth"? More importantly, on what level are you talking about here? Clearly there's no need to talk about "truth" in all sorts of everyday situations for that would be to talk about a linguistic conception and/or the quality/value of our own thought/belief(didn't someone just mention 'qualitative' thought?) Lot's of folk get along just fine with very little 'introspection'. So what?

If one is working from a naturalist framework, then amongst other things, one must be able to take proper account of the origen of thought/belief and how it accrues in it's complexity. The value of any account is determined solely by virtue of how well it corresponds to what's happened and/or what is happening, or what has yet to have happened.

Predictive value, of course, is increased and/or decreased by what has yet to have happened. As a result, none of those statements are truth-apt at the time of utterance. No need to talk about "truth" in that situation, regardless of the fact that verification/falsification methods are looking for precisely that... correspondence to what has yet to have happened.

:mrgreen:

It's quite clear, and I've set out the grounds, that we form thought/belief long before we ever start to think about it. It's when we start to think about our own thought/belief that we begin to talk about whether or not what we say matches up to the way things are; the case at hand; the universe; the world and/or ourselves; reality; what has already happened and/or what is happening.

So, to drive this nail just a bit further...

So what that someone can intentionally not talk about "truth". It is impossible to not presuppose it, for everything that has ever been thought, believed, known, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered consists if mental correlations drawn between different things, and all correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(regardless of subsequent qualification). <----------That is the presupposition of correspondence that is inherently within all thought and belief. It is how and why "is true" is and becomes a redundant use of language. All this having been said...

Some folk like you...

:mrgreen:

...do not understand that prediction cannot be true at the time it is uttered, have no idea how that's the case, and/or don't quite care about the commonality between all prediction and all false statements. That line of thinking is very interesting if and when one has thought/belief right to begin with. Suffering from the aforementioned ignorance is an inevitable consequence of attempting to dispense with truth(correspondence). Furthermore, I would wager that you also do not understand the gravity of the situation here. I mean the sheer scope of rightful application of what I've been arguing could not be any broader, and it's not a TOE, not an elaborate argument by definitional fiat, and not a tautology(which is ironic in and of itself given your glorification of 'higher' logic).

This thread is either prima facie evidence of ignorance or feigned ignorance - one of the two - regarding all sorts of neat stuff. Simple stuff. Elemental stuff. Irrevocable stuff. Crucial stuff. I've been explaining in between your episodes of irrelevant shit slinging...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest