Can We Think Without Language?

[confutatis]

I understand from this that in fact you do see a point in the naming, despite having repeatedly professed ignorance of any utility.

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility, I was just trying to make the point that whether you can communicate an experience has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can come up with a name for it. You certainly can't communicate it before you give it a name, so naming must necessarily come before communication. Your position amounts to putting the cart before the hors: let's give names only to things we can communicate. Exactly how do you know you can communicate an idea before you give it a name?

It seems clear you actually hold a view that understanding is possible between human beings, given the conditions outlined.

Wait... I'm not the one coming up with examples of things that supposedly cannot be communicated! It is ironic, even pathetic, to see people say things like "it's impossible to describe the experience of watching the sun set behind the Rocky Mountains on an October afternoon", as if there is more to be described than words can describe. That is nonsense. There is certainly more to our experiences than can be described, but those things by definition cannot be described!

So, in summary, your actual position seems contrary to some of the statements you have made.

You think there's a contradiction in my idea because you can't see the real contradiction. And the real contradiction is the notion that subjective aspects of our experience cannot be communicated. Since language itself is a completely subjective experience, the notion would imply that knowledge of a language cannot be communicated. Which is obviously nonsense.

 

[confutatis]

Can you tell me what it feels like when you masturbate?

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

 

[BoulderHead]

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility,…

This is absolutely an untrue statement. I do not know how you expect to be believed on this matter in consideration of the following exchange that took place between us;

Originally Posted by BoulderHead;
What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?

Origianally Posted by Confutatis;
How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.

Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.


I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can...or any other feeling, if that particular example makes you uncomfortable.

 

[confutatis]

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can

Honestly, why do this? Are you trying to say I can't describe it? Of course I can, all I have to do is write some words. Do I have to actually write the words to prove you that I can write them? It sounds too childish to me.

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

 

[confutatis]

Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing. It doesn't mean I can't think of possible reasons why someone would do it. It's as if you ask me, "why is that man running?", I would just as well reply, "how should I know?". It could be because he's late for an appointment; it could be because he's trying to lose weight, it could be because he is trying to catch a bus... it could be a million things!

I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation.

 

[BoulderHead]

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.

Nice try, but that is not what I’m attempting to do at all. I was merely pointing out the falsity of your statement.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing…

Clever attempt at misdirection, Confutatis, but it doesn’t wash. My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.

If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation

I’m am left doubting your sincerity.

 

[confutatis]

My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[BoulderHead]

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.

This is an even less clever attempt to avoid directly addressing my complaint than your last misdirection was. You see, I was in the first place only inquiring into the relevance of assigning a name to something which even you yourself acknowledged might not be understandable by another living soul. I have never denied or attempted to deny, as your comment might lead to believe, that a name could be applied. I have merely asked you time and time and time again to provide a reason for doing so. Now here you are, finally, offering to show the relevance as if it had never been asked of you, and the offer even comes coupled with the notion that we may have nothing left to discuss. Astounding !
The part about my first having to agree with you before you'll expain yourself I'll try to ignore. Also, I read again my comment about not being able to name that feeling I had when listening to that song. This was a poor choice of words and may have given the wrong impression. What I should have said was that I didn't know how to express it verbally. Obviously I could assign an arbitrary name but never saw the need to do so as it would neither help my understanding or enable me to convey to another what is in my mind. So, I appologize for my poor terminology with respect to that as certainly I did not express myself as properly as I should have.

So, I am now going to simply note you have been evasive and unwilling to accept responsibility for your own spoken words, while at the same time hoping this behavior will cease.

Now, let’s get down to the brass tacks, beginning with your first post;

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"?

The problem I have with this is twofold; in the first instance it sheds scant light on whether people who speak different languages actually think differently (remind me to reread the post by Nichomacus and apply the contents therein to my own self, btw). Secondly, and to address what this thread has digressed into, being able to assign a name to something has no bearing whatsoever on the proposition that people may be able to perform a thinking process without the use of language. It has already been stated that thinking about certain nameless things has been done, hence the irrelevance. In short, so far as I can determine, you offer nothing but a Red Herring for consumption.

…And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no".

Think whatever you want, I merely note that support was not offered for this assertion.

…And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.

Here, I view the use of the word “perfect” as hyperbole. Langauge may perform its duty by expressing conceptions in either a single word or string(s) of words but the word(s) can, and quite often do, convey a different meaning from person to person.

Finally, if you take a good hard look at the bold text you may at last come to understand what my questioning you has been about. Hope that helps.

[edit]
For grammer and additional comments in red.

 

[BoulderHead]

Confutatis,
I’ve been rereading this thread over and this is what I’m seeing;

In post #24, you make the statement you do not believe it is possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language.

In post #25, Evo responds saying language is imperfect in accurately describing what we would wish to communicate.

In post #27, you respond to Evo saying “That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about. Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point.”

Do you see the problem?
What you have said can be meaningful if there is some reason for saying it, otherwise there is no point. You might just as well be stating that it is possible to squint one eye while scratching your head. Now, since your statement claims the ability of others to understand these arbitrarily assigned words as being “beside the point” then it is only reasonable to conclude that communicating to others isn’t a consideration. Ergo; if communicating to others is beside the point, the point becomes unclear. This is why;

In post #28, I ask you to explain the point in undertaking such an exercise.

In post #33, you respond saying “How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.”

Now, what kind of response is that? :yuck:
It begins to look, at this point in the conversation, as if there was no reason behind post #27. I suppose I could just squint one eye and scratch my head since, after all, it is possible to do so.

In post #34, I ask again for you to address the issue.

In post #36, you deny having said what you said in post #33 stating “I didn't profess ignorance of the utility”.

In post #42, well, that was simply ridiculous and unhelpful. :grumpy:

In post #43, I’m informed my question is pointless. Interestingly, you also claim to hold something deemed relevant to my questioning, but I don’t get to hear what it is until I agree with you.

I’m going to close this post by suggesting you heed your own advise given to DD;

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears.

 

[confutatis]

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears.

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun

You act like a poorly mannered child. I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered. You merely respond with insulting comments.

Grow up, little child !

[edit]
What a silly excuse to avoid a perfectly reasonable question !

 

[confutatis]

I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered. [/COLOR]

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.

Hope you don't take it personally.

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.

No, it’s not a bad thing if one is committed to taking time to explain their position (isn’t that what communicating is all about). Anyway, I don’t think the Internet is hiding anything...

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.

With all due respect, not a single word you have said addresses the merit of my question. This is a question which you have repeatedly been asked to clarify upon yet you have danced about and not done so. You even struck the deal that if I first agreed that anything could be assigned a name you would show the relevance. If you had taken the time to actually read what I have posted in red lettering you would see that I have no difficulty in conceding this, yet still you choose to dance away. You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly. There is no other reason than your ego getting in the way. Since getting you to support your own postings meets with nothing of substance, I am content to let the readers judge the fairness of my criticisms for themselves.

Hope you don't take it personally.

Not at all, I believe I understand your position completely.

 

[confutatis]

You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly.

I am not unwilling to admit what I said should have been worded more clearly, but when I tried to reword it you said I was misdirecting your attention. I went to some trouble to explain what I meant by "how should I know", and what do I get from you? Not a "ah, now I understand it", but mindless criticism.

You talk too much and you say little of any substance. Put your money where your mouth is and show me you are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on a difficult philosophical topic. I will try and explain my position, you have to try and convince the readers of this forum that you can do better than pointing fingers at stuff you don't like.

I said everything you can think about can be given a name. You don't seem to disagree with that; in fact I can't even think why someone could possibly disagree with such an obvious fact. Your complaint is that it's often pointless to do so. I will adress that complaint now.

Financially speaking, everything you own, all your assets and personal belongings, can be converted into soya beans. If you own a car, your car is worth a certain amount of soya beans. Your clothes, your computer, your sunglasses, can be sold, and you can purchase soya beans with the proceeds. You don't object to that idea, right? You probably would say, "why in the world would anyone sell everything they own to buy soya beans". But I tried to tell you several times that the question is not relevant to what can be said once we agree on the convertibility between assets and soya beans - or between ideas and words.

The fact that everything you own amounts to a big pile of soya beans has an important consequence. Market imperfections aside, it means a big pile of soya beans can be converted into stuff that is far more useful to you than useless beans. If you are an investor, you can buy and sell soya beans, make a profit, turn that profit into stuff you need, without ever swallowing a soya bean, or even touching it. If an investor in commodities were to follow your line of thinking, he would never trade soya beans, for he has no use for them. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problem with your position.

When it comes to language, it is extremely important to know that, if you can express any idea in words, then the truths you find as a result of manipulating words according to the valid rules of the language will also be true ideas. For instance, if it is true that A is greater than B, and it is true that B is greater than C, then it's also true that A is greater than C, regardless of what A, B, and C refer to. But that is not the most relevant aspect.

The really meaningful point about ideas being exchangeable with words is something a lot of people ignore, for they do not understand it: a statement that violates the rules of language cannot possibly correspond to a true idea. In terms of soya trade, that is equivalent to the fact that a piece of paper giving ownership to a ton of soya can't possibly be worth more or less than an actual ton of soya.

A truckful of soya beans is worth exactly the same as a piece of paper giving ownership to a truckful of soya beans; anyone making claims to the contrary is lying, probably with the purpose of taking advantage from people who do not understand the market as well as they do. And so it is with ideas: the world is filled with people claiming that their linguistically invalid statements stand for valid ideas nonetheless. A little knowledge of the relationship between language and ideas clearly shows that to be impossible.

You may still find that irrelevant. But at least I gave you what you have been asking for. Let's see what you do with it.

 

[Växan]

non of these arguments would be possible without language

so far i have seen very little evidence that analytical thought is possible without some form of language

Langauge has nothing to do with it. It is the culture, not the "language

i disagree, language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain

this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another
a close approximation at best is to be expected

for example - in swedish: ska vi ta en fika? or even: ska vi fika? has no english equivalent, the nearest english analogue would be.. fancy a cuppa? or in the american language: would you like to join me for a cozy cup of tea or coffee and sweets or sandwiches, and most likely at a café or someone's home? - the phrase 'ska vi fika?' evokes an instant feeling of coziness in swedes, in english speakers it makes more intellectual demands (more synaptic operations)

 

[BoulderHead]

Confutatis,
Putting the last, first;

You may still find that irrelevant. But at least I gave you what you have been asking for. Let's see what you do with it.

First, I would like to say thank you for taking the time to explain your position in a down to Earth manner suitable to someone possessing my lack of mental capacity.
Ok, let’s have a look;

I said everything you can think about can be given a name. You don't seem to disagree with that; in fact I can't even think why someone could possibly disagree with such an obvious fact. Your complaint is that it's often pointless to do so. I will adress that complaint now.

Yes, it can be given a name, and the name need not be understandable to anyone, though what the name represents is knowable to the namer. I’m good with all this.

Financially speaking, everything you own, all your assets and personal belongings, can be converted into soya beans. If you own a car, your car is worth a certain amount of soya beans. Your clothes, your computer, your sunglasses, can be sold, and you can purchase soya beans with the proceeds. You don't object to that idea, right? You probably would say, "why in the world would anyone sell everything they own to buy soya beans".

Here is the difficulty being overlooked; you assume that all ideas, emotions, etc. are as perfectly convertible as tangible, worldly goods. Human experience says otherwise; language is not a perfect medium where everything can be bought and sold (the reason why language continues to be refined). This is exactly what members in this thread have been trying to inform you of.

But I tried to tell you several times that the question is not relevant to what can be said once we agree on the convertibility between assets and soya beans - or between ideas and words.

See above.

The fact that everything you own amounts to a big pile of soya beans has an important consequence. Market imperfections aside, it means a big pile of soya beans can be converted into stuff that is far more useful to you than useless beans. If you are an investor, you can buy and sell soya beans, make a profit, turn that profit into stuff you need, without ever swallowing a soya bean, or even touching it. If an investor in commodities were to follow your line of thinking, he would never trade soya beans, for he has no use for them. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problem with your position.

Let me try to help you out of the bog; everything I own may be convertible, but everything I experience isn’t. I don’t believe in the perfectibility of language and cannot fathom why you seem to.

Now, maybe we are not even arguing the same thing so I want to spell out what side I’m on;

I’m on the side holding it’s possible to think without always having to conduct a monologue inside your head in order to do so.

Note that my use of the word ‘think’ is not meant to be all-inclusive, nor does it have to be to prove my point. I believe there exist many layers to the thought process and while nonverbal thinking may be limited or constricting it nevertheless qualifies as thinking.

When it comes to language, it is extremely important to know that, if you can express any idea in words, then the truths you find as a result of manipulating words according to the valid rules of the language will also be true ideas. For instance, if it is true that A is greater than B, and it is true that B is greater than C, then it's also true that A is greater than C, regardless of what A, B, and C refer to. But that is not the most relevant aspect.

I think what you’re dismissing is the significance of that mighty big “if” that I put the red coloring to above. My argument isn’t about what language can reveal after the ground rules have been agreed upon, either. Consider what has transpired; we have gone from agreeing that any arbitrary utterance can be assigned to a thought/feeling to something completely different; being able to express the meaning of that utterance. This is what you have been told isn’t always possible, but you bulldoze past it anyway.

The really meaningful point about ideas being exchangeable with words is something a lot of people ignore, for they do not understand it: a statement that violates the rules of language cannot possibly correspond to a true idea. In terms of soya trade, that is equivalent to the fact that a piece of paper giving ownership to a ton of soya can't possibly be worth more or less than an actual ton of soya.

A truckful of soya beans is worth exactly the same as a piece of paper giving ownership to a truckful of soya beans; anyone making claims to the contrary is lying, probably with the purpose of taking advantage from people who do not understand the market as well as they do. And so it is with ideas: the world is filled with people claiming that their linguistically invalid statements stand for valid ideas nonetheless. A little knowledge of the relationship between language and ideas clearly shows that to be impossible.

The reason your argument fails is clear; it is a false view because we can and do think all we want, despite sometimes not being able to express it verbally through the use of our language. Yes, this includes thinking about that magical feeling of orgasm, and knowing that we want to experience soon, without having to continually say to ourselves; I want to get that feeling I can’t describe in words.

You talk too much and you say little of any substance. Put your money where your mouth is and show me you are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on a difficult philosophical topic.

Call.

 

[BoulderHead]

so far i have seen very little evidence that analytical thought is possible without some form of language

But note you’ve just applied a qualifier in the form of “analytical”. There are some very major limitations without a spoken language, no doubt.
This topic degenerated into questioning whether thought itself is possible without language, which is something I took issue with.

i disagree, language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain

Here might be a thought to ponder; my assumption is that human beings are basically all constructed the same way. If this can be assumed as true, then why shouldn’t any language developed by mankind be little more than a tool to express a commonality of mind?

this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another
a close approximation at best is to be expected

You may know the saying (Dutch, I think) that all translators are traitors.

for example - in swedish: ska vi ta en fika? or even: ska vi fika? has no english equivalent, the nearest english analogue would be.. fancy a cuppa? or in the american language: would you like to join me for a cozy cup of tea or coffee and sweets or sandwiches, and most likely at a café or someone's home? - the phrase 'ska vi fika?' evokes an instant feeling of coziness in swedes, in english speakers it makes more intellectual demands (more synaptic operations)

I had read of a language that had only had two words for colors; light and dark. Yet despite that, to say these people didn’t know the difference between red and blue would not be true. Langauge is certainly a fascinating thing !

 

[Integral]

Need I say more then ...

Helen Keller,

Blind and deaf from birth... What language did she speak? Clearly she thought.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Honestly, why do this? Are you trying to say I can't describe it? Of course I can, all I have to do is write some words. Do I have to actually write the words to prove you that I can write them? It sounds too childish to me.

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

The point is that you can never convey the actual content of the feeling. Langauge is based on assumptions of mutual understanding. When a person describes the exhilieration of riding a roller coaster to me, that person cannot give his or her experiences to me. I have to rely upon inferences by correlating words with experiences, assuming that what someone else experiences is similar to what I experience in the same situation.

 

[mikesvenson]

yes, language is mearly a tool. Thought, pure thought, is the source.

 

[confutatis]

none of these arguments would be possible without language

Isn't it really strange to watch all these people writing hundreds, thousands of words to try and make a point that words have nothing to do with thought?

language has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the way information is processed, it's not a cultural difference, it's a basic neurological structural difference, based on the way the brain is hardwired from birth into adolescence, different languages create different synaptic connexion patterns in the brain. this also makes it virtually impossible to truly translate 1 language into another; a close approximation at best is to be expected

Being bilingual, I do know what you are talking about! Some thoughts in one language simply do not exist in the other, which is what makes them impossible to be translated. That alone is strong evidence that you only think what your language allows you to think about.

Perhaps one has to be bilingual to understand what you and I are talking about?

 

[confutatis]

The point is that you can never convey the actual content of the feeling.

Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

Langauge is based on assumptions of mutual understanding.

Nonsense. What does "assumption" mean in the absence of language? How can you make assumptions if you can't communicate them?

 

[confutatis]

Yes, it can be given a name, and the name need not be understandable to anyone, though what the name represents is knowable to the namer. I’m good with all this.

OK.

Here is the difficulty being overlooked; you assume that all ideas, emotions, etc. are as perfectly convertible as tangible, worldly goods.

They are perfectly convertible into symbols. You just said you were good with all this.

Human experience says otherwise; language is not a perfect medium where everything can be bought and sold (the reason why language continues to be refined)

What you are saying there implies that abstract ideas are either impossible or false. But the claim you just made is an abstract idea.

Let me try to help you out of the bog;

Don't help me! Let the fires of hell consume my soul; I'm happy that way.

everything I own may be convertible, but everything I experience isn’t.

What does experience have to do with thought? Surely you can think about experience, but if you think about the experience in the abstract then you are using symbols, therefore you are using language. And for the life of me I can't conceive of how one would think about experiences without doing so in the abstract.

I don’t believe in the perfectibility of language...

Do you believe in the perfectibility of thought?

Now, maybe we are not even arguing the same thing

Definitely not. You think language is a specific collection of symbols, such as the English language. I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.

If you claim we can think about things for which there are no words in English, it would be foolish of me to dispute it. But I also think it's foolish of you to think anyone would join a philosophy forum with such misinformed notions.

I’m on the side holding it’s possible to think without always having to conduct a monologue inside your head in order to do so.

Show me a single post where I said anything to the contrary, and I'll change my alias to TheFoolestPosterOnThisForum.

The fact that you are still trying to convince me of something I'm so tired of knowing I would never bring up implies you are lagging far behind in this dialogue.

Consider what has transpired; we have gone from agreeing that any arbitrary utterance can be assigned to a thought/feeling to something completely different; being able to express the meaning of that utterance. This is what you have been told isn’t always possible, but you bulldoze past it anyway.

I "bulldoze" it because it's so beside the point as to be unbelievable you keep bringing it up. What does the fact that you can't communicate an idea have to do with the relationship between thought and language?

If the only purpose of language is to communicate ideas, why is it that your are almost always conducting a monologue inside your head? What is the point of talking to yourself in your own mind, for hours on end, without ever uttering most words you think about?

The reason your argument fails is clear; it is a false view because we can and do think all we want

Yes, my argument is obviously false, and you can't understand why I can't see the obvious flaw in it. Whatever.

 

[hypnagogue]

Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

The balance of power lies not so much in thought vs. language, but in subjectivity vs. objectivity. As Dan said, experiences can't be straightforwardly transmitted between two minds. Therefore, if A uses some words to refer to experience E, and B has never experienced E, B has no point of reference for those words and so has no direct meaning to give them.

Thinking about masturbation doesn't induce an actually felt orgasm on the part of the thinker. But what it does do (for the experienced) is refer to memory of past experiences of actually felt orgasm, among other things. Consider a person (presumably a very religious person ) who has never masturbated or had an orgasm. This person has had no experiences relating to the relevant words, hence no point of experiential reference, hence impoverished understanding of the terms.

Basically, words are grounded in (refer to) experience. Experiences cannot be shared, but words can. Therefore, meaningful communication of experience can occur if words are communicated between two parties such that the words refer to the same experience for both parties. So the picture of person 1 communicating an experience E to person 2 looks something like this:

person 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxperson 2

wordsxxxxxx----->xxxwords
^xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxv
experience Exxxxxxxxxxexperience E

If person 2 has never experienced E before, then person 1's communication is meaningless, because there is no point of reference for his words that 2 can relate to. Thought, being completely internal, by definition always has experiential referents for its objects of thought. Since words can be externalized but thoughts cannot, there is always the possibility that the grounding experiential reference of words will be lost when they are shared between two parties.

 

[BoulderHead]

Let me cut to the chase;

Surely you can think about experience, but if you think about the experience in the abstract then you are using symbols, therefore you are using language. And for the life of me I can't conceive of how one would think about experiences without doing so in the abstract.

Ok, I think I see your argument.

Definitely not. You think language is a specific collection of symbols, such as the English language. I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.

You oversimplify my position but I do see now that you are really arguing the definition of language, so I’m glad I understand your position finally, even if I don’t necessarily agree it.

If you claim we can think about things for which there are no words in English, it would be foolish of me to dispute it.

There is no need to be so restrictive as to limit it to English (it isn’t my first language, nor is it the language I regularly “think” in). Still, I’m glad you agree that it would be foolish to dispute what can be inferred from that statement, because that seems to me exactly what you have been doing, although you deny it now.

But I also think it's foolish of you to think anyone would join a philosophy forum with such misinformed notions.

I can only argue the points I understand are being made. The author (in this case, you) shares some of the burden if their point is not being identified. Simply put, if you wanted to make the case you now appear to be making you should have been more clear about it.

The fact that you are still trying to convince me of something I'm so tired of knowing I would never bring up implies you are lagging far behind in this dialogue.

Interesting how my inability to clearly see your meaning through poorly written posts and not accepting your undefined terms as unshakable truths constitutes lagging. Especially so in light of the fact you almost never got around to explaining yourself.

I "bulldoze" it because it's so beside the point as to be unbelievable you keep bringing it up. What does the fact that you can't communicate an idea have to do with the relationship between thought and language?

I’ll give a hint; language implies communication, communication implies more than a single entity (person to person, person to computer, etc.). Next time try defining your terminology up front rather than expecting others to read your mind.

If the only purpose of language is to communicate ideas, why is it that your are almost always conducting a monologue inside your head? What is the point of talking to yourself in your own mind, for hours on end, without ever uttering most words you think about?

I never put a limit on language as having purpose only for communicating ideas to others. But neither have I been defining language in the way you appear to do, either.

Ok, I read your first post over where you said this;

"Language" is not a well-defined concept, so those kinds of questions are tricky….

You are correct, it is tricky. Seeing now how you choose to define language I submit you should have taken more effort to expound on terminology from the outset rather than expecting others to naturally hold a similar defintion to the one you accept.

Yes, my argument is obviously false, and you can't understand why I can't see the obvious flaw in it. Whatever.

To be honest, it’s been difficult to determine what you are actually arguing, but the reason for this has more to do with yourself than anyone else. You want to define language broadly at minutes to midnight but examination of your posts makes clear you were using a narrower (and more commonly understood) definition. Just look;

I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.

Here we can clearly see you discuss language in the same breath you tie it to spoken words, yet you turn around later and attempt a definition game.

In short, what I see you doing in these later posts is practicing artfulness. So you may doubt my intellect all you wish, but I have no good reason to believe you are either sincere, or much of a philosopher. This view is reinforced by your statement;

Don't help me! Let the fires of hell consume my soul; I'm happy that way.

Poignant.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

The feelings of masturbating are thoughts. Furthermore, after I am done, even though I cannot make myself ejaculate by memory (although perhaps someone else might be able to; I don't knw), I can remember the feeling, albeit not as vivid as when the masturbation actually occurred.

Nonsense. What does "assumption" mean in the absence of language? How can you make assumptions if you can't communicate them?

People make uncommunicated assuptions all the time. A good example is when people are scared. Consider the situation in which someone opens a door in order to walk through it, but someone is standing there in the doorway. The person who opened the door is scared, because he assumed that the doorwa would be clear.

 

[confutatis]

I can only argue the points I understand are being made. The author (in this case, you) shares some of the burden if their point is not being identified.

You're still playing the finger-pointing game. I gave you what you asked for, take it or leave it. I have nothing further to add.

 

[BoulderHead]

Isn't it really strange to watch all these people writing hundreds, thousands of words to try and make a point that words have nothing to do with thought?

What an asinine statement. It is such a complete and total Strawman that is only goes to show you do not have a clue what others are actually saying!

Word have plenty to do with thought, get a clue.

 

[BoulderHead]

You're still playing the finger-pointing game. I gave you what you asked for, take it or leave it. I have nothing further to add.

Yes, I'm only sorry it took 'til nearly the 60th post to get something meaningful out of you, namely;

I think language is far more than that; it is the mental process that gives meaning to a meaningless collection of symbols.

It would have cleared a lot up if you had said as much long ago, but you are right, you did give me what I asked for and so I am obliged to thank you for it. Still, if repeatedly pointing to things you have said is what it takes to get a sensible answer out of you then I'm glad I took the time and I'll not hesitate to do so again, if the need arises, either. When you equate the mental process to language and proclaim; we use language to think, then by definition you must be correct, interesting. Care to argue the definition of language with me?

[edited to present a kinder, gentler, BoulderHead]

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally Posted by confutatis
Of course not, but neither does thinking. If reading a description of masturbation doesn't convey the actual feeling, neither does thinking about it! Where exactly is the problem? Where is the fundamental difference between thought and language, that makes one more powerful than the other? Can you ejaculate by thinking about masturbation?

Yet another demonstration of brilliance; I suppose you never heard of nocturnal emission?

 

[confutatis]

The balance of power lies not so much in thought vs. language, but in subjectivity vs. objectivity. As Dan said, experiences can't be straightforwardly transmitted between two minds. Therefore, if A uses some words to refer to experience E, and B has never experienced E, B has no point of reference for those words and so has no direct meaning to give them.

In what way does that prevent me from giving a name to anything I can think of?

Consider a person who has never masturbated or had an orgasm. This person has had no experiences relating to the relevant words, hence no point of experiential reference, hence impoverished understanding of the terms.

But that is the opposite of what I'm talking about. If I have an experience that nobody else has, I can give it a name, and I can try to communicate what I mean by that name to other people. Moreover, I can think about an experience I never had based on my linguistic knowledge of it. For instance, I know a lot of stuff about "enlightenment" despite the fact that I never experienced it.

Basically, words are grounded in (refer to) experience.

In what experience is my understanding of the word "enlightened" grounded? You must acknowledge I know enough about "enlightenment" to know I never experienced it. Where did I get that knowledge? As for people who have experienced it, how did they know it was "enlightenment" if they have no way to know about it other than experiencing it?

Think about this: is it possible that all these people talking about "enlightenment" are actually talking about completely different things? I don't think that is possible, but your position implies it is.

Experiences cannot be shared, but words can.

If experiences cannot be shared, how come people talk about "sharing their experiences" all the time? When I traveled to Japan everyone wanted to know what it was like; should I have said "there's nothing I can tell you about Japan; you have to go there and experience it"? That is nonsense.

If person 2 has never experienced E before, then person 1's communication is meaningless, because there is no point of reference for his words that 2 can relate to.

I take it then that I cannot say I have never experienced "enlightenment", for I have no way to know what it is. Maybe I do experience it everytime I listen to rap music... how should I know? How could I ever know?

Thought, being completely internal, by definition always has experiential referents for its objects of thought.

What is the experiential referent of the word "infinite"?

Since words can be externalized but thoughts cannot, there is always the possibility that the grounding experiential reference of words will be lost when they are shared between two parties.

So how come people have no problem agreeing on what "infinite" means? How is it that they know they are "happy" or "desperate" when those words do not relate to anything objective?

---------------------------------------

I am surprised at the prejudice many people show against language. I can understand the fact that we care about experience far more than we care about language; that no amount of knowledge about a thing can possibly replace the sensation of experiencing that thing. But at the same time, I'm surprised some people think language somehow is unnecessary or irrelevant for who we are.

By the time a person finishes high-school, the vast majority of that person's knowledge comes from language. Through language a person learns about the ancient Romans, about distant galaxies, about quarks and leptons, Mozart and Bach, romanticism, philosophy... what an exciting array of opportunities is given to us by a mere collection of meaningless symbols! It's mind-boggling when you think about it.

So to all of you claiming language is less important, less powerful, less useful, less effective than experience, and that it is not required for thinking, I suggest you burn your books, throw away your library card, sell your computer, and go live life as you say it ought to be lived: by limiting your knowledge to what you can experience. The rest of us, we're content with this huge achievement called civilization, which is built upon nothing but an enormous arrangement of just 26 letters.

And here ends my ode to language. You may now go back to bashing it as a frill that is only useful, as a famous philosopher jested, to ask other people to pass the butter.

 

[hypnagogue]

In what experience is my understanding of the word "enlightened" grounded? You must acknowledge I know enough about "enlightenment" to know I never experienced it. Where did I get that knowledge? As for people who have experienced it, how did they know it was "enlightenment" if they have no way to know about it other than experiencing it?

You can achieve a tangential understanding of enlightenment by creating an image of it using the words that are used to describe it, by way of reference of your own experiential understanding of these words. The words hint at a composite of experiences, and you have experienced many of these things yourself even though you have never experienced enlightenment. I take it for granted that you have experienced things such as happiness and profound peace, and that you can construct at least a conceptual understanding of terms such as 'oneness.' In this way, whenever words such as happiness and peace arise in descriptions of the experience, you can piece together your own experiences of happiness and peace and so on to make an educated guess at the target experience being described, enlightenment.

For instance, if I hear a woman describing menstruation in terms of pains, cramps, mood swings and such, I can construct something of an empathic understanding of the experience of menstruation by relating it to my own experiences with pains, cramps, mood swings, and the like. At the same time, I would not expect my constructed understanding of this experience to give me the same level of understanding of it as a woman has. To achieve that, I would have to be a woman and experience it myself. This is ultimately due to the fuzzy nature of the reference of words. I know what a cramp is like, but do I know what a menstrual cramp is like? Moreover, do I know what a cramp is like when accompanied by mood swings and other subtle mental effects that may slip through the cracks of the somewhat coarse treatment afforded by language? I can certainly approach an understanding, but the precise nuances of such an experience are likely to elude me.

This is doubly true for one who is trying to understand altered states of consciousness that one has never experienced, such as enlightenment. In general, the more a described experience differs from the experiential reservoir of a person trying to comprehend it, the more difficulty that person will have in understanding it. For instance, a blind person can begin to approximate what it must be like to see by reference to his own experiential concepts of space, shape, and so on as achieved through perception of sound, touch, proprioception, etc. But clearly, since the nature of sound, touch, and and so on differ so radically from the experience of vision, the blind person's understanding will be a very impoverished one, certainly more impoverished than my understanding of what it is like to menstruate. A person who has never achieved altered states and tries to understand them through linguistic descriptions is more like a blind person trying to understand vision than a man trying to understand menstruation.

 

[BoulderHead]

I am surprised at the prejudice many people show against language. I can understand the fact that we care about experience far more than we care about language; that no amount of knowledge about a thing can possibly replace the sensation of experiencing that thing. But at the same time, I'm surprised some people think language somehow is unnecessary or irrelevant for who we are.

It isn’t a question of prejudice. I don’t think anyone here believes language is unnecessary or irrelevant either, that’s absurd. You continue to exaggerate the matter out of proportion.

By the time a person finishes high-school, the vast majority of that person's knowledge comes from language. Through language a person learns about the ancient Romans, about distant galaxies, about quarks and leptons, Mozart and Bach, romanticism, philosophy... what an exciting array of opportunities is given to us by a mere collection of meaningless symbols! It's mind-boggling when you think about it

Yes, it’s fantastic I agree, but this romanticism is really not germane.

So to all of you claiming language is less important, less powerful, less useful, less effective than experience, and that it is not required for thinking, I suggest you burn your books, throw away your library card, sell your computer, and go live life as you say it ought to be lived: by limiting your knowledge to what you can experience. The rest of us, we're content with this huge achievement called civilization, which is built upon nothing but an enormous arrangement of just 26 letters.

Such Drama! Perhaps 2/5 of what you charge has actually been claimed, and none of it meant in so negative a manner as you portray, so get a clue. Nobody is limiting their knowledge by disagreeing with you, so stop pretending you belong with civilization while others are better suited to the stone age.

And here ends my ode to language. You may now go back to bashing it as a frill that is only useful, as a famous philosopher jested, to ask other people to pass the butter.

Nobody was bashing language, not ever

 

[Rader]

"The missing word"

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

Hello Janitor, I believe the word you are looking for is flabbergasted. This is the word taught to me by my Dad when in a similar situation.