Language and thought

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's an oversimplification. I said that if the underdetermination thesis is true then Democritus deserves some credit, because if the underdetermination thesis is true, imaginative conceptual innovation becomes much more important. That's my argument - not what you said. And you accuse me of attacking straw men.

Why don't you go back and read that thread, you don't remember what you said. I would go and quote all the relevant parts, but I don't care enough. Everyone reading this knows it anyway, but you.

Well you need to know what philosophy is to be a philosopher

No, you certainly don't. A philosopher is a thinker. That's all. You don't need to take university philosophy courses to think and analyze. I'm sorry, but you really don't.

Same bad answer. Why a region? Why not a group or a race or an individual? What's so special about a region? As someone else objected - this would mean that parts of Alberta are justified in breaking off if they want to - all the way down to individuals.

Absolutely, it's very much democratic for people to renounce their citizenship at any time. Why did you assume that I only said it would be true for a region?

I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and me -- if a large region of 3M people overwhelmingly votes that they want to leave, I consider it democratic that they be able to do so. You consider it to be democratic to force them to stay against their will.

What an enlightened man.

[Asher]

BTW, here's the definition of mathematics:

math·e·mat·ics (mth-mtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Keywords: "study of".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

2+2=4 is a mathematical truth because mathematics is a set of rules and theorems formulated upon observational fact. The reason it's true is because it satisfies the mathematical rules, and those rules are true because they satisfy observational fact.

This is hardly more informative and, frankly, just sounds like BS.

"The reason 2+2=4 is true is because it satisfies mathematical rules."

This could be true if conventionalism were true (it was our invention) or if the mathematical rules were objective. So this statement is completely useless in telling me whether mathematics is conventional or empirical.

So:

those rules are true because they satisfy observational fact

This doesn't help either. Before it was "are based on" now it is "satisifies". Just coinages covering up your ignorance, I reckon.

So the rules of addition are true because they "satisfy" observational fact. What does that mean any more than that they report that certain claims are true because of the way the world is? Including, I might add, that 2+2=4.

Why do these claims "satisfy" observational fact? Because they describe it? In any case - if observation can help us decide between which rules satisfy empirical fact and which rules don't then they are not wholly conventional (they depend on the way the world is and not on our conventions).

C'mon now - quit the BS and start arguing properly.

[Asher]

Agathon: Just go read the definition of mathematics, admit that it's a man-made construct, and save yourself the embarassment of digging your hole deeper.

I'll quote it again:

math·e·mat·ics (mth-mtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Mathematics are the man-made rules, theorems, and conventions describing the natural events.

There is no way in hell you could argue mathematics is not man-made, if you knew what mathematics actually was.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Absolutely, it's very much democratic for people to renounce their citizenship at any time. Why did you assume that I only said it would be true for a region?

I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and me -- if a large region of 3M people overwhelmingly votes that they want to leave, I consider it democratic that they be able to do so. You consider it to be democratic to force them to stay against their will.

You're so full of it. I don't care what you "consider" its BS to me without a reason. Just like last time you won't even answer the question.

Again: why a region and not some other group?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You're so full of it. I don't care what you "consider" its BS to me without a reason. Just like last time you won't even answer the question.

Again: why a region and not some other group?

Again: When did I say a group can't renounce their citizenships like an entire region?

And you're still avoiding the fact that you called it undemocratic for a province to secede, even if they overwhelmingly vote to secede.

You've got a lot of explaining to do, which you're incapable of doing...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
Agathon: Just go read the definition of mathematics, admit that it's a man-made construct, and save yourself the embarassment of digging your hole deeper.

Well well, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could solve all substantive disputes by looking in a dictionary? I doubt that the composer of the OED had any opinion on whether mathematical statements are truth bearers.

Why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of floundering around without answering the questions asked. It's plain for everyone to see that your "debating style", if it can be called that, is to avoid answering questions that are put to you when you know you can't answer them and maintain the superficial appearance of being undefeated.

Again - what do you mean by "based on observation"? If the truth of a theory is based on observation it can't be wholly conventional.

[Asher]

/me steps back and watches Agathon continue his tailspin down towards a very spectacular crash-landing...

[Asher]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is another exhibit for the mounting pile of evidence to the uselessness of philosophy as a discipline in university.

Agathon is a philosophy professor at a respectable university, and he's proven himself to be utterly inept many times over.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Again: When did I say a group can't renounce their citizenships like an entire region?

You should be confused. This is idiocy.

Democracy is roughly rule of the majority. That's the core of the concept. Commitment to democracy entails that you don't bail out or rebel when the vote doesn't go your way (there might be extreme situations in which it was justifiable to do so - but Alberta doesn't come even close to these).

If people could just refuse to obey the law or pay taxes when the election didn't go their way, democracy would be a non-starter, since democracy requires that the result be enforced upon the losers and that they accept it. What's the point of having an election if you can't do this?

You can add certain protections from the so called "tyranny of the majority" like constitutional rights. But no such right to secession exists in Canada (this is a matter of fact which you well know - the Supreme Court decided on it a few years ago).

In the absence of such rights you can't just assume them either. Constitutional reform has to be accomplished by democratic means otherwise it can become arbitrary and despotic.

[Nubclear]

Tassadar, you're monolingual then.

Some bengali, hindi, some russian, english......

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
As far as I'm concerned, this thread is another exhibit for the mounting pile of evidence to the uselessness of philosophy as a discipline in university.

Agathon is a philosophy professor at a respectable university, and he's proven himself to be utterly inept many times over.

No I think that it proves how vital it is, because certain people from other disciplines are just BAMers.

Your position is that I should just believe that mathematics is entirely conventional (and no doubt morality as well) without any argument at all, just because you say so and you found something in a dictionary which appears to be neutral on your claim.

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

And we all know what Socrates said about such people.....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You should be confused. This is idiocy.

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

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

Democracy is roughly rule of the majority. That's the core of the concept. Commitment to democracy entails that you don't bail out or rebel when the vote doesn't go your way (there might be extreme situations in which it was justifiable to do so - but Alberta doesn't come even close to these).

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

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

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

If people could just refuse to obey the law or pay taxes when the election didn't go their way, democracy would be a non-starter, since democracy requires that the result be enforced upon the losers and that they accept it. What's the point of having an election if you can't do this?

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

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

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

You can add certain protections from the so called "tyranny of the majority" like constitutional rights. But no such right to secession exists in Canada (this is a matter of fact which you well know - the Supreme Court decided on it a few years ago).

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

[Agathon]

Now he's chickened off.

Oh well. Goodnight. Back to the Sapir-Whorf thesis.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Now he's chickened off.

Oh well. Goodnight. Back to the Sapir-Whorf thesis.

Just when I thought you couldn't dig any deeper.

Watch everyone -- he's started his "goodnight" crap. He'll say it about 50 more times tonight.

[Asher]

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

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

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

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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

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

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

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

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

BAM

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

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

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

BAM BAM BAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

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

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

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

BAM BAM BAM

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

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

Now where did I hear that.

[Asher]

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

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



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

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

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

Let's get it over with.

[Agathon]

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

[Asher]

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

[Asher]

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

This is your new sig?

It's not even insulting, or funny.

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

[Urban Ranger]

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

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

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

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

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

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

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

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

[vovan]

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

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

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

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
A thought only "means" something in the context of a language. The language doesn't have to be verbal. It can be visual or even mental. By this, I mean that I'm generalizing the idea of language as expression of thought.

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

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

Proof by definition.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000




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

That explains alot...

[Urban Ranger]

Ramo, ranskaldan,

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

[tinyp3nis]

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

Hint: Deaf people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Hint: Deaf people.

Depends on if they are born deaf or not.

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