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 17, 2018 9:02 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:40 pm
Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded.
If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:40 pm
Hume's guillotine is irrelevant to the way things are. Criterion is about the way things are.
This is a perspective ignorant of the temporal dimension and system dynamics. Things change! Without being explicit about a specific time-frame "the way things are" is a non-sensical perspective. All you can ever say is "the way things were"- sure.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:04 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:30 am
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:10 am
I'm left wondering exactly what counts as 'processing truth'? What is the criterion, which when met by some candidate or other, counts as a case of processing truth?
Epistemology's dirty little secrets are the problems of justification and criterion. They are unsolved.
That's not true on either front Time...

The problem of epistemology is conflating what a report of thought/belief requires with what thought/belief requires. That underwrites the problem of justification and criterion. It stems from not drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:02 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:40 pm
Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded.
If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.
Being well-grounded doesn't require language. The earlier fire example...

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:12 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:04 pm
The problem of epistemology is conflating what a report of thought/belief requires with what thought/belief requires.
You speak of requirements. Then you necessarily speak of values.

Is lying-by-omission still lying? If so - human language is always guilty. How do you justify the things you've LEFT OUT from your report?
On any matter whatsoever. To leave things out is to judge them unimportant to report on.

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:04 pm
That underwrites the problem of justification and criterion. It stems from not drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.
There is no difference.

In the one case I use thoughts to make decisions and take rational action/make changes in the real world. In the other case I use thoughts to take action/make decisions and make rational changes to my own mind. Which is part of the real world.

The only difference is the object which I am acting upon.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:13 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:02 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:40 pm
Justification fails to infinite regress only if one conflates justification(the process of putting forth the grounds of one's belief) with being well-grounded.
If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.
Being well-grounded doesn't require language. The earlier fire example...
It requires evidence. Evidence can be quantified on a number line. Like the decibel scale. Given a number line where do you draw the line for "sufficient evidence" and why?

Or it can be qualified as "strong" and "weak" for lesser degrees of precision.

Either way it begs a question. Does "sufficient grounding" require "strong" or "weak" evidence?
It begs another question. What is and isn't "admissible evidence" for a position? That's another criterion problem.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:25 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:12 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:04 pm
The problem of epistemology is conflating what a report of thought/belief requires with what thought/belief requires.
You speak of requirements. Then you necessarily speak of values.

Is lying-by-omission still lying? If so - human language is always guilty. How do you justify the things you've LEFT OUT from your report?
On any matter whatsoever. To leave things out is to judge them unimportant to report on.
This is both wrong and irrelevant.

Lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought/belief. One can do that by omission. In these cases, what's left out is important. All of this vein is beside the point, although it is related for it's based upon thought/belief itself, as is epistemology.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:12 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:04 pm
That underwrites the problem of justification and criterion. It stems from not drawing and maintaining the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.
There is no difference.
This could get interesting. Are you sure that there is no difference?

:mrgreen:

I can explain it in a number of ways. Show it as well. Could you be wrong about that?

:|

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:27 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:13 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:02 pm

If there is no objective standard for "sufficient grounding" there is no difference.
Being well-grounded doesn't require language. The earlier fire example...
It requires evidence. Evidence can be quantified on a number line. Like the decibel scale. Given a number line where do you draw the line for "sufficient evidence" and why?

Or it can be qualified as "strong" and "weak" for lesser degrees of precision.

Either way it begs a question. Does "sufficient grounding" require "strong" or "weak" evidence?
It begs another question. What is and isn't "admissible evidence" for a position? That's another criterion problem.
Rubbish. Evidence is a notion used within the scope of arguing for one's own belief. Arguing requires language. Belief does not.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:31 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:25 pm
This is both wrong and irrelevant.
Irrelevant, eh? By what "objective" criteria for relevance? :lol: :lol: :lol:
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:25 pm
Lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought/belief. One can do that by omission. In these cases, what's left out is important. All of this vein is beside the point, although it is related for it's based upon thought/belief itself, as is epistemology.
Intent is irrelevant. You could be misrepresenting "the way things are" simply because you are unobservant.
Or you could be leaving out details which you didn't pay attention simply because they were unimportant to you.
But they could be important to me etc.

Either way. You do not have perfect awareness OR perfect recall - and so you are leaving things out.

Inattentional blindness ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness )
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:12 pm
This could get interesting. Are you sure that there is no difference?

:mrgreen:

I can explain it in a number of ways. Show it as well. Could you be wrong about that?

:|
You could explain to me how my mind works from your vantage point?

This could get interesting indeed!

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:36 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:27 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:13 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm


Being well-grounded doesn't require language. The earlier fire example...
It requires evidence. Evidence can be quantified on a number line. Like the decibel scale. Given a number line where do you draw the line for "sufficient evidence" and why?

Or it can be qualified as "strong" and "weak" for lesser degrees of precision.

Either way it begs a question. Does "sufficient grounding" require "strong" or "weak" evidence?
It begs another question. What is and isn't "admissible evidence" for a position? That's another criterion problem.
Rubbish. Evidence is a notion used within the scope of arguing for one's own belief. Arguing requires language. Belief does not.
Leave language out of this for now. Evidence is a notion used for justifying or validating one's belief.

You believe your car is low on oil because the "low oil" light has come on. You check the dip stick - oil is fine.
Your belief was clearly wrong even though you had evidence for it. What happened?

I bet your belief changed from "oil is low" to "oil-measurement system broke".

Open question: Is the "low oil" light evidence for low oil? I bet you thought the answer was "yes" right until it lied to you! Even if it it was right the other 5 times.

I also bet that the next time the same light comes on you are now going to "believe" two plausible hypothesis: It's possible that the oil is low, but it's also possible that the light is broken. Which one of these two plausible hypotheses is your "real belief" ?

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm

All thinking about thought/belief requires language. Prior to being able to think about something, that something must first exist - in it's entirety - prior to it's being thought about. Some thought/belief exists in it's entirety prior to it's being thought about. Some thought/belief does not require language.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:57 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:36 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:27 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:13 pm

It requires evidence. Evidence can be quantified on a number line. Like the decibel scale. Given a number line where do you draw the line for "sufficient evidence" and why?

Or it can be qualified as "strong" and "weak" for lesser degrees of precision.

Either way it begs a question. Does "sufficient grounding" require "strong" or "weak" evidence?
It begs another question. What is and isn't "admissible evidence" for a position? That's another criterion problem.
Rubbish. Evidence is a notion used within the scope of arguing for one's own belief. Arguing requires language. Belief does not.
Leave language out of this for now. Evidence is a notion used for justifying or validating one's belief.

You believe your car is low on oil because the "low oil" light has come on. You check the dip stick - oil is fine.
Your belief was clearly wrong even though you had evidence for it. What happened?

I bet your belief changed from "oil is low" to "oil-measurement system broke".

Open question: Is the "low oil" light evidence for low oil? I bet you thought the answer was "yes" right until it lied to you! Even if it it was right the other 5 times.

I also bet that the next time the same light comes on you are now going to "believe" two plausible hypothesis: It's possible that the oil is low, but it's also possible that the light is broken. Which one of these two plausible hypotheses is your "real belief" ?
Why do you keep on talking about thought/belief that requires language? Here you've given a perfect example of thinking about one's own thought/belief. Doing that requires language. Some thought/belief does not.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:02 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm
All thinking about thought/belief requires language.
If thinking about apples doesn't require language why does thinking about thinking about apples require language?
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm
Prior to being able to think about something, that something must first exist - in it's entirety - prior to it's being thought about.
What? Like Santa Claus? Don't be ridiculous. I am free to think/imagine anything I please.
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm
Some thought/belief exists in it's entirety prior to it's being thought about.
You mean like the subconscious mind? Sure - I just have no access to it and I can't tell you how it works or what it "thinks".

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:03 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:57 pm
Why do you keep on talking about thought/belief that requires language? Here you've given a perfect example of thinking about one's own thought/belief. Doing that requires language. Some thought/belief does not.
NO thought/belief requires language! To claim that thought/belief requires language is to claim that a mute/deaf people cannot think. An absurd claim.

Speaking about thought/belief requires language.

Thought is computation. Your senses or memories are Inputs. Your actions/words are outputs.
Having lost ability to communicate with other humans does not preclude you from processing visual input.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:24 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:02 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm
All thinking about thought/belief requires language.
If thinking about apples doesn't require language why does thinking about thinking about apples require language?
It's not a matter of "why", it's a matter of how...

An apple can be a part of a mental correlation between it and something else. In order to draw correlations beween our prior correlations(thought/belief) and something else, we must first isolate it in order to further discuss it as it's own subject matter. We do this with language and words like "thought", "belief", "understanding", "imagination", and so forth...

That's how.

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:02 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:54 pm
Prior to being able to think about something, that something must first exist - in it's entirety - prior to it's being thought about.
What? Like Santa Claus?
Yes, like Santa Claus. Santa existed in it's entirety prior to you thinking about Santa.

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

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:24 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:03 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:57 pm
Why do you keep on talking about thought/belief that requires language? Here you've given a perfect example of thinking about one's own thought/belief. Doing that requires language. Some thought/belief does not.
NO thought/belief requires language!
That one does!

:roll: :mrgreen: :roll:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests