On The Deflationary Theory

[mfbukowski]

The idea of the sphere basically reminds me to be humble about my own views and respectful of others.  Also, to have some confidence in myself and my own convictions.

 

The Calculus analogy, yep, is about building on what I already know so that I can know more.  Example, letting a good friendship grow and seeing that the goodness of that person springs from a whole other good way of living and seeing the world.  Then, I want to be like them.  Seeking one goodness leads to another.

 

I totally agree that there's no difference between the science and the gospel, other than the way they are popularly seen to diverge. The faith cycle in Almas 32 is to me a spiritual version of the scientific method.  (Except I'm the only subject and it's old and new experiences which form the test and control groups...this also forces me to be humble about others because my results and theirs cannot possibly duplicate each other all the time because our experiences are different.)

 

Sidenote: my mother says that memory began with words.  Because we can extract a thought by virtue of a word, we can look at it, turn it around, and share it with someone else.Doing those things with a thought engender memory. And they build and build, and we create things transcending ourselves.  I also think opposable thumbs have something to do with our brains.  Because we can use them, our brains grow because of those experiences.  The hands we use as tools create tools, which, also like words, build things.

Well certainly "conceptual" memory scientifically speaking appears to begin with words. The people in the radiolab mp3 that Mars linked to could remember how to mime and repeat other behaviors but after they had language they could not remember even how to think the way they did before they had language.

So it seems that once they had words, even their memories of what it was like to not have words disappeared.

The more I learn about this way of seeing the world as verbal sentences which either work or don't work, the more I am convinced that this is a tremendously powerful model for everything. I cannot see exceptions any more, for better or worse.

Of course I have been looking at the world this way a long time. I see myself living in a bubble of human creation with the idea that Human includes God and the bubble is surrounded by The Unknowable, waiting to be organized into our human bubble. Matter unorganized awaiting organization. Sand waiting to be turned into sand castles. But even that already names that what has been left unorganized as "sand" so even those words are not right. Nor is it "matter unorganized" because that itself is a human picture of it. We cannot escape the human pictures and cannot see beyond that which is human.

There is a famous article by a philosopher named Thomas Nagel, who of course subscribes to this general view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

In it, he views some of the implications for this general way of seeing the world. The actual essay I think is probably not accessible to the ordinary reader who is not used to the jargon, but here it is. Brilliant essay!http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Unfortunately you kind of have to have philosophical schools of jargon already in your mind to understand it, know what "reductionism" and "physicalism" is etc, but still it might be accessible to some here.

But what it says is that you cannot reduce a subjective experience to a sentence like "Neurons xyz are firing at location abc in the brain caused by chemical reaction qrs"

The experience of seeing a red car can never be made logically equivalent to a statement about what is happening in your brain- the experience has something more to it than can be defined by chemical reactions etc. What that other part is, we call "consciousness".

So what it is like to have an experience of red can never be described adequately by speaking of states of the brain.

So what does that mean for Mormons? (Nagel was an atheist but he was on our side )

It means that all the talk you hear about your testimony "just" being caused by something you ate for dinner or heartburn or even some drug or brainstate you achieved by baning your head against the wall (!) is totally incorrect

Spiritual experience - or any other experience for that matter cannot be said to be "caused" by physical effects because that description of physical effects will always leave out the most important portion of the experience- what it feels like to HAVE the experience.

That is essentially what we are talking about here- speaking about physical reality has nothing to do with speaking about mental states. There is something totally different between an experience and how we speak of the experience, or the relation of the experience to what is "outside" the bubble of consciousness.

Edited July 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Another way of thinking about this is to realize that statements about what I am doing, cannot be made equivalent to what the world is doing.  Objective statements cannot be logically equivalent to subjective ones because the VIEWPOINT IS DIFFERENT.

 

"My toe hurts" can never be made equivalent to a statement about what others see in my toe or in my brain- because they are outside me looking in, and I am commenting from inside looking out.

 

So "My toe hurts" is never equivalent logically to "Bukowski has arthritis in his right big toe".  Nor is it equivalent to "Bukowski's pain center in his brain shows activity at location xyz"

 

One statement is about what I am feeling personally and the other is what someone else would see.  So statements about experiences can never be made equivalent to statements about what is happening "in the world".  There is no "correspondence" because they are not logically equivalent statements nor can they be made logically equivalent.

 

So the only way to verify whether or not "Joseph saw God" is to ask Joseph about his experience, not an analysis of the state of the world outside Joseph's experience at the time he allegedly saw God.

 

Even if Joseph was wired up with a brain scanner that would record the experience http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-figure-out-what-you-see-while-youre-dreaming-15553304/?no-ist

it would still not make the two statements logically equivalent, it would just verify that what Joseph said he saw was what Joseph said he saw.  Was it "really God"?

 

Unknowable and irrelevant.  

 

Did "Jesus die for your sins"?  To this discussion, that is unknowable and irrelevant.  Spiritual truths are not objective truths and must be accepted on faith.

[Ahab]

Thank you for trying to convey your ideas to me in such a nice way. I'm really not trying to be stubborn or rude, just true to my own perspective.

To offer an example of what I consider a false idea, how about:

The Book of Mormon is NOT true

or

Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God

or

We are NOT the same kind of being as God our Father

or

There is no such thing as a false idea

Basically just about any idea we would be getting from Satan that is not really true although there may be some elements of truth in his message.

Like when he told Adam and Eve that they would not die...

Basically a false idea is also known as a lie.

And I think we can even lie to ourselves before transforming our own ideas into sentences, but maybe I am wrong about that

But you see you are ignoring the deflationary theory here.

Let me take just one of your assertions -"The Book of Mormon is not true"

First again let me affirm that the Book of Mormon is true. You know I know that, I hope. But let's look at the philosophical statement "The BOM is not true"

Is that statement true or false or is it a "false idea"??

We go back to the formula- what does "true" mean in a philosophical sense? On the deflationary theory it doesn't mean much. It does not give us useful information.

On the correspondence view, saying something is NOT true says it "doesn't correspond to reality". And now we are back to what reality is and what correspondence is.

So on the correspondence theory - where is the correspondence with reality? Where are the plates? Where is the evidence that it is a translation? Where is Reformed Egyptian?

Nowhere!

So on the correspondence theory, is the BOM "True"? NO! So now you have scholars trying to dig up evidence because they believe the correspondence theory is relevant to proving that the BOM is true.

I have convinced myself there IS evidence but that doesn't prove it true! Was Jesus really on this continent? Where is the evidence of that?

But on the deflationary theory, correspondence is unintelligible, so what "true" means about a spiritual book is that it works in my life. My life is a thousand percent better for my belief that the BOM is true. THAT is what matters and makes it spiritually true.

So is your question a "false idea" that the BOM is false? NOT talking about the truth of the book, but talking about the truth of the idea - the sentence "the bom is false"?

As usual, it all depends on what "truth" means!

This post presumes that all your questions have answers that "correspond to reality" and can be true or false in that sense.

Your questions do not have answers that "correspond to reality" as shown in this thread, therefore they are unanswerable. It is like your mind snapped back to the old paradigm.

How do we show that "Joseph was a prophet" corresponds to reality?

That we are or are not the same kind of being as God?

How do we prove that there is such things as ideas? How can they be true or false? How can they correspond to reality or not?

There's an Ahab in there somewhere who understands the other paradigm- I want to talk to HIM instead of this Ahab!

I see 2 possibilities here. Either I understand Deflationary Theory correctly or I don't, and since my understanding of it is basically that whatever I experience IS both true and real, or Truth and Reality if you prefer the big letters which ARE basically the same thing, then I am right because truth and reality ARE whatever I experience and that includes the idea that the Book of Mormon IS true along with those other things I mentioned.

You seem to want to distinguish ideas from statements as if a statement can be true or false while the idea behind it is unaffected, which seems to me like you're talking as if people create statements ex nilo (sp?). Like when you say you have never seen a false idea. But to my way of thinking an idea IS a statement, which itself is made up of words. So to me the idea that the Book of Mormon is not true is a false idea, whether it's just an idea in my mind, or somebody else's mind, or expressed in a statement. It doesn't matter if someone else disagrees with me, as if their disagreement alters truth or reality as I perceive and experience it.

Basically the Deflationary Theory is geared toward truth and reality being perceived through subjective perspectives, with whatever a person experiences being both Truth and Reality. So when I say something is false that means it is contrary to my perception of truth and reality.

Anyone who disagrees is just someone who disagrees unless I change my mind/idea/statement to then agree that they are expressing the truth.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Another way of thinking about this is to realize that statements about what I am doing, cannot be made equivalent to what the world is doing. Objective statements cannot be logically equivalent to subjective ones because the VIEWPOINT IS DIFFERENT.

"My toe hurts" can never be made equivalent to a statement about what others see in my toe or in my brain- because they are outside me looking in, and I am commenting from inside looking out.

So "My toe hurts" is never equivalent logically to "Bukowski has arthritis in his right big toe". Nor is it equivalent to "Bukowski's pain center in his brain shows activity at location xyz"

One statement is about what I am feeling personally and the other is what someone else would see. So statements about experiences can never be made equivalent to statements about what is happening "in the world". There is no "correspondence" because they are not logically equivalent statements nor can they be made logically equivalent.

So the only way to verify whether or not "Joseph saw God" is to ask Joseph about his experience, not an analysis of the state of the world outside Joseph's experience at the time he allegedly saw God.

Even if Joseph was wired up with a brain scanner that would record the experience http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-figure-out-what-you-see-while-youre-dreaming-15553304/?no-ist

it would still not make the two statements logically equivalent, it would just verify that what Joseph said he saw was what Joseph said he saw. Was it "really God"?

Unknowable and irrelevant.

Did "Jesus die for your sins"? To this discussion, that is unknowable and irrelevant. Spiritual truths are not objective truths and must be accepted on faith.

No such thing as an unknowable thing. Unknown yes, but not unknowable.

You are wrong, based on my understanding of the Deflationary Theory.

[SmileyMcGee]

Prove that. Don't just make assertions. Prove them. Show by some analogy or example how what you are stating is true. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Oh gosh, not double dog. You got me running scared now.

Read the article. I don't have to reinvent the wheel. This is hundred year old stuff.

What do you think this thread is about? Get out your glasses and read.

If you give further comments which have no substance I will not respond.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Of course I know what's "true". The point is, that it cannot be defined precisely. You know it when you see it. Wake up and read the thread- that's the whole point.

Haha...I loved the "double dog" dare too, almost as much as i Ioved how he equates analogy with proof. Edited July 12, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Another way of thinking about this is to realize that statements about what I am doing, cannot be made equivalent to what the world is doing. Objective statements cannot be logically equivalent to subjective ones because the VIEWPOINT IS DIFFERENT.

"My toe hurts" can never be made equivalent to a statement about what others see in my toe or in my brain- because they are outside me looking in, and I am commenting from inside looking out.

So "My toe hurts" is never equivalent logically to "Bukowski has arthritis in his right big toe". Nor is it equivalent to "Bukowski's pain center in his brain shows activity at location xyz"

One statement is about what I am feeling personally and the other is what someone else would see. So statements about experiences can never be made equivalent to statements about what is happening "in the world". There is no "correspondence" because they are not logically equivalent statements nor can they be made logically equivalent.

So the only way to verify whether or not "Joseph saw God" is to ask Joseph about his experience, not an analysis of the state of the world outside Joseph's experience at the time he allegedly saw God.

Even if Joseph was wired up with a brain scanner that would record the experience http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-figure-out-what-you-see-while-youre-dreaming-15553304/?no-ist

it would still not make the two statements logically equivalent, it would just verify that what Joseph said he saw was what Joseph said he saw. Was it "really God"?

Unknowable and irrelevant.

Did "Jesus die for your sins"? To this discussion, that is unknowable and irrelevant. Spiritual truths are not objective truths and must be accepted on faith.

No such thing as an unknowable thing. Unknown yes, but not unknowable.

You are wrong, based on my understanding of the Deflationary Theory.

Ahab, how would you even know that unknowable things don't exist? You don't see the disaster that is your logic?

And as one who has tried to spar with MFB over the concept of truth, and in light of your statements on this thread, I think I can confidently say that you are in way over your head if you plan to continue to challenge him on this.

Edited July 12, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

Ahab, how would you even know that unknowable things don't exist? You don't see the disaster that is your logic?

Based on the Deflationary Theory, all I know and can know is whatever I experience, with truth and reality determined by my own experiences, so based on the fact that I have never known anything that is unknowable I can confidently conclude that there is no such thing as an unknowable. For me to state as a fact or truth that unknowable things do exist I would have to exoerience one of those things, and since I haven't, there isn't. Unknown things yes, because I have had experiences of knowing things that I did not know at an earlier time. But unknowable? Nope. Never have known one before.

And as one who has tried to spar with MFB over the concept of truth, and in light of your statements on this thread, I think I can confidently say that you are in way over your head if you plan to continue to challenge him on this.

I'm not challenging anybody. Just stating what I know based on my own experiences.

[mfbukowski]

But unknowable? Nope. Never have known one before.

 

sigh

[Meadowchik]

"my mother says that memory began with words."

But my dog has memory. She recognizes that when she is put in the car and driven a certain way, something unpleasant is coming. The reverse of the drive is all mellow because she understands the hard part is over with and we are going home.

 

That kind of memory seems quite limited.  And although dogs CAN respond to words and language, I was thinking of humans.

[Meadowchik]

Well certainly "conceptual" memory scientifically speaking appears to begin with words. The people in the radiolab mp3 that Mars linked to could remember how to mime and repeat other behaviors but after they had language they could not remember even how to think the way they did before they had language.

So it seems that once they had words, even their memories of what it was like to not have words disappeared.

The more I learn about this way of seeing the world as verbal sentences which either work or don't work, the more I am convinced that this is a tremendously powerful model for everything. I cannot see exceptions any more, for better or worse.

Of course I have been looking at the world this way a long time. I see myself living in a bubble of human creation with the idea that Human includes God and the bubble is surrounded by The Unknowable, waiting to be organized into our human bubble. Matter unorganized awaiting organization. Sand waiting to be turned into sand castles. But even that already names that what has been left unorganized as "sand" so even those words are not right. Nor is it "matter unorganized" because that itself is a human picture of it. We cannot escape the human pictures and cannot see beyond that which is human.

There is a famous article by a philosopher named Thomas Nagel, who of course subscribes to this general view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

In it, he views some of the implications for this general way of seeing the world. The actual essay I think is probably not accessible to the ordinary reader who is not used to the jargon, but here it is. Brilliant essay!http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Unfortunately you kind of have to have philosophical schools of jargon already in your mind to understand it, know what "reductionism" and "physicalism" is etc, but still it might be accessible to some here.

But what it says is that you cannot reduce a subjective experience to a sentence like "Neurons xyz are firing at location abc in the brain caused by chemical reaction qrs"

The experience of seeing a red car can never be made logically equivalent to a statement about what is happening in your brain- the experience has something more to it than can be defined by chemical reactions etc. What that other part is, we call "consciousness".

So what it is like to have an experience of red can never be described adequately by speaking of states of the brain.

So what does that mean for Mormons? (Nagel was an atheist but he was on our side )

It means that all the talk you hear about your testimony "just" being caused by something you ate for dinner or heartburn or even some drug or brainstate you achieved by baning your head against the wall (!) is totally incorrect

Spiritual experience - or any other experience for that matter cannot be said to be "caused" by physical effects because that description of physical effects will always leave out the most important portion of the experience- what it feels like to HAVE the experience.

That is essentially what we are talking about here- speaking about physical reality has nothing to do with speaking about mental states. There is something totally different between an experience and how we speak of the experience, or the relation of the experience to what is "outside" the bubble of consciousness.

 

I agree that words are inadequate.  They are a simplification, and one could even go so far as to say words are lies minus ill intent, (except when there is ill intent.) This may be one reason why it can be so essential to be silent sometimes.

 

One of my favorite movies is philosophical musing called Mindwalk.  Basically it's a rebuttal to the mechanical perspective of the world described by Descartes, a chastisement of the Victor Frankenstein mindset that everything is a sum of components, rather than the world existing because of connections and systems. 

 

You could say that words are a dissection of reality, where you cannot cut without something being lost. 

 

This would give words an even weightier moral weight.  Out of all we're experiencing and all that is, why this word, this moment? Why break from the rest to say? Kinda humbling.

 

BTW, thanks for the link to Nagel's paper!

Edited July 13, 2015 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

I agree that words are inadequate.  They are a simplification, and one could even go so far as to say words are lies minus ill intent, (except when there is ill intent.) This may be one reason why it can be so essential to be silent sometimes.

 

One of my favorite movies is philosophical musing called Mindwalk.  Basically it's a rebuttal to the mechanical perspective of the world described by Descartes, a chastisement of the Victor Frankenstein mindset that everything is a sum of components, rather than the world existing because of connections and systems. 

 

You could say that words are a dissection of reality, where you cannot cut without something being lost. 

 

This would give words an even weightier moral weight.  Out of all we're experiencing and all that is, why this word, this moment? Why break from the rest to say? Kinda humbling.

 

BTW, thanks for the link to Nagel's paper!

Some people take forever to "get" this stuff- others seem to be born to seeing the world this way.  You are one of the latter.  I am a convert to this perspective- it took me years to figure out what you just whip out in a few sentences as totally obvious!

 

"Words are a dissection of reality"- yes that's it exactly.  We want to know about frogs and what it is like to be a frog, so we kill one and look at its brain.  That is precisely Nagel's point- you take away what you are looking for by trying to define it in terms of one word, one sentence while ignoring the context.  That is also Wittgenstein's point precisely

 

Essentially Wittgenstein wrote books no one seems to understand because he gives example after example of how divorcing the context of a word or sentence in its use from using it as a "definition" absolutely destroys the context.  It is very easy to misread W because you think he is telling you something when indeed he leads you through exercises to show you a principle.  If you are interested in this stuff, read some of W's "Philosophical Investigations".  I will make it easy- here is a pdf of the whole dang book

http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf

 

Because I had a background on it, it just came naturally to me- I think you can do it without background.  Just don't read it paragraph by paragraph looking for "what it says" because it isn't like that.  Read it and it can change the way you see language.  Read it like a series of exercises examining language- because that is what it is.

 

One of the reasons I like this board is because it is similar to W's aphoristic style- like bricks.  You take one brick at a time and when you read enough "bricks" you can use them to build a house.  Of course with W every "post" is a brick.....   here, not so much....  there's a lot of mud and straw to sift through too! 

 

Incidentally if anyone wants a philosophical education by reading one book- this is the book.

Read and understand this book and all philosophy will be totally transparent as silliness.

Edited July 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That kind of memory seems quite limited.  And although dogs CAN respond to words and language, I was thinking of humans.

That mp3 that Mars posted shows that humans without language behave in a similar way so it is more language that makes the difference imo.

[Ahab]

I agree that words are inadequate. They are a simplification, and one could even go so far as to say words are lies minus ill intent, (except when there is ill intent.) This may be one reason why it can be so essential to be silent sometimes.

One of my favorite movies is philosophical musing called Mindwalk. Basically it's a rebuttal to the mechanical perspective of the world described by Descartes, a chastisement of the Victor Frankenstein mindset that everything is a sum of components, rather than the world existing because of connections and systems.

You could say that words are a dissection of reality, where you cannot cut without something being lost.

This would give words an even weightier moral weight. Out of all we're experiencing and all that is, why this word, this moment? Why break from the rest to say? Kinda humbling.

BTW, thanks for the link to Nagel's paper!

I get what you're saying, and yet you used words!

If only everyone were as clear with their choice of words, and yes I know that my messages aren't always clear to other people, even when my words seem clear enough to me.

Maybe it's because we don't know the right words to use that will register as well in their minds, or maybe it's because they're just not really trying to understand us. My wife and I had a talk recently about the difference in taking someone literally and trying to sympathize with what they are trying to convey when their choice of words do not make that clear. Sometimes the words do get in the way of clearly understanding someone or sonething but once we understand we can find the right words. It just takes the right amount and type of communication to get there, but we CAN communicate clearly with each other.

No-thing is not nothing once it has been named and there is no-thing that we can not know.

[Calm]

you take away what you are looking for by trying to define it in terms of one word, one sentence while ignoring the context. 

 

Reminds me for some reason of the Observer Effect in physics:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

Also in part the Uncertainty Principle in that attempting to get a more precise measurement in one area, leads to less precision in another one (broadly paraphrased).

 

Since something can never be fully defined by only one attribute, this creates a win-lose situation.  Narrowing in on one thing precisely can actually lead to misunderstanding.

Edited July 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[Meadowchik]

Reminds me for some reason of the Observer Effect in physics:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

Also in part the Uncertainty Principle in that attempting to get a more precise measurement in one area, leads to less precision in another one (broadly paraphrased).

 

Since something can never be fully defined by only one attribute, this creates a win-lose situation.  Narrowing in on one thing precisely can actually lead to misunderstanding.

 

Or the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Meadowchik]

Some people take forever to "get" this stuff- others seem to be born to seeing the world this way.  You are one of the latter.  I am a convert to this perspective- it took me years to figure out what you just whip out in a few sentences as totally obvious!

 

"Words are a dissection of reality"- yes that's it exactly.  We want to know about frogs and what it is like to be a frog, so we kill one and look at its brain.  That is precisely Nagel's point- you take away what you are looking for by trying to define it in terms of one word, one sentence while ignoring the context.  That is also Wittgenstein's point precisely

 

Essentially Wittgenstein wrote books no one seems to understand because he gives example after example of how divorcing the context of a word or sentence in its use from using it as a "definition" absolutely destroys the context.  It is very easy to misread W because you think he is telling you something when indeed he leads you through exercises to show you a principle.  If you are interested in this stuff, read some of W's "Philosophical Investigations".  I will make it easy- here is a pdf of the whole dang book

http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf

 

Because I had a background on it, it just came naturally to me- I think you can do it without background.  Just don't read it paragraph by paragraph looking for "what it says" because it isn't like that.  Read it and it can change the way you see language.  Read it like a series of exercises examining language- because that is what it is.

 

One of the reasons I like this board is because it is similar to W's aphoristic style- like bricks.  You take one brick at a time and when you read enough "bricks" you can use them to build a house.  Of course with W every "post" is a brick.....   here, not so much....  there's a lot of mud and straw to sift through too! 

 

Incidentally if anyone wants a philosophical education by reading one book- this is the book.

Read and understand this book and all philosophy will be totally transparent as silliness.

 

Thanks, I'll check that out, too. 

 

BTW, it is true what Nagel said about bats.  We had one in our house last month and I could NOT handle it. Just, knowing it was there was too much.  Snakes, spiders, mice...I can cope...

 

I don't think I was born to understand, although I probably live in my head to excess, but I love literature and the sciences and majored in True Logic (maths) at university.

 

And I watch Star Trek.

[Meadowchik]

I get what you're saying, and yet you used words!

If only everyone were as clear with their choice of words, and yes I know that my messages aren't always clear to other people, even when my words seem clear enough to me.

Maybe it's because we don't know the right words to use that will register as well in their minds, or maybe it's because they're just not really trying to understand us. My wife and I had a talk recently about the difference in taking someone literally and trying to sympathize with what they are trying to convey when their choice of words do not make that clear. Sometimes the words do get in the way of clearly understanding someone or sonething but once we understand we can find the right words. It just takes the right amount and type of communication to get there, but we CAN communicate clearly with each other.

No-thing is not nothing once it has been named and there is no-thing that we can not know.

 

Thank goodness for words.  It's a paradox, I know, but an enjoyable one!

 

Speaking of Star Trek--I did a couple replies up-- (Next Generation) there was an episode where they couldn't understand an alien race because there was no base understanding upon which to formulate translation.  The aliens spoke in metaphor to the exclusion of any other expressions, and since metaphors are anecdotal, it took being stuck on a planet with their leader for Picard to have a context to begin communicating.

 

But we can compare a common language between us to such a language barrier.  Each person might say the same words and mean something different.  I was just reading a person's account of witnessing a crime and she was saying "It can't be him!" when clearly she meant it must be. So it's as if we are learning a new language each time we talk to someone else.  The words we have in common to an extent form the base understanding but that's not enough.  Sometimes the look on someone's face or the tone of their voice says everything else, or seems to.

[Calm]

The aliens spoke in metaphor to the exclusion of any other expressions, and since metaphors are anecdotal, it took being stuck on a planet with their leader for Picard to have a context to begin communicating.

 

I have always wondered how the writers imagined how to communicate new experiences of a highly technical nature (complicated inventions).

 

Also did they have math?  Surely must have in order to be technically advance for space travel, but how would they have expressed it in their language.

 

How does a language incorporate new experiences when it is communicated solely through past experiences (anecdotes)?  And how much information can actually be shared?

Edited July 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mars]

Thank goodness for words.  It's a paradox, I know, but an enjoyable one!

 

Speaking of Star Trek--I did a couple replies up-- (Next Generation) there was an episode where they couldn't understand an alien race because there was no base understanding upon which to formulate translation.  The aliens spoke in metaphor to the exclusion of any other expressions, and since metaphors are anecdotal, it took being stuck on a planet with their leader for Picard to have a context to begin communicating.

 

But we can compare a common language between us to such a language barrier.  Each person might say the same words and mean something different.  I was just reading a person's account of witnessing a crime and she was saying "It can't be him!" when clearly she meant it must be. So it's as if we are learning a new language each time we talk to someone else.  The words we have in common to an extent form the base understanding but that's not enough.  Sometimes the look on someone's face or the tone of their voice says everything else, or seems to.

 

[Ahab]

Thank goodness for words. It's a paradox, I know, but an enjoyable one!

Speaking of Star Trek--I did a couple replies up-- (Next Generation) there was an episode where they couldn't understand an alien race because there was no base understanding upon which to formulate translation. The aliens spoke in metaphor to the exclusion of any other expressions, and since metaphors are anecdotal, it took being stuck on a planet with their leader for Picard to have a context to begin communicating.

But we can compare a common language between us to such a language barrier. Each person might say the same words and mean something different. I was just reading a person's account of witnessing a crime and she was saying "It can't be him!" when clearly she meant it must be. So it's as if we are learning a new language each time we talk to someone else. The words we have in common to an extent form the base understanding but that's not enough. Sometimes the look on someone's face or the tone of their voice says everything else, or seems to.

My point is illustrated by the fact that Picard was able to get to the point where he could understand what those aliens meant when they were communicating with them. He was able to get it! And we can too, in reality.

Sometimes I wonder if that stone/crystal that some of us will be getting will have a spirit to spirit interface that will convey emotions and internal thoughts to each person with one that will communicate things we can't fathom right now. Like making it possible for a man to feel and think what a woman feels and thinks while she is pregnant, and giving birth, and living her life as a Mom. And while still being a man while thinking and feeling like a man at the same time. Bonding with another person without missing out on anything.

Star Trek is pretty cool, but I reject the idea that there is any place where NO man has gone before.

[Calm]

My point is illustrated by the fact that Picard was able to get to the point where he could understand what those aliens meant when they were communicating with them

 

Because the writers wrote it that way.  Whether it would have happened that way if such a situation ever actually arose is another thing.

[Ahab]

Because the writers wrote it that way. Whether it would have happened that way if such a situation ever actually arose is another thing.

Another thing, yes, but it would still illustrate my same point.

If you get what I meant you can now illustrate whether you agree or disagree.

[mfbukowski]

I get what you're saying, and yet you used words!

If only everyone were as clear with their choice of words, and yes I know that my messages aren't always clear to other people, even when my words seem clear enough to me.

Maybe it's because we don't know the right words to use that will register as well in their minds, or maybe it's because they're just not really trying to understand us. My wife and I had a talk recently about the difference in taking someone literally and trying to sympathize with what they are trying to convey when their choice of words do not make that clear. Sometimes the words do get in the way of clearly understanding someone or sonething but once we understand we can find the right words. It just takes the right amount and type of communication to get there, but we CAN communicate clearly with each other.

No-thing is not nothing once it has been named and there is no-thing that we can not know.

Indeed this is a good point, but I was having major trouble with this:

Unknown things yes, because I have had experiences of knowing things that I did not know at an earlier time. But unknowable? Nope. Never have known one before.

 

Maybe a better idea would be to use the words "undefined".

 

There is quite a controversy around this sort of point- some say that there is no such thing as a non-verbal feeling or idea.  In fact Rorty tends to be one who thinks that all language is contingent and we are programmed completely (this is a summary- so forgive the absolute terminology- I am cutting to the chase and leaving out a zillion nuances of his position in doing so) programmed completely by language.

 

Rorty calls these non-linguistic perceptions "raw feels".  Here is a bit about the problem, just so you can get a flavor of it all https://books.google.com/books?id=JZ7gBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=rorty+raw+feels&source=bl&ots=j66PSy-sI7&sig=qQa5iJepPzZqxrKK5-s1io_Eagk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAWoVChMIntHS0_HYxgIVyTOICh0q0wqC#v=onepage&q=rorty%20raw%20feels&f=false

 

Incidentally if you read to the next page it mentions Dewey and Heidegger who are also "good guys" in taking a similar position- a position also favored by many BYU philosophers, as I have said before.  Paulsen is a William James scholar (Dewey's work comes straight out of James with modifications and additions) and Faulconer is a Heideggarian, both BYU profs who hold similar positions to the one we are discussing in this thread.  This is the view that affirms that pure experience- including religious experience- is as perfectly "real" as any other experience.

 

Anyway- it is clear to me that the very experience we have of "searching for the right word" indeed PROVES that there "raw feels" are an important part of this.

 

The "raw feel" is the direct experience, and I am convinced such experiences are pre-linguistic or we would not have the experience of "searching for the right word" to try to unsuccessfully capture the experience.

 

Imagine driving over the crest of a hill and seeing a vista of hills and villages and clouds stretching for miles.  We might say "How beautiful!" but does that capture the experience?  Of course not.

 

Is it true that it is a "beautiful" view?   Of course!  But what about the word "beautiful" "corresponds" to a scene of bucolic farms and mountains and clouds?

 

How does the question "Is it true that it is beautiful" add anything to the experience or the explanation?  Nothing!

 

When we say "I know the church is true"- what does that "correspond" to?  The fact that the walls are perpendicular and therefore "true"?  The fact that we have had it confirmed to our own spirits that the teachings of the church immeasurably improve our lives?   The fact that we have no presently visible evidence of the plates from which the BOM was allegedly translated?

 

Just as when we call a scene "beautiful", both the words "beautiful" and "true" do not add much to the experience we are attempting to portray.

 

And how does "beautiful" also describe a face?  One word- and yet it "corresponds" to so many experiences, the word itself devoid of context becomes irrelevant.  yet we know what both words mean, and we can agree that a scene or a face is "beautiful" or a sentence is "true".   Where is the correspondence?  Nowhere!

 

So yes, language is in some way inadequate to express direct experience,  but on the other hand it's all we have, so just saying that "language is inadequate" is like all sentences meaningless on its own.

 

Inadequate for what?  Math is a language and it certainly is "adequate" for its purposes. 

 

Saying a vista is "beautiful" is an important communication, just as is "I love you" or indeed "You are beautiful and I love you" is one of the most important communications humans make and is in many ways "adequate" for its intended purpose.

 

But where is the evidence for these "unfounded" assertions? a critic may ask?    My not so nice answer might well be "where the sun don't shine"

 

So yes, to me there are "undefined" pre-linguistic "raw feels" that we may search for "words to portray" and do so unsuccessfully.

 

But to say that there is a realm of "things which are unknowable" is, I have decided is not a good choice of words, though I have used that phrase often.  The phrase is about as confusing as saying something "exists" or "is real" or "corresponds to reality" and I am the first to admit that those phrases conjure up "Nothingness" as if it is a name for "something".

 

So thanks to Ahab, and his justifiable confusion, I am switching to "undefined" and the cumbersome "pre-linguistic experience".  Those don't really work either but they are better than creating an invisible realm of "Nothingness" which immediately makes nothing, something.

 

Perhaps the invisible realms they conjure up are not realms after all.  That is the goal.  "Undefined" may give an image of "something" waiting to be defined and I suppose I am ok with that.

 

That fits ok with "matter unorganized" which after all creates its own category which we already know is "material" which makes it circular.   

 

Oh well, in some things words are inadequate.     This struggle itself to define language with language I think proves the point.  You cannot escape being circular when you do that, but we have no solution to the alleged problem

[mfbukowski]

Abso friggin lutely.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(Can I say that here??  )

 

See how you are?  grrrr.  One post no words and all the rep points you are going to get?

 

I want to steal your brain. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thank goodness for words.  It's a paradox, I know, but an enjoyable one!

 

Speaking of Star Trek--I did a couple replies up-- (Next Generation) there was an episode where they couldn't understand an alien race because there was no base understanding upon which to formulate translation.  The aliens spoke in metaphor to the exclusion of any other expressions, and since metaphors are anecdotal, it took being stuck on a planet with their leader for Picard to have a context to begin communicating.

 

But we can compare a common language between us to such a language barrier.  Each person might say the same words and mean something different.  I was just reading a person's account of witnessing a crime and she was saying "It can't be him!" when clearly she meant it must be. So it's as if we are learning a new language each time we talk to someone else.  The words we have in common to an extent form the base understanding but that's not enough.  Sometimes the look on someone's face or the tone of their voice says everything else, or seems to.

oops

 

Wrong brain.  Or better yet, now I need to steal two brains! 

 

Bwwwaaahhahhahhahahhhaaaaaa!