Is Language Useless in Philosophical Discussions?

[hypnagogue]

Well I'm glad you do not pretend to have solved the problem of other minds. Still, I'm not sure how one should read the following interchange without presuming that you think the problem has been solved:

Canute: Not right at all. There is no possible way of knowing whether someone else is conscious. We just assume it.

confutatis: This is a misconception. Believe me, I used to think the same way myself.

It has happened several other times in this thread where you retreat from a position implicated by the phrasings you have used. Nothing wrong with changing your position of course, and not to sound as if I'm lecturing, but if anything you should try to be more careful about what wordings you use.

 

[Fliption]

I have found myself getting confused as to exactly what it is we are disagreeing on. So in fairness to confutatis I did go back and re-read this entire thread so that I can put the current conversation back in the proper context. What I found is that the positions have shifted several times. The overall conclusion seems to have drifted. I actually think I do understand the examples and problems about words being discussed here. But my question remains "So what?". I can't connect these issues to any conclusion. Perhaps it is because the conclusion has shifted. We know that confutatis' view has changed on this since the thead started. It is likely that his view continues to evolve as we discuss it.

Confutatis, I would suggest taking a little more time to get your thoughts together and come back and present your view from start to finish. If you can do this in a logical way it would be very helpful. Start with assumptions and then one by one build on your arguments and then finally to a conclusion. None of this has been real clear to me. I do not feel that you have an agenda your trying to push (which is rare in these forums). I think you actually have a reasoned view and I would like to understand it. Once I understand the form of the argument I may still disagree but I don't know if I disagree with you right now because I'm not clear on exactly what the conclusion is and how it connects to any of the issues we've discussed.

It also doesn't help that you have been abandoned by the original proponents of this idea. I haven't seen them comment on whether what you are saying makes sense to them either.

 

[confutatis]

I don't think consciousness is the same thing. If you think it is then you can demonstrate it and I'll try to understand. But here's why I think it's different. The words "blue" and "enlightenment" are like this because they are assigned to subjective experiences. And since we cannot experience each other's subjective experiences then obviously there is a possibility that we aren't on the same page when we speak of blue and enlightenment. But consciousness is not assigned to a specific subjective experience. To be conscious is to have subjective experiences. It's not a question of a color gradient. It is yes or no. It is on or off.

What you are proposing above is a definition of consciousness. All I can say is that, if you define consciousness that way, then you will never be able to say anything at all about consciousness. So tell me, why should we define a thing in a way that prevents us from saying anything at all about that thing, other than tautological restatements of the definition?

If there is anything I am certain of, it is that I have experiences.

That is not true since you can't prove that you have experiences, not even to yourself. But I know everytime I say that, people interpret the opposite of what I actually mean. They think the impossibility of proving that one has experiences has tremendous philosophical consequences and implies a pessimistic, ugly "vision for humanity", as someone put it. All I can say is that it's a mistake to think that way.

Of course, your view can simply continue to ask this "how do I know" question about every word I continue to use, picking apart the fact that I have to use language to communicate to you but the fact is I know I have something that I will never find an explanation for in the current scientific paradigm.

Do not try to change the scientific paradigm, try to understand why any paradigm, scientific or otherwise, is irrelevant for the issue you have in mind.

Perhaps the counterpart begins in the unquestionable assumption "something exists"? We know this is true.

I don't know that "something exists". I only know that, if "something exists", then a lot of stuff can be said about "something", and a lot of stuff can be said about "exists". That's the best you can possibly get.

Stop trying to find the foundation of your knowledge because you won't find it and you don't need it.

The materialists started to ask the same sort of "dumb" questions in another thread and I eventaully left that one. Eventually it became obvious their agenda was dictating the dialogue and not their reasoning ability.

If that helps anything, I'm not a materialist. I'm something of a Catholic mystic, that's the best way I can put it. The only difference, perhaps, is that I don't think materialists are intellectually inferior to me. I'm sure we can learn from them just as they could learn from us.

There is nothing about your own existence that requires explanation to you. It sounds as if all problems have to be dictated to you by someone else. And of course you can always blame the language for those problems.

That is exactly the case. Notice how children are not bothered by those existential questions. Also, notice how most posters on this forum are male.

Have you ever tried to have these kinds of discussion with a woman? I'm always impressed as they so quickly write me off as a fool with nothing better to worry about. My wife is specially good at making me feel like an idiot.

Here's a good example for you. A materialist claims that nothing non-material can exists. When asked what being material means he says "having the abilty to exists". You don't even have to know what the words mean to be able to build a logical construct of this view and see that it assumes it's conclusion and is circular.

Actually, the main reason why you would build a logical construct of any view is if you don't understand what the words mean. Don't you think it's likely the materialists don't see the circularity in their view precisely because they see meaning to it which eludes you? That is, when they try to explain the rich ideas they have in their minds, all that gets to you are logical relationships between words. No wonder you don't like it, but that's only because you don't understand it.

There's another side to it. Instead of being circular, a certain view can be criticized for not being consistent, for implying contradictions. Even though the symptoms are different, the cause is exactly the same: the listener does not fully understand the meaning of the words, reduces everything to a chain of logical relationships, and finds missing links in the chain. Again, it's nothing but a problem of communication, it has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of a certain view.

If you knew everything the materialists know, you would agree with their views as much as they agree amongst themselves. Likewise, if materialists knew everything non-materialists know, they would agree with them. But more important, if everyone knew everything everyone else knows, we would never disagree, yet even then it would still be just a view.

Deep, eh?


(PS: I haven't read the last two posts by Fliption and Hypnagogue before I wrote this. I wish I had, but now it's too late, so I'll just leave these ideas for the record. Fliption is right, I did change my mind on a few things since the beginning. If I don't do that, people call me close-minded, if I do, people get confused. Oh well...)

 

[Fliption]

What you are proposing above is a definition of consciousness. All I can say is that, if you define consciousness that way, then you will never be able to say anything at all about consciousness. So tell me, why should we define a thing in a way that prevents us from saying anything at all about that thing, other than tautological restatements of the definition?

Please explain what you mean. You've just stated that it is tautological and that nothing can be said about it. But you haven't explained why.

That is not true since you can't prove that you have experiences, not even to yourself. But I know everytime I say that, people interpret the opposite of what I actually mean. They think the impossibility of proving that one has experiences has tremendous philosophical consequences and implies a pessimistic, ugly "vision for humanity", as someone put it. All I can say is that it's a mistake to think that way.

You will need to define what you think proof is. If I cannot know that I have experiences, then nothing can be known (or proven)and both terms become useless concepts. Which means this thread is a useless thread.

Do not try to change the scientific paradigm, try to understand why any paradigm, scientific or otherwise, is irrelevant for the issue you have in mind.

Too broad. Don't know what this means.

I don't know that "something exists". I only know that, if "something exists", then a lot of stuff can be said about "something", and a lot of stuff can be said about "exists". That's the best you can possibly get.

It's hard to argue against "something exists". No one else in this forum has ever bothered to try.

Stop trying to find the foundation of your knowledge because you won't find it and you don't need it.

I'm not looking for this foundation. I mentioned this because you insisted that there needed to be one. So who is looking for a foundation? I was only trying to show that you don't need to re-invent common sense to find the thing you're looking for.

If that helps anything, I'm not a materialist. I'm something of a Catholic mystic, that's the best way I can put it. The only difference, perhaps, is that I don't think materialists are intellectually inferior to me. I'm sure we can learn from them just as they could learn from us.

I don't believe I am intellectually superior to materialists. Far from it. But it has become obvious to me that my goals(to learn) in particpating in this forum is different from many of their goals.

That is exactly the case. Notice how children are not bothered by those existential questions. Also, notice how most posters on this forum are male.

Children also run out in the street without looking both ways. Does that imply that it is a worthless endeaver to look both ways? Children don't do the things they do because of a lack of language or conceptual ability. The lack of language abilties in children is present for the same reason they don't look both ways before crossing the street. Thought development produces the ability to do things like look both ways and use concepts. It isn't the other way around. You seem to be claiming that the ability to use concepts facilitates the ability to think about the concepts.

Have you ever tried to have these kinds of discussion with a woman? I'm always impressed as they so quickly write me off as a fool with nothing better to worry about. My wife is specially good at making me feel like an idiot.

Yes I have. I've also tried having these discussions with men as well. Honestly, most people give the same reaction. The reaction you mentioned is pretty standard. It's a lonely world for those of us tortured to understand.

Actually, the main reason why you would build a logical construct of any view is if you don't understand what the words mean. Don't you think it's likely the materialists don't see the circularity in their view precisely because they see meaning to it which eludes you? That is, when they try to explain the rich ideas they have in their minds, all that gets to you are logical relationships between words. No wonder you don't like it, but that's only because you don't understand it.

Well all that may be valid in some cases but in the case I mentioned, the materialists openly admitted it was circular and thought that materialism was the exception to logic because it was obviously the correct view. LOL! I understand your point about confusion and semantics but it's hard not to see the circularity in this case. No matter what planet your from.

There's another side to it. Instead of being circular, a certain view can be criticized for not being consistent, for implying contradictions. Even though the symptoms are different, the cause is exactly the same: the listener does not fully understand the meaning of the words, reduces everything to a chain of logical relationships, and finds missing links in the chain. Again, it's nothing but a problem of communication, it has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of a certain view.

If you knew everything the materialists know, you would agree with their views as much as they agree amongst themselves. Likewise, if materialists knew everything non-materialists know, they would agree with them. But more important, if everyone knew everything everyone else knows, we would never disagree, yet even then it would still be just a view.

Deep, eh?

You can't possibly know just how much I understand and agree with everything you've said above. If you were following me around in various discussions in PF you would see just how many times I have boiled a disagreement down to a problem of semantics. People think they are involved in a discussion of substance, but they are really just talking past one another due to semantic differences. I've said it so many times I'm sure some people are tired of reading it. As a matter of fact, you have only reinforced what my original point was. The only difference I think we have is that I do think that a productive conversation can be had. In some cases, the lack of logic is obvious (like in example above). I do not believe in this semantic anarchy you seem to be proposing.

Also,a side note. I understood the point of saying that If everyone knew everything we would all agree. But saying this seems deterministic and may leave something out that cannot be easily identified in a world where we do have semantic differences.

(PS: I haven't read the last two posts by Fliption and Hypnagogue before I wrote this. I wish I had, but now it's too late, so I'll just leave these ideas for the record. Fliption is right, I did change my mind on a few things since the beginning. If I don't do that, people call me close-minded, if I do, people get confused. Oh well...)

I think it's great to develop your view as you participate. If you are here to learn then that's what happens. It happens to me all the time. But since it can be confusing I try to acknowledge where I have shifted and why. Otherwise people will think the inconsistent statements are supposed to be consistent.

 

[confutatis]

Please explain what you mean. You've just stated that it is tautological and that nothing can be said about it. But you haven't explained why.

I was in the middle of a reply to this post, when I realized we are getting off topic. Even though you pose interesting questions, I've had trouble enough with what I consider one simple issue. I hope we can come back to those later, for now I need to get some stuff done.

What caught my attention on this thread was this comment, way back close to the beginning:

Even hypnagogue would have to admit that we could never describe “what it is like” to see the color blue. He believes that seeing blue is intrinsic and ineffable. This is why we holists view hypnagogue and those who side with him as mystics tilting at windmills.

When I read that I couldn't make much sense of it; now it makes perfect sense, and it was quite a thrill to discover why. And it's not difficult at all, it's almost trivial. Anyone who wants can easily understand it, but those who don't want to understand can't be forced to see it. They have to see it for themselves.

 

[Fliption]

What caught my attention on this thread was this comment, way back close to the beginning:

Even hypnagogue would have to admit that we could never describe “what it is like” to see the color blue. He believes that seeing blue is intrinsic and ineffable. This is why we holists view hypnagogue and those who side with him as mystics tilting at windmills.

When I read that I couldn't make much sense of it; now it makes perfect sense, and it was quite a thrill to discover why. And it's not difficult at all, it's almost trivial. Anyone who wants can easily understand it, but those who don't want to understand can't be forced to see it. They have to see it for themselves.

You realize that you can say this about anything don't you? I hope you aren't implying that anyone here doesn't want to understand. Because I think there has certainly been an effort to. It could be that what you are talking about is indeed so trivial, as you say, that not only do I understand it but I don't see it as the impacting revelation that you do. I won't have a chance to prove that to anyone because I can't be certain I understand the position. There are too many disconnected dots and, as you noted, remarks that are off topic. But I can't be certain what exactly is and what isn't on topic.

I actually do understand the quote you pulled out. I just don't think it's all that relevant to the philosphical issues of consciousness. The only thing mysterious about that quote is when he calls himself a holist. Now there's some semantic confusion!

 

[confutatis]

You realize that you can say this about anything don't you? I hope you aren't implying that anyone here doesn't want to understand.

No, I think it's rather that some people can't see any relevance to it. You even stated that in your reply.

It could be that what you are talking about is indeed so trivial, as you say, that not only do I understand it but I don't see it as the impacting revelation that you do.

That is because we have different interests. You seem to be trying to understand consciousness; I'm just trying to understand what the word 'consciousness' means. I can't understand a thing before I understand what the word used to represent the thing means, and I haven't reached that stage yet.

I actually do understand the quote you pulled out. I just don't think it's all that relevant to the philosphical issues of consciousness.

I consider it extremely relevant, since I can't understand what the philosophical issues of consciousness are before I understand what the word 'consciousness' means. But if you already know what the word means, then you really have nothing to learn.

However, I have a strong suspicion that nobody really understands what the word means. That would explain my difficulty figuring it out for myself.

The only thing mysterious about that quote is when he calls himself a holist. Now there's some semantic confusion!

I suppose he doesn't fully understand what 'consciousness' means. I can sympathize with that.

 

[Canute]

“The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. When can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him? “

Chuang Tsu.

 

[Fliption]

But if you already know what the word means, then you really have nothing to learn.

As I said before. I don't care what anyone else means by the word consciousness. All that matters is that I know I have a very specific trait that I am calling consciousness. In my attempt to understand how such a feature can come from a box full of rocks, I have stumbled on all the philosophical evidence that suggest it indeed does not originate from a box full of rocks. The box needs more ingredients. It is not necessary for me to communicate with anyone to go through this process.

I just don't understand it when someone claims that they don't know what consciousness is. All you're saying is that you don't know what other people mean when they use the word. But I can't believe that you have no problem explaining every feature of your existence with known scientific principles. Forget about calling it consciousness. Forget about attaching any word to it. Can you scientifically explain every feature of your existence? To say you don't know which feature of your own existence we are referring to when we talk of all the philosophical issues, leads me to believe you are either being difficult or you are a zombie.

Read Canute's last post carefully. It is a very important message. So many people get lost in their egocentric, linguistic world that they need to hear that quote over and over. People participating in philosophy especially are at risk of losing the forest for all the trees.

 

[confutatis]

As I said before. I don't care what anyone else means by the word consciousness.

So many people get lost in their egocentric, linguistic world ...

Wait a minute! Who's being egocentric here? How can I decide to attach some private meaning to a word, disregard what other people think of my decision, and then not see myself as egocentric?

We are really looking at the same problem from opposite angles.

All that matters is that I know I have a very specific trait that I am calling consciousness.

Whatever that specific trait is, nobody cares what you say about it if you don't care to express your ideas in terms that other people can understand. If you're just talking to yourself, why should anyone listen?

I just don't understand it when someone claims that they don't know what consciousness is. All you're saying is that you don't know what other people mean when they use the word.

What is the difference? Do you understand what supercalifragialisticexpialiadocious is? If you don't care what anyone else means by the word supercalifragialisticexpialiadocious how can you understand anything about it?

People participating in philosophy especially are at risk of losing the forest for all the trees.

Nobody can see a forest if they can't see the trees. First you must understand what a word means, then you can find out what is true about it. Canute's quote is right, once you grasp the meaning you can do away with words. But not before.

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

I will start another thread called The Problem of Other Minds. It will hopefully help elucidate my main point.

 

[Fliption]

Wait a minute! Who's being egocentric here? How can I decide to attach some private meaning to a word, disregard what other people think of my decision, and then not see myself as egocentric?

Egocentric does not mean "only concerning the self". It's meaning implies that you are leaving out relevant points because they aren't on your radar screen due to being self focused or dwelling only on you're own experiences. If there is nothing beyond yourself that is relevant then it isn't egocentric to only focus on those relevant things. This is my point. What someone else thinks a word means isn't relevant to establishe the existence of distinctions and issues about those distinctions.

But this view of yours I think is egocentric because language is the way you now distinguish your experiences. You cannot think about anything without thinking about words. But it could have been very different. An egocentric view naturally thinks it's own experience is the only possible way for things to be. Resulting in this view of semantic problems being the root of all evil.

Whatever that specific trait is, nobody cares what you say about it if you don't care to express your ideas in terms that other people can understand. If you're just talking to yourself, why should anyone listen?

You aren't following me. I'm not suggesting that communication isn't important. What I am trying to do is show that you don't need communication to establish the existence and issues of some feature of your existence. Call this feature whatever you want for now. Of course, if we then want to communicate about this thing, we now have all the semantic issues you are bringing up. But you can't then use these semantic issues to suggest that there is no philosophical problem to begin with other than the communication /semantic issues. I am trying to show that the problem is not semantic because you don't need anyone else to establish that you have features of your existence that you cannot find a scientific explanation for.

What is the difference? Do you understand what supercalifragialisticexpialiadocious is? If you don't care what anyone else means by the word supercalifragialisticexpialiadocious how can you understand anything about it?

You are really confusing yourself with words. There is way too much emphasis on them.

Nobody can see a forest if they can't see the trees. First you must understand what a word means, then you can find out what is true about it. Canute's quote is right, once you grasp the meaning you can do away with words. But not before.

It is true a forest is made up of trees. But concepts and problems are not made up of words. Words are labels we attach to distinctions that have developed through experience, for the purposes of communication. You have meaning first, THEN you attach a word to it.

 

[confutatis]

Egocentric does not mean "only concerning the self". It's meaning implies that you are leaving out relevant points because they aren't on your radar screen due to being self focused or dwelling only on you're own experiences. If there is nothing beyond yourself that is relevant then it isn't egocentric to only focus on those relevant things. This is my point. What someone else thinks a word means isn't relevant to establishe the existence of distinctions and issues about those distinctions.

If definitions are not important, why are you trying to define "egocentric"? Why not accept that "you are egocentric" is true from my perspective, because I don't care what anyone else thinks "egocentric" means?

But this view of yours I think is egocentric because language is the way you now distinguish your experiences.

You may well be right, but I am not sure. Since I already understand this view of mine, I can only say for sure if it's egocentric if I understand what you mean by egocentric. Because, from my personal understanding, it's not egocentric at all.

You cannot think about anything without thinking about words.

I can think about a lot of things, but I can only understand relationships, between words or anything else. Something that does not relate to something else lies beyond my ability to understand. But I don't have words for those things, for if I did I would know a relationship. So I can't talk about them, and neither can anyone else.

But it could have been very different. An egocentric view naturally thinks it's own experience is the only possible way for things to be. Resulting in this view of semantic problems being the root of all evil.

I find it really amusing when people start seeing things in my statements which simply are not there. I'm not proposing a worldview, and I certainly don't understand what the root of all evil is. To the best of my knowledge, it all comes from the devil, who is an inferior being who considers himself the equal of God. But don't ask me to explain that.

What I am trying to do is show that you don't need communication to establish the existence and issues of some feature of your existence. Call this feature whatever you want for now. Of course, if we then want to communicate about this thing, we now have all the semantic issues you are bringing up. But you can't then use these semantic issues to suggest that there is no philosophical problem to begin with other than the communication /semantic issues. I am trying to show that the problem is not semantic because you don't need anyone else to establish that you have features of your existence that you cannot find a scientific explanation for.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain myself better. I have tried and failed. All I can say is that the comment above is a huge misinterpretation of what I said.

Hopefully the new thread will improve things.

 

[Fliption]

If definitions are not important, why are you trying to define "egocentric"? Why not accept that "you are egocentric" is true from my perspective, because I don't care what anyone else thinks "egocentric" means?

We have acknowledged and discussed all the problems with language. To follow this thinking to an extreme, we could say that language is pretty much useless. But in order for us to have this discussion we have to make an assumption not to go to that extreme. Otherwise there is no need for us to even have this discussion. You let me know what you want to do.

Because, from my personal understanding, it's not egocentric at all.

I'm pretty sure my cat would disagree. Because he doesn't know a single word and yet it is reasonable to assume that he isn't a zombie cat.

I can think about a lot of things, but I can only understand relationships, between words or anything else. Something that does not relate to something else lies beyond my ability to understand. But I don't have words for those things, for if I did I would know a relationship. So I can't talk about them, and neither can anyone else.

Not sure how this is relevant. All I'm saying is that you and I don't have to understand a word to be the same thing in order for us to legitimately experience the things we do.

I find it really amusing when people start seeing things in my statements which simply are not there. I'm not proposing a worldview, and I certainly don't understand what the root of all evil is. To the best of my knowledge, it all comes from the devil, who is an inferior being who considers himself the equal of God. But don't ask me to explain that.

Root of all evil is just an expression. In a previous thread, you clearly claimed that all the issues of consciousness were semantic. So my claim that you are blaming semantics for all the philsophical issues of consciousness is not so far off.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain myself better. I have tried and failed. All I can say is that the comment above is a huge misinterpretation of what I said.

Hopefully the new thread will improve things.

I will concede that I may not be clear on what your conclusion is. The reasons for that have already been stated. Also, I've read your new thread. I haven't responded because I don't know how to respond. I'm not sure how it relates to this.

 

[confutatis]

To follow this thinking to an extreme, we could say that language is pretty much useless.

Langauge is not useless! Whenever I go to McDonald's and ask for a Big Mac, small fries, and a Coke, I get exactly what I ask. Philosophical problems notwithstanding.

But in order for us to have this discussion we have to make an assumption not to go to that extreme. Otherwise there is no need for us to even have this discussion. You let me know what you want to do.

I want you to try to answer the challenge I posed on the other thread.

I've read your new thread. I haven't responded because I don't know how to respond. I'm not sure how it relates to this.

I've said too much on this thread and I'm not sure everything is true, but I'm sure a small portion of it is absolutely correct. If you understand that small portion then we can discusss what follows from it and what doesn't.

Do you at least understand the argument? I think it's pretty logical, and to me it implies that the position that it is not possible to know if other people have visual experiences cannot be defended. You may find that trivial, but I don't think so.

 

[Fliption]

Langauge is not useless! Whenever I go to McDonald's and ask for a Big Mac, small fries, and a Coke, I get exactly what I ask. Philosophical problems notwithstanding.

But we aren't ordering dinner here. We're talking philosophy. So either it is worth talking about or it isn't.

Do you at least understand the argument? I think it's pretty logical, and to me it implies that the position that it is not possible to know if other people have visual experiences cannot be defended. You may find that trivial, but I don't think so.

Yes, I understand it. But what does it have to do with language? I'm more interested in what your conclusion is. (I no longer think it resembles anything that this thread started out talking about, btw.) That other thread doesn't lay out the main point or conclusion. It's just asking a leading hypothetical question. I'm usually careful about jumping into things like that because I can't keep my answer from be used out of context to contnue the argument. But I will try to participate.