What Is a Question? Exploring the Answer

[Langbein]

One day I was sitting down to write a series of interesting questions, and then to try to find answers to them, this could be interesting questions like "what is time", "what is existence", etc, etc.

But then suddenly one really basic question struck me: "What is a question ?" I can find a lot of excamples of questions, I can ask them, and out of that I can also generate series of answers.

But if I ask: "What is a question", I have to admit: I don't know - I can make a lot of questions, but I'm not able to explain what a question is. As I don't know what a question is I also don't know what an answer is, exept for that it might be something like the opposite of a question ?

How can that be - I can ask questions and questions, without knowing what a question is, and I can make answers and answers, without knowing what a answer is ?

In this way, I can ask questions and questions, and I can get answers and answers, but I will not be any smarter, as I really don't know what a question or an answer is.

Anybody that can help me - "What is a question", and "What is an answer" ??

This is a website about questions and answers - is it not ?

 

[neutrino]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=question

 

[DaveC426913]

A question is a form of communication that contains an expression (possibly implicit) of the desire for someone else to provide infrmation directly relevant to the subjects mentioned.

I believe there are only three (?) types of speech:
- the statement (I say this for all to hear. Period.)
- the command (I say this with the expectation that you will act on it)
- the interrogative (I state this with the expectation that it will be addressed by a statement from someone else)

An answer is a statement that directly addresses the issues in a posed question (if there was no question preceding it, then it is not an answer; it is simply a statement.)

 

[loseyourname]

There's a fourth type of speech: performative. Take, for example, the swearing in of a president at his inaugaration, which actually makes him the president. Sometimes exclamatory language is considered a separate type of speech as well, like saying "crap" when you hit your shin against the coffee table.

 

[honestrosewater]

I feel obliged to try to introduce you to the wonderful world of linguistics. http://www.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsAQuestion.htm" .

Are any of the explanations in this thread satisfactory? What would a satisfactory explanation need to include?

 

[DaveC426913]

There's a fourth type of speech: performative. Take, for example, the swearing in of a president at his inaugaration, which actually makes him the president.

I suppose, though to me that seems subsumed by the 'statement' type.

eg. "I will do this thing."

 

[honestrosewater]

I suppose, though to me that seems subsumed by the 'statement' type.

eg. "I will do this thing."

Do you see a difference between, say, giving birth and claiming to give birth? A performative (or an utterance with a http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsADeclarativeIllocutionar.htm" ) merely claims that its propositional content is true. So, for one thing, the propositional content of the latter can be false, whereas that of the former cannot.

But everyone is of course free to split things up however they want to.

 

[Langbein]

Thanks for interesting answers ! (Even though I don't know precisely what an answer is.)

The problems of asking questions (Even though I don't know precisely what a question is.) is that "answers" very often leads to new questions.

After asking only one question it is rather easy to come up with ten new questions from the answer.

What I woild like to know is an answer that contains as few as possible new questions, something like "the final answer" that does not contain just new questions.

I like the answer of DaveC426913 because it is rather short and precise, and I short it down even a bit more, hopefully without loosing the central meaning.

Question: "What is a question ?"
Answer: "A question is an expression of the desire to obtain information relevant to a subject."

Qestion: "What is a answer ?"
Answer: "An answer is a statement that addresses the issues in a question".

Is this still right ?

I think that these answers leaves out just a few new questions:
"What is an expression ?", "What is desire ?", ""What will it mean to obtain ?", "What is information ?", "What wil it mean to be relevant" and "What is a subject" ?

One other question is that "Does questions in general neccesarly need to contain words ?" (.. and what is then a "word")

If you come home one day and you meet the cat, you can see that the cat is running to its food provision and signalling quite clearly "I am hungry, please give me some food", is this a question ?

If I send som food to the cat according to the request is it then an "answer" ? (Where are the words, where are the lingvistics and where are the statement ?)

If my dog goes out in the hall, finding the equioment we normally will be using for a walk, taking this equipment in it's mouth and showing it to me, while waving it's tail, and looking at me in the meaning "should we go out for a walk ?", is it then a question ?

If I answer with words that the dog are able to understand "Yes, let's go for a walk", the dog shows wery clearly that it is happy, does the dog understand my answer as an "answer" ?

If the dog is showing the equipment for making a walk, while waving its tail, does it: "express the desire to obtain information" ?

When the dog receives information: "Let's go out for a walk", and it understands this information, has it then got an "answer" ?

Will the definition be valid: "An answer is a statement that addresses the issues in a question". Yes/No ?

What about the cat, you just give it the food as an response to the cats first request. Is this an answer ? Did the cat ask the question about having some food ?

May be the anwer to what an answer it could be adjusted to catch up with the cat situation:

Answer: "An answer is INFORMATION that addresses the issues in a question".
If the request for food is an question, then the information "yes there is food om my plate" might be an anwer (?)

One other interesting question: When humans make questions to each other, do they allways use "words" ?

And the other: When humans make questions and answers to each other, do they allways use words ?

And the in the end I think it is wery interesting to take a look at the simplified definition again .. :

"A question is an expression of the desire .."
A question is allways connected to "desire" ? - No "disere", no questions - is it like that ? Does it work the other way: "If there is desire, there will allways be questions" ? Why not ?

And then one interesting one: "what really is desire ?" and "Why does anybody have desire ?" - What is the reason for this ?

I started up with a simple question "What is a question", and I still don't know.

And then there is this other interesting question "What is desire" as the answer to the first question about question seems to be dependent of the answer about desire.

Can a dog ask questions ?

And .. How can I ask questions without really knowing what a question is ?

 

[Mk]

Qestion: "What is a answer ?"
Answer: "An answer is a statement that addresses the issues in a question".

So does an answer necessarily have to have a partnered question?

One other question is that "Does questions in general neccesarly need to contain words ?" (.. and what is then a "word")

No. One can form questions for oneself mentally without using "words," or a sequence of changes in frequency, volume, and amplitude generated by human vocal cords that represent an idea or part of an idea. Written words are symbols used to indicate words. Spoken language came before written.

If you come home one day and you meet the cat, you can see that the cat is running to its food provision and signalling quite clearly "I am hungry, please give me some food", is this a question ?

That's not a question, because if a human said "Please give me some food," it isn't. That is a polite command, is it not?

If my dog goes out in the hall, finding the equioment we normally will be using for a walk, taking this equipment in it's mouth and showing it to me, while waving it's tail, and looking at me in the meaning "should we go out for a walk ?", is it then a question ?

Perhaps it is not a question but also a request. The dog is not asking you if you want to take it for a walk, the dog wishes for itself to be walked. Perhaps "take me for a walk" can be phrased as "Will you take me for a walk?" But that's adding "Will you" as if the original were "take me for a walk, will you [take me for a walk]?" "Will you please take me for a walk?" is specifically asking the question of if in the [near] future "you will take me for a walk." However, due to manners and politeness, this actually has turned into a request, instead of a question.

If I answer with words that the dog are able to understand "Yes, let's go for a walk", the dog shows wery clearly that it is happy, does the dog understand my answer as an "answer" ?

It does not understand your words as a human would. I think the specificity is lost, but it may recognize, remember or associate your sounds and movements? This particular subject seems very susceptible to false positive.

One other interesting question: When humans make questions to each other, do they allways use "words" ?

No! Have you ever tried to ask somebody who cannot speak your language how to say something in their own language? Body movements and facial expressions are used.

And the other: When humans make questions and answers to each other, do they allways use words ?

Words are the most efficient and convenient way I think humans have produced for communication, be it be orders, statements, or questions.

And then there is this other interesting question "What is desire" as the answer to the first question about question seems to be dependent of the answer about desire.

Hm. Right. "Desire is the want for something" can be said that "Desire is the desire for something." We could go the opposite way instead of going from the bottom up to working backwards? Desire can be a lot of things though:

Desire as an interpersonal attraction (lust, particularly)
Desire as a preference in activities or goods and services
Desire as a motivation, a thought that leads to an action (or inaction, as in desiring not to do something which could also be seen as actively not doing), or at least creates a desire for action (or inaction).

Can a dog ask questions ?

Does a dog have the capacity to ask questions? We may never know what a dog is actually thinking (or not being able to think) or emotionally feeling (or not being able to feel emotions). I think people are very susceptible to extra anthropomorphization.

 

[honestrosewater]

I would call the animal communications that you mention directives rather than questions. They are trying to get you to do something. (Edit: Oh, haha, actually, questions, as I would like to define them, are directives. Some were calling questions interrogatives. I'm thinking in two different terminology sets and mixing form with point. Woops.) You might call them questions, but a question normally requests specifically that information be supplied rather than requesting any kind of action whatsoever, e.g., giving food or taking for a walk. Also, the point of an utterance doesn't tell you the form that it might take.

I don't see why there needs to be any desire. I can write a program that generates English sentences from a set of phrases and a set of rules. I can select these somewhat randomly, at least without giving any forethought to what the results will be. Some of the generated sentences could be interpreted by you as questions. There is no desire there, unless you count your possible perception of some desire. It seems to me that a question can be simply a prompt for an answer. (Note that you could also misinterpret something as a question that was not meant to be one. Where is the desire there?)

No, humans don't have to use a language (meaning a natural language like English) to communicate their questions. They, along with animals, can use any type of communication system, which I imagine you would regard as a http://www.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/semiolog.htm" .

As for your regressive definition-seeking, that is just how definitions usually work. You define some words in terms of other words. I think your issue there is with definitions, not with questions per se.

If you want to start with nothing and end up with a final answer, I suggest that you look into math.

 

[Langbein]

This is really an ineterresting one:

"I don't see why there needs to be any desire. I can write a program that generates English sentences from a set of phrases and a set of rules. I can select these somewhat randomly, at least without giving any forethought to what the results will be. Some of the generated sentences could be interpreted by you as questions."

If you reade a "question" more or less randomly in a book that is not written to you particularly, or someone you know is asking you something, is this the same ?

I think it is two completely different things. May be I would relate more the content and the meaning of the question as an intrument for communicating against me, more, than the sequence of words, grammar, spelling, etc.

Maybe it is right to distinguish between the words that build up a sentence as more or less "physical buliding blocs" and the content and meaning that is carried via theese "physical building blocs".

From my point of wiev I think I wold rather relate the meaning and content of a question and the more or less meaningsfull information that is carried in it as the central part of that sentence, rather than the sequence of words.

As I would see it a question that is a question can not be asked whitout some desire, without loosing its function as a question.

Then there is this interesting question: Can a question exist as a question, without the meaning and function as a question, just to be a linguistic sequence of words ?

I think I would say "no", this might be a question from a linguistic point of wiev, but it is not a question from a comunicative, or a philosofical point of wiev. It just just look like a question, but it does not carry out the function of a question.

Computers migt be able to gather information, but I believe, but they can not ask questions.

As I would tend to se it: "A question is an expression of the desire to obtain information relevant to a subject."

.. and .. no desire .. no question at all, even though the sequence of words still might be there.

As I would se it: A "question" is more related to the meaning and the function as a question than the "technical linguistical part of it".

As I would see it: The language does not have any meaning by itself allone.

The function of the language is capability to comunicate meaningfull information and meaningfull contexts.

.. But that is just as I would see it.

 

[honestrosewater]

Maybe it is right to distinguish between the words that build up a sentence as more or less "physical buliding blocs" and the content and meaning that is carried via theese "physical building blocs".

Sure, that was not an original idea of mine. The form of the message and what you interpret the message to mean are separate things.

From my point of wiev I think I wold rather relate the meaning and content of a question and the more or less meaningsfull information that is carried in it as the central part of that sentence, rather than the sequence of words.

What difference does it make whether the sentence was put together by a human computer or a non-human computer? I just thought it might let me avoid what I'm about to say now. I can say words that I believe you will interpret as a question, and I can do so without experiencing any desire for the question to be answered. See: Is Paris the capital of France?

Then there is this interesting question: Can a question exist as a question, without the meaning and function as a question, just to be a linguistic sequence of words ?

I think I would say "no", this might be a question from a linguistic point of wiev, but it is not a question from a comunicative, or a philosofical point of wiev. It just just look like a question, but it does not carry out the function of a question.

What does "linguistic" mean to you? To me, it means something related to language, or it might possibly refer to linguistics, the field that studies human language, which includes the study of semantics and pragmatics. Either way, it includes meaning. Perhaps you mean it to mean "syntactic"?

If you define "question" to mean a certain syntactic form, then yes, "question" can refer to just a certain syntactic form.

As I would tend to se it: "A question is an expression of the desire to obtain information relevant to a subject."

I don't see why you would drag experience into this. How are you even to know whether the asker of the question has experienced a given emotion or has had any experience at all? And why is it relevant? If you are instead interested in the emotion or conscious experience, why bring questions into it?

Actually, let me back up a second. It seems that you have two meanings of "question" here. One takes a question to be an object of some language, and the other takes a question to be an object of conscious experience (or thought or whatever).

It doesn't seem that you are actually interested in considering a question to be a linguistic object and distinguishing the syntactic part from the semantic part. I think you instead want to consider a question to be an object of conscious experience, in which case, the whole trip into language was just a wrong turn.

As I would see it: The language does not have any meaning by itself allone.

The meaning is usually considered to be part of the language.

 

[Langbein]

"What does "linguistic" mean to you? "

I don't know exactly, I must admit.

As i can se from som web based dictionaries, they don't now etiher.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linguistic

"The meaning is part of the language."

If more or less perfect language is generated by a machine, a computer or something, is it then meaningsfull ?

If I type into the machine "How do I grow coconuts" and the machine then give me an answer how to grow coconuts, is this a meaningsfull information from the machine to me as his friend ?

What if the machine generates sentences randomly like this: In Lonodon they grows the most delicious coconuts, that should allways be eaten with umberella and suggar on. Is it language ? Does it have a meaning ?

"What difference does it make whether the sentence was put together by a human computer or a non-human computer ?"

But does a human work like a computer at all ? Does it exist such a thing like a "human computer" ?

Is there any reason to believe that computers and humans ar building or generating sentences the same way ?

What is the argument for believing this ?

By the way, the word lingustic, as I would understand it, has something to do with "the rules" how sentences are buildt and expressed, and not particularly with the more meaningfull content carried in it.

As I will se it "linguistic" will have to do with more with "the technical protocol" that makes communications possible more than the more or less meaningsfull content that is transferred via this "protocol".

As I will tend to see it the language does not neccessaly contain a meaningfull content or communication, it's more like a high level protocol that makes communication possible.

 

[honestrosewater]

"What does "linguistic" mean to you? "

I don't know exactly, I must admit.

As i can se from som web based dictionaries, they don't now etiher.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linguistic

That link gives the same two definitions that I gave.

"The meaning is part of the language."

If more or less perfect language is generated by a machine, a computer or something, is it then meaningsfull ?

What is "perfect language"?

If I type into the machine "How do I grow coconuts" and the machine then give me an answer how to grow coconuts, is this a meaningsfull information from the machine to me as his friend ?

What if the machine generates sentences randomly like this: In Lonodon they grows the most delicious coconuts, that should allways be eaten with umberella and suggar on. Is it language ? Does it have a meaning ?

It sounds like you are still mixing up conscious experience with semantics. Granted, you are free to use your own personal meanings of these words and analyze things the way that you want to. But people have already defined these words and considered what language and consciousness are, and I have no interest in ignoring their work.

"What difference does it make whether the sentence was put together by a human computer or a non-human computer ?"

But does a human work like a computer at all ? Does it exist such a thing like a "human computer" ?

Is there any reason to believe that computers and humans ar building or generating sentences the same way ?

What is the argument for believing this ?

How are these questions relevant? That was my question: what difference does it make?

You don't have direct access to my experiences, do you? All you get are the physical forms. What difference does it make to your interpretation whether or not I was experiencing some desire when I asked the question? Does your identification of some utterance as a question depend on your knowledge of the experiences of the asker? I seriously doubt that it does. In fact, I can't imagine how it could. You have to make assumptions either way.

By the way, the word lingustic, as I would understand it, has something to do with "the rules" how sentences are buildt and expressed, and not particularly with the more meaningfull content carried in it.

As I suggested earlier, I think you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax" .

As I will se it "linguistic" will have to do with more with "the technical protocol" that makes communications possible more than the more or less meaningsfull content that is transferred via this "protocol".

As I will tend to see it the language does not neccessaly contain a meaningfull content or communication, it's more like a high level protocol that makes communication possible.

Why do you think meaning is transferred with the forms? Why don't you think it is mapped to and from the forms before and after transmission, by the speaker and hearer, respectively?

Also, do you seriously not think of meaning as being part of language (and other sign systems)? In what contexts outside of language do you encounter or deal with meaning?

 

[honestrosewater]

Wait, I have an idea. I will make two utterances below. I desire an answer for exactly one of them, so according to you, only one of them will be a question, yes? Your job is to identify the question.

1) Is this the question?
2) Is this the question?

 

[Langbein]

Answer to tha last one.

From a comunitative way of looking at things, the two sentences pluss the the two alternatives, all together forms a question about identifying questions.

 

[honestrosewater]

Answer to tha last one.

From a comunitative way of looking at things, the two sentences pluss the the two alternatives, all together forms a question about identifying questions.

Hahaha... so... does that mean that you give up?

The point is that a speaker does not communicate their desire to a hearer simply by experiencing the desire. Or that is not how language works, anyway (perhaps you want ESP or something). The speaker communicates the desire by selecting the appropriate form.

 

[Langbein]

No, not giving up at all, but the adsl line was hanging for a while. The last one got a misspelling but it's ok.

Give up what ? No I think that the responce about "what is a question" is fantastic :-)

By the way you have some very interresting arguments somwhere above that I have not comletely looked into .. Will do ..

 

[Langbein]

From somwhere above:

"I can say words that I believe you will interpret as a question, and I can do so without experiencing any desire for the question to be answered. See: Is Paris the capital of France?"

No, I will not call that a question at all. I would rather call it an explanation.

"Is Paris the capital of France ?" is written as a questions, but from the context it is to be understood that the fuction of this sentence is to be understood as part of an explanation.

From a linguistic point of view I guess it will be right to call it a question, but from a comunicative way of looking at it it is not a question.

To say it like this: It is a question without the meaning or the function of a question.

One can also say the from the linguistcal or semantical way of looking at things, this is a question. From a comunative way of looking at the same situation it is not a question.

So the question "Is Paris the capital of France ?" is a question and it is not a question.

In this case it is not a question of "to be or not to be" but rather about "to be and to be."

At first sight it might look like the two conditions "to be a question" and "not to be a question" contradicts each other.

As I will se it, it this not the case. "to be a question" and "not to be a question" does not contradict each other, they are just complemtary conditions, that exist relative to standards or those definisions that you use as an reference.

 

[Langbein]

"From a linguistic point of view I guess it will be right to call it a question"

(Is Paris the capital of France ?)

Do you agree that speaking about semantics this is a question and that the meaning of the question ralated to the semantics as a refference is about the capial in France while comunicated meaning from the context is something completely different ?

So in this case the word "meaning" related to semantics means something like the opposite of the real and true meaning.

 

[Langbein]

From somewhere above:

"It sounds like you are still mixing up conscious experience with semantics. Granted, you are free to use your own personal meanings of these words and analyze things the way that you want to. But people have already defined these words and considered what language and consciousness are, and I have no interest in ignoring their work."

Have I ?

But who are those persons that has set up some definitions ? What are the definitions about ?

Are thos definitions private in some way, as an example related to one specifik kind of scinece or is it a question about genreral definitions that anybody will use and understand ?

A link to some of those definitions ?

 

[Langbein]

Could it be situations where one question is asked to different people, from different jobs and different possitions and different cultures in such a way, that the content of meaning that it communicated is different for person to those persons that receives this question ?

But the linguistic content wil be the same as the words are identical - is this correct ?

 

[Mk]

Wait, I have an idea. I will make two utterances below. I desire an answer for exactly one of them, so according to you, only one of them will be a question, yes? Your job is to identify the question.

1) Is this the question?
2) Is this the question?

What? When did I miss the reason for which I am allowed only answer one?

 

[Evo]

The sentence "Is Paris the capital of France? is a question, it can only be a question as it is written.

The sentence "Paris is the capital of France" can be a statement or can be made into a question by placing a question mark at the end "Paris is the capital of France?".

If you ask a question, but don't expect an answer, it would be a rhetorical question, but still a question.

 

[Langbein]

Yes, I think this one is a rather interresting one.

If I say something like - This is not a question it is just a sequense of words that look like a question, because I already know the answer, and I don't want the answer:

"Is Paris the capital of France"

I would say: No this is not a question, it is just a sequence of words that demonstrates a sentence that could have ben a questions if it had been asked as a question and not expressed as a sentence that just looks like a question, without beeing a question.

Is this then my own private definition ? Is there some general definition that says something like "All sentences has to be understood by themself isolated and allone" and "no sentences can be understood from a meaningfull context".

What authority is it eventually that authorice the meaningless to be meaningfull in this way ?

For me a question has to have the function as a question to be a question.

To have the function as a question there will need to be some desire of getting an answer behind this sequence of words.

If a sequence of words is formulated as a question without this desire of obtaining an answer, this sequence of words is not a question.

Can it be argued form any definitions, some authoroties, or some way else that this is "incorrect".

An excample: Let's say today its monday. I know it is monday, so a sequence of words formulated as a question asking for the day of week will not be a question. It will just be an demonstration of a seqence of words that could have been a question, if I had wonted to ask that question, and if I did not know the answer. Here it comes: "What day is it today ?"

Did I ask a question, as long as I clame that I did not ? I would say no because from the context I can see it is not a question, it is just a sequence of words, with some other meaning.

Is there any good arguments against this point of view ?

 

[Evo]

I found HRW's original post. She posted the sentence "See: Is Paris the capital of France?". The confusion would be in the punctuation, she wrote -

See: Is Paris the capital of France?

That is not a correct sentence as it is written. Reading it, I know immediately it is not a question. Hearing it, I would have to rely on inflection to determine if it is a question or a declarative statement. We cannot forget the importance of context. If someone were to blurt that out without being asked for the information, I would consider them a bit daft. If that were an actual single sentence, it should have had a period after the question mark because the question mark is part of the title you are being referred to, it is not the ending punctuation mark. Of course, you could make it into a question - See: Is Paris the capital of France?? It looks really wrong because it's not a complete sentence. HRW could actually explain it since she is much more knowledgeable in grammar.

It's apparent that English is not your first language and seems to be causing confusion with what you are posting.

 

[Langbein]

The sentence was this:

"What difference does it make whether the sentence was put together by a human computer or a non-human computer? I just thought it might let me avoid what I'm about to say now. I can say words that I believe you will interpret as a question, and I can do so without experiencing any desire for the question to be answered. See: Is Paris the capital of France?"

Its about a sentence that is formulated as a question and that is not ment to have the function as a question, isn't it ?

"Is Paris the capital of France ?" From this context it is possible to see that this sentence is not ment to have the function of a question ? Right ?

As I will see it a sentence that has the form of a question, but that is not ment to do or perform the function of a question is not a question.

Also this other part of this statement above is rather interresting I think:

"What difference does it make whether the sentence was put together by a human computer or a non-human computer?"

Why is it likely to believe that humans think like computers at all ?

I think they do not.

 

[Langbein]

"See: Is Paris the capital of France?? It looks really wrong because it's not a complete sentence. HRW could actually explain it since she is much more knowledgeable in grammar."

But does half or whole sentences or gramatically correctness have any importance at all for the philosophical question "What is a question".

I think this is one is a lot more important: Can computers generate meaningfull questions ?

This would have something to do with some significance to the question "What is a question ?".

Also it leads up to some other interresting questions: Can computers be programmed to "think" as human beeings ? Can computers ask questions and find answers like human beeings ?

I think this is per definition impossible as the thought process of humans and computers is completely different. It can be made programs that simulates human thinking, but it can not be written programs that does human thinking.

On the other hand I think it is possible to make computer programs that can do a correct linguistic work including also correct spelling.

On the other hand I think this is not "thinking".

I think ane of the good thing about the development of AI and "computerized thinking" is that this will serve as a demo of what human thinking is not.

"Je pense, donc je suis" - not at all if you do your thinking like a computer.

 

[Langbein]

So one should not be to clever about computer alike things like correct grammar, correct spelling, etc, etc.

Nativly english speaking persons might have an small disadvantage in some way.

They might sooner or later need a kind of "decoputerizing"..

 

[Evo]

But does half or whole sentences or gramatically correctness have any importance at all for the philosophical question "What is a question".

No, not philosophically.

I think this is one is a lot more important: Can computers generate meaningfull questions ?

They can if they are programmed to generate meaningful questions.

This would have something to do with some significance to the question "What is a question ?".

What is a question is too cut and dried to be a philosophical question IMHO.

Also it leads up to some other interresting questions: Can computers be programmed to "think" as human beeings ? Can computers ask questions and find answers like human beeings ?

My feelings are no. We don't fully understand the brain or it's capabilities or how thought works/interacts with other things in the brain. Right now we can only program a computer to mimick specific functions we program it for. We simply do not understand enough about the brain's functions or capabilities to give it the possibility to function as a true human brain.

I think this is per definition impossible as the thought process of humans and computers is completely different. It can be made programs that simulates human thinking, but it can not be written programs that does human thinking.

On the other hand I think it is possible to make computer programs that can do a correct linguistic work including also correct spelling.

On the other hand I think this is not "thinking".

I would agree.

I think ane of the good thing about the development of AI and "computerized thinking" is that this will serve as a demo of what human thinking is not.

Good reasoning.

"Je pense, donc je suis" - not at all if you do your thinking like a computer.

 

[honestrosewater]

Hahaha, where to start...

I didn't mean my computer reference to spawn a discussion about artificial intelligence, and I honestly don't want to touch that at the moment.

My point is simply that the hearer does not necessarily have access to the experience, or even the intentions, of the speaker. That is my problem with the suggestion that a hearer's interpretation of an utterance requires knowledge of the speaker's experience. Hearers simply don't usually have such knowledge, yet that has not stopped them from interpreting utterances for thousands of years.

The definitions and theories that I was referring to are those of several related fields: linguistics, semiotics, logic, model theory, philosophy of language, and possibly even some communication or information theory to get a better model of communication and its obstacles (though various fields of linguistics will cover this to some extent). I gave some relevant links in my posts already. You can also google or search Wikipedia for the things that I just mentioned to get started, if you're seriously curious. I also suggest that you look up some info about syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. That seems to be what you are interested in now, especially pragmatics.

Note that an instance of communication involves more than one meaning. This is what I was referring to earlier with my question about mappings. Take the communication of a single message from a speaker to a hearer as your prototypical communication instance. Assigning the message a single meaning does not work. (Just try it.) You have to consider the speaker's intended meaning in addition to, and separate from, the hearer's interpreted meaning. (There are more meanings, but they can be ignored here.)

A good example of this is that Evo's interpreted meaning of my "See: Is Paris the capital of France?" message seems to not match my intended meaning. (I say "seems" because of course I don't know the intended meaning of the messages that Evo has communicated either. It's a whole bunch of assumptions, this language and communication thing.) I do now see another interpretation that I hadn't seen before. I wasn't instructing you to go see some reference material that is titled "Is Paris the capital of France?". I meant "Is Paris the capital of France?" to be a demonstration, an example, of what I had just described: an utterance that I believed would be interpreted as a question by a competent English speaker but to which, when I uttered it, I did not desire an answer. (There is that colon convention again. It strikes me as an appositional use (where the phrase following the colon is equal to a phrase preceding the colon) similar to but more emphatic than the comma-signaled one.)

(Parenthetically (), I usually try to be consistent about those things, even more so since I've started programming, though I am kind of rushing through these posts. I would have expressed the directive sentence as "See 'Is Paris the Capital of France?'." (with context-appropriate quotation delimiters). There are a few different common conventions for this kind of thing, the formatting of direct discourse and such, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that misunderstandings arise there.)

There is no reason to assume that there exists any meaning in the formal parts of a message, whatever that would mean. You can assume, as I think makes the most sense, that the meaning of a message is defined by the interpretation that is assigned to the message's formal parts, or syntax.

And even assigning an interpretation (or mapping either way, whichever way you're going) does not require conscious experience, or at least not by any argument that I've seen or can imagine. I don't know why it is so difficult to separate language from consciousness, especially, considering your remarks about something lacking in computers, phenomenal consciousness. But, woops, it looks like it's time to not get sidetracked.

I think there just needs to be a lot more separating going on here. First, separate conscious thought from language. Then, within language, separate form from meaning. And separate syntactic form from surface form. And separate out all of the different meanings and contexts. And also separate speaker from hearer, or sender from receiver. And separate them from the channel and the channel from the message. And keep going. Langauge is complex.

P.S. Yay! I understood my first argument in French! (Unless you count "Je suis! Grrr..." as an argument.)

 

[honestrosewater]

What? When did I miss the reason for which I am allowed only answer one?

Derp. I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that, Mk.

I was saying that, according to my understanding of Langbein's reasoning, only one of those sentences, though they are formally equal, could be interpreted as a question since I only desired an answer for one of them.

I don't actually expect you to know which question I desire an answer for, and I think Langbein's reasoning is flawed. I was was hoping to demonstrate a reason why I think it is flawed.

 

[Langbein]

The idea for rising this question was to use it as part of a project related to analytical philosophy.

In this context the idea was to rise approx something like 100 questions and work out sharp as possibly defined answers in such a way that all those 100 questions will fit togheter as a as long as possible "consistant whole unit".

The qestion: "What is a question" is the first of that sequence of questions, that should all have sharp as possible, but still wide enough definitions.

In this context, I think this other question derived out of the first question is a quite central and important one, as long as the use of the answer is related to analytical philosophy:

"Should a sentence that has the form of a question and that is not intended to be used as a question be considered to be a question ?"

For building up a more or less complete system of questions / answers that is connected together in a logical way as far as possible, I think the praktical answer will be to connect the term "question" to the function of a questions, so that a sentence that fills the requrements for the form of a question but not the intended function of a question should (for the actual use) be considered not to be a question.

Still at the same time it is the idea to try to avoid, as far as possible, the development of a "privat language" with definitions and term that is quite unequal to ordinary daily life use of the same words or terms.

"What is thinking" will be one of the central and important questions / answers to fit into a whole context. Also to define or find out the question "what is thinking" it will be necessary to look a bit into AI and stuff like that to see how human thinking is equal or different from such "computer based thinking".

I think that to relate the content of the term "question" to the function of a question, for definition purposes, might be not be to unusual as some of the web based references do that.

If it is requred to make the whole "chain" or "system" of questions / answers to fit togheter as a logical consistent unit, it might be necessary or required to make use of "private definitions" that is different from daily life use of the same terms, but I think that this should be avoided as far as possible.

I guess that all the questions and all the answers will be posted somwhere at web as the project moves further on, but I really have not got started yet.

The first question "what is a question" was just ment as a test question to see how things can or might be done.

I am thankfull for all the response. Possibly I should have clarified things more from start an in the first posting ? I don't know. I think it is quite usable and valuable to have a specter of different ways to see things, even though I will try to pick out a clear and sharp answer to the question "what is a question ?", as possible.

The project is done for fun only :-)

 

[raolduke]

A question implies inquiry. If it doesn't its rhetorical. Inquiry implies desire for knowledge. Desire for knowledge is science.

 

[honestrosewater]

"Should a sentence that has the form of a question and that is not intended to be used as a question be considered to be a question ?"

Who or what is doing the considering?

If it is a communication, you do not have a single message-meaning. You have at least two: the speaker's and the hearer's. Do you doubt or deny this?

Or let me put it this way: the message does not necessarily look the same to all observers. You have to consider each observer's frame of reference.