Language and thought

[Asher]

First answer this: If mathematics is not man-made construct, and someone makes an argument saying the same thing, couldn't they argue that the C programming language isn't a man-made construct?

filosofy...

And please don't talk to me about **** like the "law of non-contradiction"...

[Asher]

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.

Surely, but surely you also realize that mathematics is just the method of observing that phenomenon?

filosofy...

[Felch]

Originally posted by 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.

If I recall correctly, the Babylonians used a non base-10 number system. I don't know if it was base-60 (and hence the sixty seconds and sixty minutes) or base-12, but I do think that it had an impact on our measure of time for some strange reason.

It wasn't a very good link, and I can't claim to have been impressed by the argument, but it's as sound a theory as any. I think I remember reading a book about the history of zero, and it had a break down of Mesopotamian number systems. It wasn't where I heard the time theory though, that was from some high school teacher.

In short, it's likely that there was a base-12 in the past. Wasn't the old pound/shilling/pence system base-12? And old English units of measure are more or less binary (e.g. 8 fluid ounces in a cup, 16 in a pint, 32 in a quart, 128 in a gallon)

[Asher]

Base 12 is AKA "DuoDecimal".

http://www.psinvention.com/zoetic/base12.htm

Twelve was used as a basic group of things. The group of twelve was then multiplied by other numbers to get bigger numbers. One example being the Great Hundred of Northern Europe which was 120 units (10 x 12). The group of twelve could also be divided into equal groups by many numbers due to its many factors (numbers that can be divided into a number without a remainder). The Roman Duodecimal fractions consisted in fractions of only those factors of 12. (twelfths, sixths, fourths, thirds and halves).

Base 12 was used not as a formalized place value, but rather as a grouping value that combined with other values to a larger grouping value. For example 10 twelves are 120 or the Great Hundred. The Cycle of Cathay for China represents the combination of a cycle of 10 and a cycle of 12 which results in a cycle of 120. Also 5 twelves are 60 which was a highly developed numbering system thousands of years ago. see base 60

The use of 12 as a grouping value can be seen as arising from its many divisors, which would let someone who had 1 dozen or group of something to divide it up easily. The use of 12 as a grouping value may also be related to the observation that there are approximately 12 months (moons) in year. Many cultures observed 12 zodiacal formations in the stars as the year progressed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

Certainly for measures, perhaps because 12 is easy to divide. Inch and ounce both meant "a twelfth part" originally, and were subdivisions of the foot and pound respectively.

[Felch]

Thanks Asher, I didn't really feel like looking anything up on that.

[tinyp3nis]

I pity the nations that don't use metric system. I hope Canada is not one of them.
Anyway, somebody should make a system with a odd base number. 7 or 13 would be nice. Is there one already? And is this thread still on topic?

[Asher]

Canada uses the metric system.

[Sikander]

A few words translated from thoughts on the matter. It is obvious that however we do think, it is something that has been with us since before we were homo sapiens sapiens. Homo erectus seemed to have many of the tools we enjoy, including a rich language capability. Thus it seems that for at least a million years our cognitive capabilities and rich language have evolved together. Is there thought without language? It depends on your definition of thought, for me the answer is certainly. Would our thoughts be very profound without language? Probably not. Puting aside the question of whether those of us who sometimes think without the languages we use to communicate to others are in fact communicating internally with another language of our own devising, we gain so much from the work of those that came before us. We do not have to reinvent the wheel because we can store immense amounts of information verbally as a community. Add printed or written texts and we can communicate with one another across generations with relatively little information loss. IMO though language and thought are two distinct things, in humans the two are so layered together that removing one would obliterate or nearly obliterate the other.

[Ramo]

A thought only "means" something in the context of a language. The language doesn't have to be verbal. It can be visual or even mental. By this, I mean that I'm generalizing the idea of language as expression of thought. Without "language," there is no expression of thought. Furthermore, if you constrain language in certain respects, expression of though is similarly constrained. For instance, the "language" of tensor analysis, allows you to properly express the thought of gravity. If your languages have no concept of freedom, or in other words, the lack of constraint, you cannot express the thought of the lack of constraint. Furthermore, you can't use freedom as the lack of constraint as an axiom on which to come up with more complex thought. You can't fight for a generalized idea of freedom if you've never dealt with the concept.

I'm doing a paper on precisely this topic right now, in fact. Wycliffe and the Lollards supplied the English peasants a vocabulary of a more generalized version of freedom, even if he was primarily dealing with the struggle between the lay aristocracy and the Church, but the English peasantry picked up on this vocabulary and ran with it in 1381.

Speaking of Orwell, this might interest some of y'all:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

[Ramo]

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.

Base 12 was probably initially based on the number of finger parts in a hand (excluding the thumb).

Interestingly enough, base 60 of Sumeria (60 seconds in an minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a a circle) is probably a combination of base 12 and base 5 (which is due to the number of fingers in a hand).

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Base 12 was probably initially based on the number of finger parts in a hand (excluding the thumb).

Interestingly enough, base 60 of Sumeria (60 seconds in an minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a a circle) is probably a combination of base 12 and base 5 (which is due to the number of fingers in a hand).

Spread your right hand, and then, using each of the fingers of your left hand (including the thumb), touch each segment of your right hand fingers (excluding the thumb).

It counts to 60.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher


Surely, but surely you also realize that mathematics is just the method of observing that phenomenon?

Duh - lame. If it is observed that 2+2=4, that's your contention that mathematics is a human creation gone out of the window - since the fact remains the same independent of human thought. There are other problems too.

If mathematics is wholly conventional then it has no empirical basis.

[Asher]

Mathematics and stuff like physics are constructs created by man to help understand natural phenomenon.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that...

You don't seem to understand what mathematics is in the first place. You should realize that mathematics are rules and theorems based upon what we observe to be the case, not the actual cases themselves.

If that makes sense anyway.

filosofy...

PS: I'm still completely amazed by your lack of general insightfulness and debate skills as a philosophy professor.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
First answer this: If mathematics is not man-made construct, and someone makes an argument saying the same thing, couldn't they argue that the C programming language isn't a man-made construct?.

Easily done. The C programming language is wholly conventional, that is the standard of getting things right (constructing "grammatically correct" statements in the language) is based on a set of rules laid down by a human being or beings (like the rules of chess).

The mathematical statement 2+2=4 does indeed have a standard of grammatical correctness that is conventional (that is I have to use the right signs in the correct order to convey what I mean to another using a shared convention like Hindu Arabic numerals). But it also has the property of being true, of being in correspondence with the way the world is.

Statements in programming languages don't have such truth values.

Take another example: the game of chess has rules of correct play which are wholly conventional. But who would ask whether the move "Pawn to Rook 3" is true or false? We would ask whether it was allowed or not, but not whether it was true or false.

Now you could mount an argument that mathematical statements didn't have truth values, but you would need more than your superficial comparison.