Language and thought

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Everyone should read this thread very carefully and notice how Asher has failed to answer questions that were put to him. These were reasonable questions about his own use of terms which he was using to defend his own claims. He has refused to answer these questions and begun to sulk.

I didn't answer many of your questions because they were completely irrelevant.

You did not comprehend the definition of mathematics, proceeded to launch into a debate about whether it's man-made or not, not understanding what exactly mathematics is, then asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and pointed your finger whenever someone didn't answer them, thinking this proved your point.

That may work on your fellow philosophers, but it doesn't on me. I'll ignore irrelevant questions until you figure out what you're talking about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You should be aware that in that sentence, "this" is within the scope of your post and note mine.

It's also the smartest thing I've heard you say.

A failed attempt at a cheap point - well I guess you are losing so you better take what you can.

Oh, blah, you don't even make an attempt at a real argument.

BAM

If a province feels completely alienated and ignored politically by their country, it's undemocratic to force them to stay. If a region, or a province, or even a city votes to secede, it's undemocratic to hold guns to their head and force them to stay.

BAM BAM - isn't this supposed to be the point in dispute? How can re-asserting it count as argument?

It's a very simple concept that you've managed to obfuscate beyond belief.

BAM BAM BAM

What's the point of having an election when the ruling party never campaigns in your province?

We've gone over this in the last thread. If you want to change the electoral system, agitate for democratic change. Otherwise shut up.

There's major problems with your examples. First, a province leaving Canada isn't anything like not obeying the laws or paying taxes. I have NO problem with someone not paying tax as long as they never, EVER, use tax money themselves. That means if they live out in their own shack in the middle of nowhere and grow their own food, etc -- don't even use public roads -- more power to them! Not my problem.

Surely they have to obey some laws even if they do live in a shack, miles from civilisation?

I realize that's unrealistic, by the way, but ideologically that's how I am.

Well it might be somewhat applicable for Canadian hermits, but you are right it is unrealistic.

You're once again confusing "undemocratic" with "illegal".

In a democracy the laws are enacted by the representatives of the majority. And so are constitutional amendments (unless there is a referendum).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I didn't answer many of your questions because they were completely irrelevant.

You did not comprehend the definition of mathematics, proceeded to launch into a debate about whether it's man-made or not, not understanding what exactly mathematics is, then asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and pointed your finger whenever someone didn't answer them, thinking this proved your point.

That may work on your fellow philosophers, but it doesn't on me. I'll ignore irrelevant questions until you figure out what you're talking about.

BAM BAM BAM

They aren't irrelevant, the last ones were about your use of words. You used them so presumably you know what they mean. If you think my questions are irrelevant then it seems that your words were, since that's what they are about.

No I am going now, I have things to do. I bid you all a very fond farewell.

Now where did I hear that.

[Asher]

Agathon: Let's review this thread and your actions:

1. Display complete ignorance of what mathematics is
2. Launch into debate about how it isn't man-made, since you didn't understand what it is
3. When shown a definition of what you're arguing about, you pathetically attempt to dismiss it because you didn't think the OED knew anything about "mathematical truth values"
4. Try to start a distraction debate about when it's legal to secede from a country
5. Assert that it's undemocratic for a province who overwhelmingly votes to secede, to secede
6. Start pointing out questions people ignored because they were incredibly stupid or irrelevant, try to somehow twist this into proving your point but completely failing.
7. Switch strategies again, this time trying to discredit your opponents by typing "BAM" randomly at their posts.
8. Start your 10-hour long signoff process, where you type "Goodnight" but keep posting for hours more.



Unfortunately for you, I'm not that gullible. I realized from the start you didn't understand the defintion of what you were arguing about, something you haven't admitted yourself yet even when confronted with definitions, but you've now ignored the debate so I'm assuming you realize it.

Now you've tried to launch several side-debates that you thought would be winnable, but you've ended up digging yourself deeply in three separate holes.

Now it's time for you to start your signoff process and hope this thread drops.

Let's get it over with.

[Agathon]

Lame. I only returned to pick up my new sig. You will like it.

[Asher]

I bet it's some childish dig at me since it's embarassing for you to be completely owned by an undergrad compsci student...

[Asher]

"I realize that's unrealistic, by the way, but ideologically that's how I am." - Asher

This is your new sig?

It's not even insulting, or funny.

I have unrealistic ideals, big deal. The world will never work the way I want it to. By all means, quote it, but don't think that it's in any way insulting if that was the point...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Solver
Tassadar, you're monolingual then. I've asked this many people. People who have one native language, and didn't learn another one till they were pretty matured (14 years, at least), they all say they don't think in words.

People that are either fully bilngual with two native languages (like me) or those who learnt a second language relatively early, agree they think in words.

Hm, not necessarily. When I think, I think mainly in images. Words are just there to supplement the thoughts.

I suspect a lot of people who know more than one language early on tend to develop their brains in a more audio/verbal way. However, a vivid imagination counters this

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Hm, not necessarily. When I think, I think mainly in images. Words are just there to supplement the thoughts.

I suspect a lot of people who know more than one language early on tend to develop their brains in a more audio/verbal way. However, a vivid imagination counters this

I dont think in images either. I simply....think.

Its pretty difficult to explain. I simply think things. Which is why I can race through many thoughts per minute

[vovan]

Well, I usually think in words... If it has something to do with computers or high math, I usually think in English, with computers it's obvious, and with math - because I attend college in an english-speaking country. Also, when I am speaking english or writing in english, I also think in that language.

However, when I just think about life or something, or about low-level problems, I think in my native tongue - Russian. That's because I was born and went to school in Russia. For instance, I count and do simple math operations, like addition, multiplication, etc. much faster in russian than I do in english. Then again, if you ask me to diagonalize a matrix using Jacobi algorithm, or to bring it into upper-triangular form using QR iteration with shifts, I wouldn't be able to do it in russian for the life of me, because I don't even know what you call all that in russian.

So, I most often think in words. But... Sometimes, very rarely, I do just think. Most often happens in tight situations, where I have to move my brains very fast, make an instanteneous decision. Then, I just think. Without words or anything. But I can't consciously make myself do it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

I disagree. Language must be verbal. Because a visual or mental "language" can only be private, thus cannot be used as a medium of communication.

Originally posted by Ramo
Without "language," there is no expression of thought.

Proof by definition.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Re: Re: Language and thought

Originally posted by Tassadar5000




I simply......think. I dont think in word at all.

That explains alot...

[Urban Ranger]

Ramo, ranskaldan,

60 also happens to be divisible by most numbers 10 or less, that's 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. To find a base that can be divided by even more numbers you'll end up with something ridiculously large.

[tinyp3nis]

I disagree. Language must be verbal. Because a visual or mental "language" can only be private, thus cannot be used as a medium of communication.

Hint: Deaf people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Hint: Deaf people.

Depends on if they are born deaf or not.

Suppose they are, they cannot communicate with others until they learn a language, be that a sign, verbal, or pictorial language. I grouped all under "verbal" because sign languages are based on verbal languages, and pictorial ones are words expressed with stylised pictures.