Language and thought

[Agathon]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

E.g., If A is talking to B, and A wishes to express the thought to B, A must then bend the thought to fit the language, changing it into a stream of code. B takes the code and interprets it, trying to reconstruct the thought. BUT B can never get the thought exactly right; language can never express all the nuances of thought.

As I see it...

This assumes that thought exists prior to and thus independent of language. It isn't clear that it does or that there is a separate "language of thought". There isn't immediate evidence for either claim, so they must be argued for.

And it also isn't clear that the process that produces linguistic utterances is necessary a process that involves the manipulation of information, rather than a mere physical process (although it could of course be both).

Language is a public phenomenon, with public checks and balances. A "private" language is not possible because other people could not understand it and because it could provide no criteria of correct use of expression. Since language is essentially normative (i.e. rule governed) it follows that it can't be private.

Moreover, the meaning of every single utterance we make is based on our acceptance of countless beliefs - in other words meaning is holistically distributed throughout our belief structure rather than parcelled out sentence by sentence. So the notion that there are discrete and independent thought contents to which we assign linguistic expressions, seems to me hard to justify.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't agree. most of our highest functions, abstract concepts cannot exist without language.

Describe to me a hyper-cube...?

Many many many (of my) abstract thought can only be visualised, described, perceived as images, or feelings, and I only really use words when I'm talking to myself, or formulating speech (or writing or whatever)

[Myrddin]

Concepts can be thought about without words. I have found that hearing something in foreign languages that I understand, I translate words, BUT numbers bypass this and I understand immediately.

However I am not sure whether this is general, or just because I am good with numbers.

[Agathon]

Here's a question. Why do we customarily use base 10? Is it because we have ten fingers?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Azazel
Wording of entire paragraphs doesn't count, as it doesn't convey a single message, but an entire relationship of messages and information. Obviously, you either didn't know exactly what was your point or wrote a lot of it around, to phrase it more nicely, because a point can be passed through a single sentence, phrase.

Generally, you seem to equate entire passages with single thoughts. I don't think this is correct.

That's the thing. The entire passage is, in essence, one idea. This idea is self-embodied, and contains, within its own entity, all the evidence, supports, propositions, assertions, as well as my personal knowledge, beliefs, sensations, and prejudice. It is language that tears this structure apart, and renders it into a form that can be transmitted and analyzed by other people.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a question. Why do we customarily use base 10? Is it because we have ten fingers?

Yes.

The Mayans used base twenty. That's because they counted toes too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a question. Why do we customarily use base 10? Is it because we have ten fingers?

Base 10 is sooooo last century...

[Paul Hanson]

I always had the impression that we used to use Base 12 at some point in the past. The fact that a clock has 12 hours rather than 10, and that we say "eleven" and "twelve" rather than "oneteen" and "twoteen", for example.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Base 10 is sooooo last century...

The logic underlying my point is that mathematics may well be conventional rather than reflecting some logical law of the universe (whatever that might be).

Anyway Asher, what are you doing here? You hate philosophy and think it is worthless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The logic underlying my point is that mathematics may well be conventional rather than reflecting some logical law of the universe (whatever that might be).

Anyway Asher, what are you doing here? You hate philosophy and think it is worthless.

It's amazing you still don't understand the argument after so many posts.

Philosophy is useless at the university level, philosophy is used in every day life.

Courses on breathing are useless at the university level, but it's still used in every day life as well.

And OF COURSE the use of base-10 is conventional rather than reflecting some logical flaw of the universe. Mathematics is a man-made construct, it was made to made by man and as such is convenient for man to use...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

It's amazing you still don't understand the argument after so many posts.

Philosophy is useless at the university level, philosophy is used in every day life.

Courses on breathing are useless at the university level, but it's still used in every day life as well.

And OF COURSE the use of base-10 is conventional rather than reflecting some logical flaw of the universe. Mathematics is a man-made construct, it was made to made by man and as such is convenient for man to use...

Oh god....

You know - there are good reasons for believing that it is a man made construct and equally good reasons for thinking that it isn't. Those of the cognitivist persuasion think that logic and mathematics reflect innate mental structures. The Davidsons and Agathons of this world say otherwise.

But I can't see any practical everyday applications of the Sapir-Whorf thesis. In fact it is used in anthropology, but the intelligibility of such a view (which is prior to its use) is debated by philosophers. Philosophical questions extend through all the social sciences and to a lesser extent into the hard sciences.

[tinyp3nis]

Finns say oneteen and twoteen. In finnish of course.


Hmmm. How about people who grow up with animals or something similar. Totally isolated people can think too, because they can reason and interract with environment. What else is language than public reasoning? Such persons have been of limited intelligence however.

[Asher]

If we're going to discuss how mathematics isn't a man-made construct I may as well discuss why I think my socks were crafted meticulously by aliens.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Describe to me a hyper-cube...?

You use mathematics, which is a specific and narrow language, to describe a hyper-cube. I think. I'm a history major so I might be getting it all wrong. A hyper-cube is a four-dimensional cube. In other words, a hyper-cube is to a cube as a cube is to a square and as a square is to a line segment. But beyond that, I really don't know what it is, because I don't know advanced math, and therefore don't have the linguistic background to describe a hyper-cube.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
If we're going to discuss how mathematics isn't a man-made construct I may as well discuss why I think my socks were crafted meticulously by aliens.

I don't think the questions are equivalent. Anyway the fact that you believe dogmatically that mathematics is a human construcy doesn't prove that it is and isn't even a compelling reason to believe so.

But first answer me this, is the law of non-contradiction something made up by us or some real law of the universe? And surely if no human beings existed two apples plus two apples would still be four apples and not five - even though there was nobody around to observe this stupendous fact.