Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Thought and Language
From da Vinci Concept
Thought and Language
henrik - Sat Dec 4 14:11:19 2004
Can thought occur idependently of language?
Does non-linguistic reasoning exist?
--henrik Sat Dec 4 14:11:19 2004
Truc_Ha - Thu Dec 9 8:10:17 2004
I must ask for context. Are you referring to thought in a self-aware entity, as you can get complex processing out of a computer, but I don't think of that as "thought." Even that processing requires symbology.
My perspective is that a self aware entity, in its interaction with its environment, takes in stimuli, processes that into perception, conceives concepts from that, and acts from there. The concepts could be construed as a form of meta-language (if I may stretch the prefix to denote a higher-order form of language) that is symbolized and expressed via language.
Additionally, during the processing of stimuli into perception, the entity's previous experience and knowledge and concept set are all brought into play. Part of that is the entity's language, and therefore I think that not only is conceptual thought a meta-language, but also that an entity's particular language influences their thought.
--Truc_Ha Thu Dec 9 8:10:17 2004
henrik - Thu Dec 9 16:35:06 2004
| I must ask for context. |
| -- truc_ha |
I want to be as general as possible, thus a priori I don't want to assume that "thought" can only exist in self-aware enities. This may in fact be the case but I do not want to presuppose it.
| My perspective is that a self aware entity, in its interaction with its environment, takes in stimuli, processes that into perception, conceives concepts from that, and acts from there. The concepts could be construed as a form of meta-language |
| -- truc_ha |
Define "concept".
Are you using "concept" as linguistic knowledge or as knowledge that may or may not be linguistic?
For example, does knowing the concept of a table require linguistic understanding of what a table is, or can you have the concept of a table without language at all?
If the former, the answer to our question seems to be "no".
If the latter, the answer to our question would be "yes".
| ...an entity's particular language influences their thought. |
| -- truc_ha |
I agree. I support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
However, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be true regardless of whether we believe in non-linguistic reasoning or not. So, it doesn't really help us answer the question.
| Are you referring to thought in a self-aware entity, as you can get complex processing out of a computer, but I don't think of that as "thought." |
| -- truc_ha |
As a side note...
Regarding Turing Machines and Symbolic Processing...
Turing Machines and computers require a formal symbolic language to work.
If it is case that Turing machines have thoughts, this would simply confirm that language and thought can co-exist, which we already knew assuming that most adult human beings posses both language and thoughts.
If Turing Machines don't have thoughts, it would have consequences for the converse question: Does language imply thought? However, the question we are trying to answer is: Does thought imply language?
[ Edited Thu Dec 30 2004, 07:01PM ]
--henrik Thu Dec 9 16:35:06 2004
sunny - Mon Dec 13 20:55:25 2004
| ... assuming that most adult human beings posses both language and thoughts. |
| -- henrik |
One should not assume what is ostensibly verifiable.
Turing machines as such, don't have thought unless they have conciousness, nor conciousness without thought. A language is inseperable from the conciousness that employs the language as a means to communicate. Just because we have abstracted the means by which we communicate as a concept subsumed by the referent 'language' does not mean that the language somehow spawns thought.
I think that Truc-Ha's question is exactly pertinent. Context. The context of language is a concious entity. Without a conciousness to create, understand, and utilize a language there can be no language. Language requires conciousness. Conciousness implies thought, which creates, through a volition process, language.
It may be possible that language usually emerges as a property of concious entities. But even as a result of the thought of a concious entity, language is not implied by thought, rather it is the result of thought. A a language implies the thoughts of the concious entity which created the langauge. Language itself is simply a more formalized structure for existential referents, and potentially an inevitable result of conciousness. But a concious entity need not exist having a formalized language. If so, it would imply that we had language prior to conciousness, and as language is the result of a concious process, this is cannot be the case.
So my answer is yes, absolutely. Thought can and does exist within your mind without langauge. Every time you visualize an existent, or view directly at an object in the world, you are utilizing thought without language, directly, without the layer of abstraction provided by language. Are your thoughts going to be rudimentary? Yes, and severly limited by the lack of abstraction available to your concious process.
Perhaps you mean, does thought imply language at a fundamental level? Is it somehow a pre-requisite for thought?
I would suppose that they developed in tandem, the ability to think and the ability to communicate, but nonetheless, thought creates language, not the other way around. It is however, quite apparent that language is an incubator for thought, and as both Truc-Ha and yourself mentioned, the particulars of a language alters the mechanism and the products of thought. We, as a species, are in the business of altering the mechanism by which we live in, think about, and view the world.
[ Edited Thu Dec 30 2004, 06:54PM ]
--sunny Mon Dec 13 20:55:25 2004
henrik - Thu Dec 16 15:07:20 2004
| So my answer is yes, absolutely. Thought can and does exist within your mind without langauge. |
| -- sunny |
I agree with you.
My feeling is that there are things which we can understand about the world even though we may not even have a language to express it.
For example, the fact that the trefoil knot is unknotable in three dimensional space is something which conscious entities could come to realize without having a language that expresses the thought. Chimpanzees might be a good candidate for this.
| I would suppose that they developed in tandem, the ability to think and the ability to communicate, but nonetheless, thought creates language, not the other way around |
| -- sunny |
Well, once an entity posseses both language and thoughts, it starts working both ways. Thoughts lead us to create language and means of expressing those thoughts. But language also leads us to thinking about things we might have never considered without language in the first place.
[ Edited Thu Dec 30 2004, 07:03PM ]
--henrik Thu Dec 16 15:07:20 2004
macrocosm - Thu Dec 16 19:17:29 2004
I agree most thoroughly with the assertion that thought can occur independently and/or without language. Nevertheless, I will also note that in this society, it is often considered that one has achieved a greater level of understanding of the subject of thought when one can communicate linguistically one's thoughts. Certainly, given that this is a society in which the default is to communicate via linguistic forms, such a method of communication would be more favorable to others and if such thoughts are intended to have an impact in society, linguistic communication is likely a necessity. It is also understandable then why there is consensus that an inability to linguistically communicate a thought(s) is a sign of one's lack of understanding in regards to the subject of thought. I do however disagree as I believe it is possible to have a rich understanding of X and yet find oneself unable, due perhaps to the inadequacy of the language in correlation to the complexity of the thought(s) and/or subject(s) of the thought(s), to be unable to put forth such a comprehension of X to others.
And indeed, thought and language effect back upon each other simultaneously, as well as effecting all manner of nexi within the nexus of interacting entities (processes) and their rendered influences.
--macrocosm Thu Dec 16 19:17:29 2004
henrik - Sat Dec 18 15:17:28 2004
I believe it is possible to have a rich understanding of X and yet find oneself unable [...] to put forth such a comprehension of X to others
Yes, I agree. This is highly relevant to our teaching practices.
An educator of X has to have expertise in X and also have the ability to transform insights of X into linguistic form. The student of X has to be able to grasp the meaning of the linguistic utterances and then try to incorporate that knowledge into his general understanding of X.
Obviously, there are many places where the teaching/learning process can break down.
due perhaps to the inadequacy of the language in correlation to the complexity of the thought(s) and/or subject(s) of the thought(s)
Imagine an expert baseball player trying to communicate purely linguistically his insights and thought processes during a ball game.
Or imagine an expert chess player trying to express linguistically all of his insights and intuitive understanding of the board game during a match.
--henrik Sat Dec 18 15:17:28 2004
macrocosm - Sat Dec 18 20:32:07 2004
macrocosm: " due perhaps to the inadequacy of the language in correlation to the complexity of the thought(s) and/or subject(s) of the thought(s)"
henrik: Imagine an expert baseball player trying to communicate purely linguistically his insights and thought processes during a ball game."
Indeed, Henrik has hit it right on the nose. And I posit further the question, perhaps slightly off-topic, of whether the following situation makes reasonable sense:
Two friends (A and B) and one topic (X) are our subjects in this senario. A has been involved in understanding X and applying such an understanding for 30 some years. B has interacted with A extensively over X (as well as read relevant materials vigorously) and has come to an understanding of X deemed by A as "miraculous" given the limited period under which the interactions and readings took place (a matter of months).
Okay, so say some aspect of X is being discussed (Z) by A and B. B feel he/she understands Z quite well, and in fact in a unique way, yet has difficulty conveying to A this understanding. Also, B has never manifested through actions (do vs. talk) his/her understanding of X, at least not to any degree comparable to that accomplished by A (over 30 some years). So then, B having this communicative inability in respect to Z, is it appropriate (or even useful) for A to then assume that B knows not of what he/she speaks, is being arrogant in assuming understanding, and should defer his/her understanding? Or should instead A trust B's assertion, and proceed to aid B in coming to communicate the said understanding of Z?
Is it unreasonable for B to maintain an assertion that he/she does understand (backed only by B's word), despite A's assertion otherwise (one which is back also by no evidence but only an assumption that A must know being an expert of 30 years or so)?
I personally would say this is not unreasonable of B as long as B is willing to put in the effort and so forth necessary to back his/her assertion with facts/evidence and/or communicable, logical reasoning that is sufficiently aligned with A's (A's reasoning in respect to Z). In other words, B must be willing to, as vigorously as he/she made the assertion, bring his/her mastery of tongue (in this regard) to the level of his/her asserted understanding of Z.
The baseball player can assert that he/she knows how to hit a fastball if he/she has previously done so. Similarly, a hitting coach can make such an assertion having studied the dynamics, perhaps for numerous years, and has thus "expert" knowledge on how baseballs are and/or should be hit. But the random Joe who watches baseball and feels he knows how a baseball is/should be hit? We can make no absolute statement as to whether he does or does not knows this, but can only say that his assertions are not founded on mutually-accessible fact. Personally, if I am Joe's friend, I would choose to encourage Joe to find a way to manifest his (supposed) knowledge. I fail to see the friendliness in nor the productiveness of an alternative approach whereby I take it as a necessary that he knows not of what he speaks, and is merely arrogant.
--macrocosm Sat Dec 18 20:32:07 2004
henrik - Sun Dec 19 9:41:42 2004
B having this communicative inability in respect to Z, is it appropriate (or even useful) for A to then assume that B knows not of what he/she speaks, is being arrogant in assuming understanding, and should defer his/her understanding? Or should instead A trust B's assertion, and proceed to aid B in coming to communicate the said understanding of Z? [...] I personally would say this is not unreasonable of B as long as B is willing to put in the effort and so forth necessary to back his/her assertion with facts/evidence and/or communicable, logical reasoning
I don't think there is anything wrong with A being suspicious of B's understanding of Z. In fact, A's suspicions as to why B is wrong are useful guides for A to help B discover how well he understands Z and it also helps both of them discover whether B is correct or wrong about that particular aspect of Z.
The risk that exists for A is of being dismissive of B's understanding of Z, in which case A might miss out on an opportunity to have learnt something new from B's understanding of Z. And B will miss out on the opportunity of deepening his understanding of Z by attempting to express and back up his intuitions and understanding regarding Z with the help of A's questioning.
In my own exprience of teaching, I have found that the process of linguistically encoding my knowledge to transmit it to others has helped me understand the subject in question better.
Moreover, by interacting with the student it is possible to either discover something new about the subject, or you get a chance to better understand common mistakes that can be made by others on the subject, which then allows to look for better ways of encoding the information such that it is less likely to yield that particular type of confusion.
--henrik Sun Dec 19 9:41:42 2004
macrocosm - Sun Dec 19 18:32:20 2004
"I don't think there is anything wrong with A being suspicious of B's understanding of Z..."
I agree entirely, but more, the question was never a matter of suspicion but of the assumption by A that B could not possibly know what he/she is talking about due to a lack of experience and "dues paid".
"The risk that exists for A is of being dismissive of B's understanding of Z, in which case A might miss out on an opportunity to have learnt something new from B's understanding of Z. And B will miss out on the opportunity of deepening his understanding of Z [...]
Moreover, by interacting with the student it is possible to either discover something new about the subject..."
Henrik, you have my fullest of agreement in these respects.
--macrocosm Sun Dec 19 18:32:20 2004
henrik - Tue Dec 21 7:54:13 2004
It's funny how although it is nice to see ideas converge and allow us to reach agreements, it is also sad because suddenly it feels like there is nothing more to be discussed.
I somehow expected the existence of non-linguistic reasoning would be more controversial. But I guess most people don't find it that controversial.
--henrik Tue Dec 21 7:54:13 2004
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 8:44:39 2004
| I somehow expected the existence of non-linguistic reasoning would be more controversial. But I guess most people don't find it that controversial. |
| -- henrik |
Perhaps it is more controversial than would be indicated by the replies which populate this thread. Unfortunately, I have not seen much activity from Truc_Ha, Sunny (except on the Computer Systems thread), or any of the other 34 (?) members of this community.
[ Edited Thu Dec 30 2004, 06:57PM ]
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 8:44:39 2004
henrik - Tue Dec 21 11:30:26 2004
Well, there are of course more factors than controversialness that keep threads going. And to be honest, most of the time I do not have enough time to contribute in the forums as extensively as I have recently. So I assume other members don't always have the time, the energy or the interest to contribute in all of the forums.
--henrik Tue Dec 21 11:30:26 2004
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 11:36:30 2004
Well, I must say that 17 of the 28 members here have made _no_ contributions (with two of the 11 contributing only 1 post). Only 6 members have contributed ten or more posts.
[ Edited Tue Dec 21 2004, 11:53AM ]
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 11:36:30 2004
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 11:52:58 2004
But yes, I am aware and in full agreement that whether one contributes to a thread is overdetermined by all manner of influences, the array of which includes interest in the subject of discussion, time available, and so forth.
[ Edited Tue Dec 21 2004, 11:53AM ]
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 11:52:58 2004
sunny - Mon Dec 27 16:52:04 2004
Moderator's note:
| An educator of X has to have expertise in X and also have the ability to transform insights of X into linguistic form. The student of X has to be able to grasp the meaning of the linguistic utterances and then try to incorporate that knowledge into his general understanding of X. |
| -- henrik |
It is much better to use concrete examples. 'X' is not a direct referent to a concept. By writing it as an abstracted quantity you are requiring the reader to take two steps backward before they take a step forward, to understand the statement without replacing X, then replace X with a concrete example, and then abstracting from the allegory its meaning. I would suggest that we use concrete examples instead of superfluous abstractions as these are much easier to follow and show us directly how this knowledge might be applied. If needed, symbolize alternative meanings through such symbolic abstraction AFTER you have formed easy to follow examples.
An educator of 'mathematics' has to have expertise in 'mathematics' and also have the ability to transform insights of 'mathematics' into linguistic form. The student of 'mathematics' has to be able to grasp the meaning of the linguistic utterances and then try to incorporate that knowledge into his general understanding of 'mathematics'.
Or even better:
An educator has to have expertise and also have the ability to transform relevant insights into linguistic form. The student has to be able to grasp the meaning of the linguistic utterances and then try to incorporate that knowledge into his general understanding.
Here I have left out the superfluous abstraction completely and am left with a much more concise and readable version of the same.
Similarly concise statements could be used within the rest of the posts.
--sunny Mon Dec 27 16:52:04 2004
Truc_Ha - Mon Dec 27 16:53:46 2004
An observation on the current fashion of using letters as empty pointers.
| My feeling is that there are things which we can understand about the world even though we may not even have a language to express it. |
| -- henrik |
| I do however disagree as I believe it is possible to have a rich understanding of X and yet find oneself unable, due perhaps to the inadequacy of the language in correlation to the complexity of the thought(s) and/or subject(s) of the thought(s), to be unable to put forth such a comprehension of X to others. |
| -- macrocosm |
Both of these quotes state the same concept. I find the first more beautiful in its concise elegance and therefore more engaging, though both express the same interesting idea.
--Truc_Ha Mon Dec 27 16:53:46 2004
sunny - Tue Jan 4 19:19:31 2005
Henrik, macrocosm: I also agree with the basic explanations and presumptions of your discourse over non-linguistic reasoning. Particularly the components of the discussion related to intuition and insight. I think that you are both treating it as an enabler for furthering the understanding of a subject. I agree with this premise and would like to draw out of your discussion the supposition that in order for substantial progress to be made via means of intuition that there must be a significant difference of understanding between the two parties, but not such a difference that communication is impossible or overly difficult. Such disabling differences would make it more worthwhile to embark on independent quests for new knowledge.
I think that both of you reached a point where the apparent differences between your understandings of the subject matter was so slight that nothing more seemed discernable.
| It's funny how although it is nice to see ideas converge and allow us to reach agreements, it is also sad because suddenly it feels like there is nothing more to be discussed. |
| -- henrik |
I would suggest that we all do substantial background research in different (perhaps orthogonal) directions and then address the question posted using the new knowledge, leveraging the new 'potential differences' in our understanding. In this way, and by using a shared basis for communication, we should be able to come to some new insights via the methods that you have been describing.
--sunny Tue Jan 4 19:19:31 2005
charmed_quark - Wed Jan 5 17:09:21 2005
A related discussion:
DANIEL C. DENNETT
Philosopher, Tufts University Author, Freedom Evolves
----
| Just a cut a paste from... |
| -- charmed_quark |
Moderator's note:
Your excerpt from the original site has been removed and replaced with an anchor link to the specific section referenced. In the future please do not use verbatim copies of work copyrighted by other authors or websites. Paraphrasing and summarizing related works are acceptable (when cited properly) and provide a much better means of tying together related discussions on similar topics. Please take the time to discuss your thoughts and do not simply copy-cut-and-paste substantial sections of another's work.
[ Edited Mon Jan 10 2005, 09:32PM ]
--charmed_quark Wed Jan 5 17:09:21 2005
