Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:40 pm It doesn't matter if your axioms are "true" as long as any particular language is consistently interpreted against them.

The taxonomy of languages as proposed by the Chomsky hierarchy is that any recursively-enumerable grammar is effectively parseable by a Turing machine e.g it solves the symbol-grounding problem. In English ALL regular languages are computation!

This ties into the Curry-Howard isomorphism, Lambda calculus and Type theory.

Agreed, but all computation is dependent upon a replication of limits, hence all definition (cultural language, mathematics, logic, laws of nature, reason, being/non being, etc.) is premised in the replication of limit where we are led to geometry as the foundation for not just definition but all the various qualitative extensions of it....this is considering the directional nature of the these definition qualities and the intuitive nature we emphasize in them (linear/circular reasoning, "getting to the point", etc).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:59 pm Agreed, but all computation is dependent upon a replication of limits, hence all definition (cultural language, mathematics, logic, laws of nature, reason, being/non being, etc.) is premised in the replication of limit where we are led to geometry as the foundation for not just definition but all the various qualitative extensions of it....this is considering the directional nature of the these definition qualities and the intuitive nature we emphasize in them (linear/circular reasoning, "getting to the point", etc).

Copy-paste from another forum I am on:

And so I want to juxtapose your idea to Feynman:

>You cannot be any kind of philosopher unless you look at the role of language and concept formation, so I was just trying to show that there are physicists who really do “get” these issues.
> What I cannot create I do not understand.

Most Philosophers do not understand language because they’ve never created one. Language itself has an ontology - structure. Present beyond one's immediate awareness. This thing we call logic.

And what is the only way to ontology? Empiricism!

Computer Scientists have the upper hand in this regard. As part of any compsci degree is a study of language compilers/interpreters.

Students have to invent their own language and as a verification of its validity the student needs to write a program that interprets their language. Their also have to write a program that interprets their language IN THEIR LANGUAGE.

Of course, in order to do this first you need to write a parser for their language in ANOTHER programming language they ‘speak’. But the programming language you speak is a language you’ve only learned - not one you have created.

And so - if you have never invented a language, then in what language do you think about the CONCEPT of language?

Think about that. It is the root-cause of Derrida’s Logocentrism.

Most philosophers would think that a language that can interpret itself is a mistake. It smells a lot like circular reasoning. It’s not circular - it is recursive. And that TINY TINY distinction makes all the difference!

Recursion is computation!

You can interpret your word 'limits' to mean 'rules'. We get to create those rules/constructs when we create language.
If you have no background in linguistics or computation I really recommend this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film)

If/when you have watched it see if you can find any parallels with this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:59 pm Agreed, but all computation is dependent upon a replication of limits, hence all definition (cultural language, mathematics, logic, laws of nature, reason, being/non being, etc.) is premised in the replication of limit where we are led to geometry as the foundation for not just definition but all the various qualitative extensions of it....this is considering the directional nature of the these definition qualities and the intuitive nature we emphasize in them (linear/circular reasoning, "getting to the point", etc).

Copy-paste from another forum I am on:

And so I want to juxtapose your idea to Feynman:

>You cannot be any kind of philosopher unless you look at the role of language and concept formation, so I was just trying to show that there are physicists who really do “get” these issues.
> What I cannot create I do not understand.

Most Philosophers do not understand language because they’ve never created one. Language itself has an ontology - structure. Present beyond one's immediate awareness. This thing we call logic.

And what is the only way to ontology? Empiricism!

Computer Scientists have the upper hand in this regard. As part of any compsci degree is a study of language compilers/interpreters.

Students have to invent their own language and as a verification of its validity the student needs to write a program that interprets their language. Their also have to write a program that interprets their language IN THEIR LANGUAGE.

Of course, in order to do this first you need to write a parser for their language in ANOTHER programming language they ‘speak’. But the programming language you speak is a language you’ve only learned - not one you have created.

And so - if you have never invented a language, then in what language do you think about the CONCEPT of language?

Think about that. It is the root-cause of Derrida’s Logocentrism.

Most philosophers would think that a language that can interpret itself is a mistake. It smells a lot like circular reasoning. It’s not circular - it is recursive. And that TINY TINY distinction makes all the difference!

Recursion is computation!

You can interpret your word 'limits' to mean 'rules'. We get to create those rules/constructs when we create language.
If you have no background in linguistics or computation I really recommend this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film)

If/when you have watched it see if you can find any parallels with this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

To define limit as rules still requires the property of definition where one definition is directed to another and effectively exists through the same limits from which it extends, leaving linearism as the foundation of definition and intelligence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:50 pm To define limit as rules still requires the property of definition where one definition is directed to another and effectively exists through the same limits from which it extends, leaving linearism as the foundation of definition and intelligence.

You have fallen for the circularity of Logocentrism again. You can't "define" anything - without first having a language. Try it. Right now.

Show me a "limit". Take a photo for me. Draw me an picture of a limit. That word "limit". It's not yours
It's connected to a concept.

I am merely comparing 'limits' (or as best as I understand your meaning) to what I call 'rules', taxonomies, categories.
And so in that regard those lines/limits of how the very concepts of the world are separated in your head ARE the rules of meaning.
Where "table" ends" and "floor" begins. The imaginary line between the two - limit.

When you create your own language - YOU get to decide what those rules are! You get to create the concept AND the word "tablefloor". And tablefloor is one! No limit - no lines.

This is why I believe learning to program is indispensible in 2018 if you want to free yourself from Logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism )

Language is only a tool. Don't be its slave - become its master!

All circular reasoning is an infinite loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop

All spoken language is an infinite loop. Words define other words define other words. It gets you nowhere without the corresponding experiences to understand those words.

Leave the words and just observe, think, imagine, feel, experience!
Then invent your language to describe what it is like. Nobody else needs to understand it - only you!

Then come back and laugh at all the logocentric fools! They are EVERYWHERE.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:58 pm Language is only a tool. Don't be its slave - become its master!

Yeah, BABY!!!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:58 pm Language is only a tool. Don't be its slave - become its master!

Good idea! But how does one become its master?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:30 am Good idea! But how does one become its master?

As per my example on what computer scientists are forced to do as part of their education.

1. They conceptualise a language (L). It does not 'exist' except in their head (what philosophers might have you believe is just an illusion)
2. They write an interpreter (lets call it IL) for their language in another language (say language M).
3. Once they have an interpreter for L, they are forced to write an interpreter for L IN L.

Now you have a language that can INTERPRET ITSELF and just like that - we have INVENTED objective meaning!

I want you to observe a second thing that also happens as part of this process.
Before you invent a language - you have no conception for 'Language' that is other than the one you have LEARNED TO USE! English.
So your very notion of the word conception is defined in English. This is the philosophical define(x) game.
Define 'conception' (and you spill out some metaphysical wordsoup which we can't untangle for weeks!)
Define 'define'. Game over

After you invent your own language - you have a conception for 'Language' that is the one you CREATED (Language M), and because you created a language you have a conception for 'conception' that is grounded in experience. And the biggest win of all - you have a conception of how an conception turns from "just an idea" to something OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL. This is what engineers call realization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems). Or you can just call it 'creation'.

And so when two software engineers who have never met before bump into each other on the street: we have a shared EMPIRICAL and OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL concepts for:
* conception
* realization
* language
* interpretation
* objective meaning

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SAID A WORD TO EACH OTHER YET!!!

Whatever claim Philosophy used to have on Metaphysics - I laugh in their face!

Observe this tiny tiny tiny distinction between English and Programming languages.
English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

Recursion is computation. This thing we call 'reason'!

Aww and here I was envisioning the biggest bromance ever between the Johndoe and the Timeseeker, but now cracks are showing.

And of course the proper way to transcend language is Eastern nondual thinking. This Information theory thing may kinda beat Western philosophy, but is still based on the dualistic thinking used by Western philosophy.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:31 am And of course the proper way to transcend language is Eastern nondual thinking. This Information theory thing may kinda beat Western philosophy, but is still based on the dualistic thinking used by Western philosophy.

Aaaaaaaw! Watch me wreck your house of cards in 3...2...1...

Can you give me an objective definition or a shared conception of 'thinking'? The word you have built your entire argument on.
Is my 'thinking' the same as your 'thinking'? Because if it isn't then we haven't solved dualism

You have no conception (let alone a word) for OBJECTIVE MEANING. And therefore you have no objective definition for 'thinking'. That is the root-cause of dualism! You aren't solving the problem, you are trying to pave over it. Out of sight - out of mind!

And so you've ended up creating a dualistic view on 'thinking'. Which is an illusion even worse than the one before it!

I have a OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL CONCEPTION for 'thinking'. Computation.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:38 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:31 am And of course the proper way to transcend language is Eastern nondual thinking. This Information theory thing may kinda beat Western philosophy, but is still based on the dualistic thinking used by Western philosophy.

Aaaaaaaw! Watch me wreck your house of cards in 3...2...1...

Can you give me an objective definition or a shared conception of 'thinking'? The word you have built your entire argument on.
Is my 'thinking' the same as your 'thinking'? Because if it isn't then we haven't solved dualism

You have no conception (let alone a word) for OBJECTIVE MEANING. And therefore you have no objective definition for 'thinking'. That is the root-cause of dualism! You aren't solving the problem, you are trying to go AROUND IT!

And so you've ended up creating a dualistic view on 'thinking'. Which is an illusion even worse than the one before it!

I have a OBJECTIVE CONCEPTION for 'thinking'. Computation.

Computation is a subjective conception based on information theory, your worldview is circular and overcomplicated. So much for your house of cards.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:45 am Computation is a subjective conception based on information theory, your worldview is circular and overcomplicated. So much for your house of cards.

You don't know how to tell the difference between 'circular' and 'recursive'. And it is the distinction that makes all the difference between falling into the abyss and staying grounded. I dance on the very edge and I love it!

I explained it just 3 posts above. For your own advantage:

Observe this tiny tiny tiny distinction between English and Programming languages.
English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

Recursion is computation. This thing we call 'reason'!

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:45 am Computation is a subjective conception based on information theory, your worldview is circular and overcomplicated. So much for your house of cards.

Also.

You don't have an objective conception for 'objectivity' (dualism!)
So you have no objective conception for 'conception' (dualism!)

That is two dualisms. Quadralism?

This box that is language! So hard to get out of!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:45 am Computation is a subjective conception based on information theory, your worldview is circular and overcomplicated. So much for your house of cards.

You don't know how to tell the difference between 'circular' and 'recursive'. And it is the distinction that makes all the difference between falling into the abyss and staying grounded. I dance on the very edge and I love it!

I explained it just 3 posts above. For your own advantage:

Observe this tiny tiny tiny distinction between English and Programming languages.
English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

Recursion is computation. This thing we call 'reason'!

You are mixing together two different things, to avoid the issue.
Programming languages "interpret" recursively, within the framework of Information theory.
But it's the framework of Information theory itself, that is circular when you use it as a worldview.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:52 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:45 am Computation is a subjective conception based on information theory, your worldview is circular and overcomplicated. So much for your house of cards.

Also.

You don't have an objective conception for 'objectivity' (dualism!)
So you have no objective conception for 'conception' (dualism!)

That is two dualisms. Quadralism?

This box that is language! So hard to get out of!

There can be no objective conception. All human thinking can ultimately be seen as relative, circular.
We can try to transcend it as much as possible, but it's never entirely possible.