Ideas & Language

[11011]

language has always been a central issue in philosophy, and some branches have arose entirely just to deal with it, but one thing i notice is that this is often done after the fact - in other words, language and words are the starting point of analysis

but i think the problem concerning language lies prior to language, prior to the words themselves

the problem is language itself

at what point does language intervene in our thinking? is language thought? can we think without language?

and what is language? is any form of thought rudimentary language? how does a baby think - does it think? - without yet learning the language of its culture?

can a human come into this world, open its eyes, and form thoughts about what it observes without yet learning a language external to its own (rudimentary) mind?

basically, does the mind instinctively impose categories and therefore the basic building blocks of language on to anything that enters into its field of awareness, from the first moment the newborn opens its eyes - probably prior in the womb - or must it acquire this basic ability - to categorize 'things' in awareness - through being taught a language?

i suspect that there is a an innate tendency for categorization of 'things' (things only become things once they've become categorized), which is then shared amongst other humans through primitive forms of communication, and eventually they will agree on a language, or a formalized set of symbols or terms by which to refer to things in their awareness. of course, in doing this, through such formalization, what exists through what is deemed important enough to 'term' is for all intents and purposes decided. or at the very least the individual's attention is highly guided by the language of their culture.

so backtracking to this supposed innate tendency for categorization. is this not the departure point from being aware of 'true reality' (undistorted by the human condition -- that is the standpoint of the human coming into the world or simply acquiring awareness) to acquiring a cultural awareness?

suppose that it is, suppose that there something call raw awareness, and this is the hypothetical awareness a baby would have upon developing the ability for awareness in the womb or whenever it first appears, prior to culture shifting its attention to certain objects.

what then would this awareness focus on? does it focus at all?

i suspect it would focus on sensations first, as the infant has its eyes closed in the womb, correct? it would focus on bodily sensations, would it categorize these? what would it call them? maybe they are more like impressions in the psyche. like imagine yourself awaking in pitch black and you don't know where you are or what is going on. you then feel a gust of warmth on your right side, just under your arm, you may hypothesize as to what this could be, perhaps someone or something blowing hot air there, but initially your mind may just associate it with an vague impression, perhaps without any language, just the blotch memory of you, your body, and a yellow patch lighting up under your arm.

but what if you had no awareness of your own body? what if you had no reference point at all, that is to say no context in which to situation experience or things you become aware of?

and again i return to sensation....surely you would still be able to feel the warmth right? and surely this would have some impression on your mind/awareness, as the sensory data is relayed to awareness? or is it?

when is sensation relayed to awareness?

is at the point the nervous systems becomes developed enough in the womb? surely it doesn't require formal language, even out of the womb the infant has the sucking reflex once it comes into contact with the mothers breast...surely this must require awareness?

or does it? perhaps that is why it is a reflex? is it a reflex?

if it is a reflex, then maybe that is an indication that the baby does not yet have awareness, and so a reflex evolved; those who didn't have the reflex perished, natural selection...

but if the infant had awareness coming out of the womb, or prior, wouldn't this reflex be redundant?

also, do reflexes require awareness if they are automatic given the presentation of a stimulus?

in other words, doesn't awareness imply choice?

can you have awareness without choice?

i will leave it at that, as i'm starting experience tunnel vision from over analysis, but this last question jumps out at me as important. awareness and free will. perhaps one proves the existence of the other. and when do we develop choice? and what does that mean? suppose everything is reflex up until the infant is suckling at the breast, what happens, is there some shift into a 'choice mode'? and what is that at the organismic level? surely there is a distinction to be made between the suckling reflex and the infants subsequent appearance of choice - as shown through displays of confusion, anger/frustration when for example presented with two things they might find equally appealing, it appears there is a decision process. yet...there was no hesitation coming out of the womb - they did not even need to open their eyes, they just started sucking, and they probably would have sucked on anything if it fit the sensation of the stimulus to which the reflex is innately assigned.

so how does the perception of choice arise, and therefore awareness? (supposing that is how it goes)

perhaps at the first moment of frustration? without frustration - the experience of a need not being met, or a suffering condition not alleviated, instantaneously - the infant cannot develop an awareness of anything since there is no incentive

is the experience of frustration at the root of it all?

[Logik]

what is language?

That's a great question that nobody can answer for you. Because to answer it - I need language. But if language is the problem...

Nobody can be TOLD what language is. You have to understand the concepts for yourself.

Instead: first ask the question: How does language work?

How is it that two people can understand each other's meaning?
How does communication work?

My biased thoughts on the matter start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathema ... munication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

[Logik]

Read this paper. Try to understand this paper; http://math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/ ... ntropy.pdf

[11011]

that paper is more relevant to my recent post in the other thread on how communicating ideas distorts their meaning

this thread is more about how language figures in the conceiving of ideas - prior to communication - not the damage/distortion caused by communication, or the attempt to articulate ideas into communicable forms

for example, what if there is no appropriate language to communicate an idea? indeed, philosophers have commented in the past, for example, that the german language lends itself to philosophy moreso than other languages. how can this be? what about the german languages makes it more suited to philosophy?

also that paper presumes a finite set of meanings when the problem field here is that there could be an infinite set of meanings - all the possible meanings are not known yet

i am talking about creativity, an idea that has never been conceived yet and is not known, how does one communicate it when language itself is finite? well, people do communicate such ideas and language evolves sometimes in response but they are forced to fashion them in the wrappings of language as is, wherein aspects of the idea - perhaps the most important parts - may be lost or distorted, both at the level of conception as the person thinks in the language about the 'thing' and person-to-person as when they have to translate/articulate their thoughts to others.

[Logik]

that paper is more relevant to my recent post in the other thread on how communicating ideas distorts their meaning

this thread is more about how language figures in the conceiving of ideas - prior to communication - not the damage/distortion caused by communication, or the attempt to articulate ideas into communicable forms

Language is a subset of communication.

If you understand communication - you understand language. The reverse is not true.

Further. Language and thought are inseparable. Language shapes your thought, but language also expresses your thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

There is no way off this rat-wheel. The ONLY way I know HOW to get off it is to invent your own language.
That is - to invent what Tarski calls a metalanguage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage
And what Wittgenstein calls a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

WIttgenstein argues that a private language is incoherent, but he is wrong. The private language needs not be coherent to anybody else but the person who invented it.

Once you have done that and you can juxtapose the "metalanguage" and the "natural language" then the concepts important to understanding language as a system emerge in your mind. Juxtaposition is vital here.

Again: my bias shows, but Computer Science is the science of the mind-language interaction and so this book may be of some help: https://www3.nd.edu/~dthain/compilerbook/

[bahman]

Language is formation in what is experienced which correlate with an idea.

[surreptitious57]

at what point does language intervene in our thinking ? is language thought ? can we think without language ?

Thinking is natural [ children dont have to learn how to think ]

Language has to be learned [ children have to learn how to speak and write ]

Thinking therefore comes before language [ children can think before they can speak and write ]

So language is more complex than thinking because it is a learned behaviour not an automatic one

You can think without language but you cannot language without thinking so thinking is always required

Language is the manifestation of thought in either written or spoken form as a means of communication

Language is not just word but also number : math is just as much a language as English or Chinese for example

The purpose of language is to communicate but not all language can be understood [ code / cipher for example ]

Language that can be understood is called knowledge / language that cannot be understood is called information

[attofishpi]

at what point does language intervene in our thinking ? is language thought ? can we think without language ?

Thinking is natural [ children dont have to learn how to think ]

Language has to be learned [ children have to learn how to speak and write ]

Thinking therefore comes before language [ children can think before they can speak and write ]

So language is more complex than thinking because it is a learned behaviour not an automatic one

You can think without language but you cannot language without thinking so thinking is always required

Language is the manifestation of thought in either written or spoken form as a means of communication

I agree.

Language is not just word but also number : math is just as much a language as English or Chinese for example

I disagree. Maths is an abstract to natural language for communication, it has to be taught (at least beyond anything rudimentary).

The purpose of language is to communicate but not all language can be understood [ code / cipher for example ]

Agree, as per my previous point.

Language that can be understood is called knowledge / language that cannot be understood is called information.

I disagree.
What would the point of information be if it cannot be understood. Lack of information is just lack of knowledge.