Languages and Thought

Y'all, might find this interesting, as it discusses language impairment and touches on deafness.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasiology

Iain

There is currently no text on that page?

It looks like I inadvertently added a full stop to the end of the link, thus misdirecting it. I've edited the original post - it should work now.

Iain

Ok, back to craven's post:

Communicating without language:
I really do do this, and it's much easier for me, at any rate. I have actual moments in conversations when I forget the words for things but still know what I want to say. The point is, the meaning of the word can be separated from the word itself - if that weren't true, we'd never be able to reattach meanings to different words, such as synonyms, or words in another language, and we wouldn't be able to assign different meanings depending on context (as with idioms).

"Potential":
I try to be consistant when I use this word, but I miss a few cases sometimes. There are two types. For instance, if you have a runner, his potential(1) speed changes as he practices more and gets stronger. However, he only has the potential(2) to run. He doesn't have the potential(2) to fly, and never will, no matter how much he trains or how strong he gets. And even though different runners might use different techniques and possibly even exercise muscles that the first runner doesn't use at all, none of them will have the potential(2) to fly. That's what I meant when I'm saying that you can't change potential. There are probably things that human beings just can't know, and no human will ever know them. Similarly, all people have the potential(2) to know anything that is knowable, to some degree.

Logical Positivists:
I think that was significant, because it shows that abstractions are tied to language and can't be separated from it. That means, for a human being to even be able to use language, he has to know about abstract ideas and understand how to make use of things he will never know for certain are true. If it was language that made this possible, we would neven be able to learn it, since we have to understand abstractions before we can understand language. Furthermore, language is a creation of the human mind - and it was created abstractly. Language does not allow us to think abstractly - the same thing that allows us to think abstractly allows us to have language.

Memory and Categorization:
Yes, categorization is a function of language, but it only speeds up the process of understanding by temprarily restricting how we see objects by choosing only the most imporatant features and grouping them together. It doesn't give us any sort of new power, though. The group classifications rely on information about the objects that we already had, just less of it. And that extra information doesn't disappear either - we can still see every aspect of the object that we could before, we just temporarily remove some for the purpose of classification.

Computer Language:
Here's how computer language doesn't correspond to human language:
1. Computers don't use it to communicate, they use it to run software. Strictly, "they" don't even use it at all.
2. When it is being used, Computer Language is less similar to a means of communication and more like the Word of God. "And the Programmer said <code> and there was a Program. And S/He saw that it was good." Even hypnotists who can coerce people into doing things can't create additional brains or make them able to pick up radio waves. Human minds come pre-programmed and they are read-only. There's actually and interesting book comparing human language and Computer Language, and about a langauge that was revived to allow people's brains to be "hacked" - a little mystical, but fascinating all the same. It's called Snow Crash, but I've forgotten the author.
Of course, if you manage to find a group of people that speak FORTRAN to each other or somthing, you might be able to analyze them.

Sources:
I understand not wanting to go to sources for things that are purely deductive, but stating that people who speak langauges that are "more rigid" "think more rigidly" is an empirical fact that can be proven or disproven by doing research, and so are the other things I asked for sources on. Sciences are partly deductive, but you can only make deductive assessments after you've substantial empirical research to make it seem likely that the generalization is correct. So I want to know what research was done to make you so sure of these deductive statements, so that I can make my own decisions about them rather than relying only on your certaintly.

I think that's it - if I missed anything I'll get back to it next time.

rufio,

You have addressed not a single one of my arguments adequately and continue to evade.



First of all IMO your ability to communicate with language is subpar. Secodly, you continue to exhibit the disconnect.

You assert that language makes no change in thinking. You support this by saying you can think, and can communicate without language.

Your supporting argument addresses the question of whether language changes the ability to think, or the ability to communicate. You are correct to assert that it does not.

But changing ability is not the only change that exists. Let's use an example.

I assert that automibiles change travel.

You assert that automobiles do not make any change to travel.

I note that automobiles facilitate travel.

You agree, but say that travel by foot is still possible without an automobile.

Yes, it's still possible, but you are using cognitive irrelevance. Whether or not something chances the possibility to do an action has absolutely nothing to do with whether it brings about a change at all.




Again you use cognitive irrelevance to support your notions.

Potential does not have to be about far fetched newfangled things. In your own example, the training the runner endures might change the potential the runner has in winning a race.

Your cognitive dissonance is in full force again, you grasp onto an axiom (in this case that training does not change the potential to fly) and seek to support your increasingly risible notion that no change in potential is made.

After all, he can't fly.



Still at it?



I know what you mean, my qualm is that it makes not a shred of sense.

Yes you can change potential. Just because the change in potential is not stark enough for you to consider does not mean no change is possible.

Just because man can't change the potential to fly does not mean man can't change his potential in other areas.

Again, you grasp and cling to the most irrelevant axioms.



More nonsensical blather. Yes, humans have a range of potential that most of them share or fall into, but this does not mean said potential can't be altered.

For example, most humans have the potential to one day win the lottery. But buying a lottery ticket greatly changes that potential (as opposed to never buying one).



I had good reason to say you are just bringing up recollected anecdotes, but you are right that it's related if only because you apply the same cognitive dissonance here.

I have made bold the brainfart that you insist on.

Making something possible is not the only way it can be changed. You continue to insist that no change is made based upon the elementary notion that in this case the question of possibility is not changed.

No duh! Yes, we can think without language. That does not mean language makes "no change" to our thinking, as you repeatedly assert.



So what? This is increasingly like an argument in which you assert "I like monkeys" as your only stock and store.

I'd like to refresh your memory. You asserted that language makes "no change" in thinking. You did not assert that thinking is not contingient on language.

Yet you continue to support your absurd theory that language has no effect on thought. Even while ceding that language is a "part" of thought and that language helps organize it you obdurately insist that said amelioration in organization represents no change because gosh darn it, we can still think without language.

Well you know, we could still perform bodily functions without plumbing, that does not mean plumbing has made no change.

You continue to support your argument that language makes "no change" with the elementary axiom that language is not the jey to the ability to think.

possibility ≠ change. Showing pre-existing possibility does absolutely nothing to support your contention that no change takes place.

Yet you cling to it, and apply it everywhere. This is your only stock and store.

"Language changes thought"

Rufio "No it doesn't the brain is still the same physically"

"I did not say the brain changes physically, I said language changes thought."

Rufio "No it doesn't, I can think without language."

"But that only means that language does not change the ability to think, this does not mean it doesn't change thought."

Rufio "But man can't fly"

This is why many of us refer to interactions with you as a childish game.




"Speeding something up" indiucates a change rufio.



So what? Even if we accept that as an axiom it still says absolutely nothing about whether a change exists.

"Quitting drugs changes my life."

Rufio "No change has occured, you do not have any new powers."





"less" and "more". Variance between the two indicates....yes, you got it, change.




This is unmitigated bullshit. Computers do, indeed, use languages to communicate.

You are reading web pages that were rendered to your broswer through the use of HTML. HTML stands for Hypertext Markup Language.

Able2Know's servers have communicated the Hypertext Markup Language to your computer. Your broswer has interpreted it and is displaying ot to you.

In order for this page to exist for you to brainfart on, FTP was used to transfer the files to the server. This protocol can be considered a language through which computers communicate between each other.

Afterward the PHP language is read by the PHP engine and HTML is generated.

HTML is generated because your broswer doesn't speak PHP. So Hypertext Markup Language is used to communicate data to your screen.

But this is just another red herring, that you know nothing of what you are talking about here in no way reflects on your earlier absurdities.

Please stop grasping at irrelevant axioms, please do not be immunte to teh words "wildly off topic" and "has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about".


To recap, you are insisting that language makes no change in thinking. You do this despite adminiting:

• That language is a part of thinking. Without said "part" there is a change.
  
• That language "speeds up" the thinking. Newsflash: that would be a change.
  
• That language helps organize thought. Newsflash: that would be a change.
  

So despite ceding that language can compress data, help us organize it and make us think faster you still obdurately assert that language makes "no change" to thought. And you do this by squeezing the life out of a completely irrelevant axiom: that language is not a pre-requisite to thought.

Having a human partner is no pre-requisite to sex either, but it makes a difference. Just ask Slappy.



You have darn near missed everything. I am reminded of a joke where a man is waching someone prepare his sandwich.

He says "You slice 'em ham chief?"

"Yes"

"Darn near missed 'em."

Yes, you've missed plenty. You continue to defend the allegation you made that language makes no change with the irrelevant notion that language is not a pre-requisite to thought.

One argument has absolutely no bearing on the other, something I've repeatedly illustrated. That would be one major thing you missed and continue to miss, if/when you return please address that.

Not having studied biochemistry or brain physiology for years, I might be wrong on this, but I seem to remember that new learning, that is learning that involves forging new thinking not just following an old pattern with ease, does increase synaptic connections, does in fact CHANGE the brain.

Much of adult learning is layered over, dependent in great part on what has been worked out in the past, thus one is only adding more data to prior categorization. I remember though a lot of angst when I studied Grading and Drainage, a site engineering subject. It was very hard for me to think in what was for me a new way and I did break down crying with frustration at not understanding how to work out some problems.

Years have passed and I now love grading and drainage, think there is hardly anything more fun than mentally moving land around. I can't remember what the big deal was.

True, I already knew how to add and subtract and do percentages, etc., but the visualization of what the math procedures meant in terms of change in land forms really was a stopper for me. Once I struggled through it, I had new pathways at the ready for the next site problem.

Of course I ascribe the progress as a function of abstract thinking facilitated by language, and add that I think the progress was also marked by physical brain change, whether a scanning electron microscope could find it or not.

Craven I told you already, I spent a long time answering every single one of your points individually, your damn forum logged me out and it is all gone now. I didn't feel like doing that again, so I consolidated everything. What am I missing? Feel free to elaborate.

I don't deny that facilitating something or making it faster or easier changes it on a historical or cultural context. But otherwise, it doesn't. We're still capable of doing the same stuff - the speed is only important in reference to other things. Like, automobiles only changed travel because it meant that people could go further distances to work and school, could live in suburbs, could travel between cities much faster. Without suburbs, workplaces, schools, and cities, automobiles would have been obsolete. So language changes thinking in terms various outside social influences, but it doesn't change it much as far as the individual is concerned. Sapir and Whorf and the bunch were not arguing about language in general, and they were not arguing about speed. They were arguing that different languages change individuals relative to each other - like saying that because of the languages we speak, I can fly and you cannot. That's the thing I have a problem with. I'm fine with you saying that language facilitates thinking.

And like I said, you've missed everything and have answered (or "consolidated") absolutely nothing.

I have elaborated but I will do so again since you haven't responded to it and your latest response is more evasive gibberish. I have illustrated several glaring fallacies you posit but you wish to disregard them and play evade instead.

So the ball's now in your court.

Support your contention that language does not change thought. You say that it makes it faster. How is that not a change?

We'll start again, since you ignore any relevant arguments and play this ridiculous game with everyone, this time you get to defend your own risible fallacy. I'm not interested in tangents, this is a simple logical problem. You are asserting that it makes "no change" while at the same time conceding that it does make a change.

If something speeds up thought how can you assrt that it makes "no change".

Defend your own brainfart there, no need for the lost manuscript. Just answer the inquiries about your own contradictions. Your arguments work against each other, so let's get them sorted out first.

So, in whatever nonsensical reply I have to read through please at least include a simple and straightforward answer.

If language condenses thought, and speeds it up. How does it make "no change"?

When you say "no change" are you again using your own particular definition in which "no change" means many changes but not one specific thing (simple ability) you cling to?

Fine, making it faster is changing it, if that's what you want me to say. I'm just not talking about that change. Are you happy?

I'm not talking about lottery tickets either, unless you're buying lottery tickets with your mind.

I think the "game" here has to do with your inability to stay on topic and the fact that you like to post things before trying to understand what I'm saying, not anything I've said.

Lol, you are the queen at the artful dodge (see below). I've only addressed your contention explicitly.

The reason why is because of things like you have just pulled (the ole dodge and evade).



Your statement was not that everyone was right, that language does change thought but just not in the way you describe.

You obdurately insisted that it makes no change.

There is a damn big difference between saying that people aren't talking about the specific change you had in mind and telling them to come to grips with how wrong they are and boldy asserting that:



People here have pointed out many ways that language does precisely that: affect the way our mind and thinking work.

I have commented extensively on the fact that you are correct, you have found one particular change that language does not make, you are right that language does not grant the ability to speak.

Many have commented that where you go wrong is in asserting that it makes no change.

I find it simply dishonest for you to say that "just not talking about that change". That is quite simply a lie. You have repeatedly asserted here, that language makes no change. So you can't, honestly, assert that this whole time you were just not talking about the same change. That is absurd, you were repeatedly asserting that everyone here is wrong to assert that there is a change at all.

So you've done the "have the last word" at all costs game again, you evade and when someone has the patience to wade through your posts you again pull a "oh I meant something else" tactic.

You did this in the beginning when someone else caught you in a very straightforward brainfart in which you asserted (then subsequently argued) that English derives from German. After all the fuss, you claimed it a typo (despite the fact that you subsequently tried to defend it).

Now you claim we are just talking about different changes. And I'm not going to let that oen go without comment. It's a dishonest ploy and an evasive tactic. You know damn well that you've been wrong all along to assert that language makes "no change".

I tried to give you as many outs as possible, I even brought up said difference in perspective hoping you'd stick to the more defensible "language does not enable thought" argument.

But you obdurately argued your point, and now claim it all a misunderstanding. We are "just not talking about that change".

I call absolute bullshit again. You repeatedly asserted that language makes "no change" you never once asserted that language makes a difference but not the particular difference you were talking about.

These games are idiotic and you can do much better. Don't bother with the "I'm sooo right but everyone wants to flame me" ploy either.

These are old and recognizable ploys and it's hillarious that you say I am not on topic. I have addressed, exclusively, your assertion that language makes no change.

I'm not the one making up misunderstandings to evade yet another brainfart you've been called on.

Artful Dodger (when you play evade)
Like Nitpick, Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he maneuvers the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. If, for example, in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for his sainted mother, but will launch into a long harrangue about the sanctity of motherhood. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion".


The "Everyone flames me, and no they are not just carping my arguments" tactic isn't going to fly either, that's what you were doing when I first encountered you so it's not going to get any play with me.

This is very true, but let me add a different perspective.

I alledge that you revise your position after they are debunked and claim that is what you meant all along.

When Setanta argued that your contention that English derives from German was wrong you defending it till it was soundly debunked then claimed it was a typo and that it was so basic a fact that everyone should have understood what you really meant.

Here you have contended that language makes no change and have now revised it to "just not the change I'm talking about".

So you are right, I do not respond to your posts using the meaning you will claim to have been using after they are debunked. I respond directly to what you say. I responded to the "no change" I said that you would pull this game, that you would claim that what you really meant by "language makes no change" was that language does in fact make said change but that you were talking about something else (see below).



I posit that the game is a game of evasion and dodge on your end, and that when your arguments are carped you revise them and play the "that's what I meant this is all a misunderstanding" game.

Well I'm glad you seem to know what I'm talking about better than I do, Craven. It is not a "tactic" to claim that you misinterpreted me - it's the truth. I admit I've become sloppy in using language and I no longer think as much about saying things precisely. You've made your point. Now let's get back to what I was really attempting to discuss here.

In fact, sozo already made me reconsider that learning language at all had an effect on things such as math. I am not entirely convinced, but I stopped making that argument many pages ago. You can go back and look if you doubt.

When I said that English "evolved" from German, I was typing sloppily again. I never defended that point - I defended the one I had originally tried to make, as I did here, which is why I ended up referencing the same site as those who were ranting about how I was wrong.

If your ego would be better for yet more appologies, I admit, I had forgotten about HTML when you mentioned computer langauges. I would say that this doesn't change the fact that the computer is controlled and changed by language as human beings are not, but you are liable to throw a hissy fit again so I will not.

Since you seem to like these flame warrior pictures, I'll give you one:



You've been repeating the same thing for a couple pages now without bothering to read my posts telling you that we've moved on.

My ego isn't much affected by you rufio. You have fultilled another prediction.

When people carp your arguments you revise them and claim that is what you meant all along.

You accuse them of flaming and "hissy fits" and of not understanding you because all the while that you'd argued with them you actually meant to be agreeing.

It's silly, and frankly the point about HTML was unrelated. You were playing artful dodger again and I was playing along. It's not central to the issue.

You claim your revisionist arguments are not tactics on your part but mere sloppiness.

Please explain then, how you could repeatedly assert that language does not change thought while all along you meant that it actually does.

As to the stone guy I thought it appropriately described you, but it doesn't bother me if you want to call me the stone warrior, like the creator of those drawings I see a bit of myself in each of them.

I am acutely aware you want to move on, I expected as much and it's all part of this game.

When your arguments are shredded you claim you didn't mean them the whole time and want to move on. You are free to do so but my questions still stand:

How you could repeatedly assert that language does not change thought while all along you meant that it actually does?

I don't think it's a question of sloppiness. I think it's the ole evade game. If you want to "move on" (evade) that's fine with me. But I'm not accepting it as mere sloppiness. You quite clearly made the arguments you are now retreating from and it's not sloppiness. It's intelectual dishonesty. I mean that quite literally. I allege that your contention that you have merely been sloppy here is a bold lie.

So, move on if you wish. Or answer the question. Either way is fine with me, I'm fine with pointing out the gaming tactics even if that suddenly makes you wish to "move on".

I appologize about bringing HTML back. I thought it was important to you.

"Please explain then, how you could repeatedly assert that language does not change thought while all along you meant that it actually does."

Actually, all the posts I've made directed at you contained a thorough explanation of what I meant when I said change and potential and so forth, but you already thought you knew exactly what I was going to say before you first responded, so your counter was to tell me that I did not mean that. You're not reading my posts, you're arguing with the phantom that is your preconceived notion of my argument.

So what do you want? You win. What I posted was wrong, whether I meant it or not. Are you happy?

I've been named mostly as Issues and Rebel Leader, but Artful Dodger is a new one.

rufio,

It's not about winning or losing. I'm arrogant enough not to care.

You claim that I consistently do not comprehend what you mean. I contend that you revise your meanings after the fact.

I have read every word of your posts to me. And they simply do not answer the question you are currently evading. You claim I did not understand you and I am willing to give you the opportunity to explain or oint out what I misunderstood.

You chose not to. That's fine with me. I gotta go out in a few minutes anyway. But it's not about getting you to cede a victory. I'm disinterested in "victory" or a "win" over you. But I am equally disinterested in letting you misrespresent our exchange.

Like I said, the contention that you meant something else all along is something I consider a lie, and an evasive tactic. This is a wholly different point of contention from the language issues and as long as you are claiming the different meanings and misunderstandings I will state otherwise. As I believe it's revisionism.

I'm past the language issue. My current contention is with the lies you are still posting. Namely that you are Miss Understood and that all along I've been distorting your position.

That is simply a lie. And it's no damn wonder you want to leave that as a parting shot. Your claim to have moved on is belied by your continued falsehoods.

I was arguing with no "phantom". And you know this damn well and this is why you are not trying to articulate how I could have misunderstood this verbatim quote:



I am reading your posts. They make little sense and I am pointing that out.

You have a tendency to revise your positions after they are carped and you are doing it again here and as long as you are willing to lie about it I will be willing to point it out.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to want to move on and still lie about what you said and meant.

I've given my explanation, craven. I typed before I thought. I had a very definite idea of what I was going to say, and I typed it without stopping to think that it would be confusing and other people would not interpret it the same way I did. I have been doing that all to often lately. In any case, I think the post you actually reponded to originally was on a completely different subject entirely.

I finished reading this thread, and I'd like to say that I think rufio is correct, in that Craven has missed the essence of what rufio was trying to say. I think Craven is correct to challenge rufio's ideas, but any more than that (i.e. personal comments) should be redirected to PMs. rufio hasn't always expressed himself as precisely as he could have, perhaps, less words, more thought?

My take on what rufio tried to express is: the mind created language, language didn't create the mind, language is merely an expression of the mind. To suggest that language intrinsically modifies the essence of the mind is to miss the nature of the relationship.

Iain