Jump to content

Understanding Reality


Doctordick

Recommended Posts

The issue of understanding reality is something I would like to seriously discuss. There is an aspect of that issue which no one seems to have any interest in thinking about. The issue I refer to is the fact that no one is born capable of considering the problem. Every person who has ever tried to think about that issue had to first learn the language spoken by their contemporaries. The underlying problem is that each and every one of them makes the assumption that they understand the language they have supposedly learned.

 

I would like to discuss the issue without making any assumptions about the language being examined. This constitutes a problem as even discussing the issues requires we use a language. I have a subtle means of working around that underlying issue which is apparently difficult for people to comprehend. My attack requires two fundamental concepts: first, establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language and second, establishing a mechanism capable of defining the concept of understanding within that representation of the language without actually defining the language itself.

 

In my discussion I would like to use English as the discussion mechanism in order to refer to some underlying aspects of the unknown language being represented.

 

If anyone is interested, let me know and I will make a serious attempt to explain my thoughts in English.

 

Thank you for taking the trouble to think about the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language

 

Which is language itself.

 

 

and second, establishing a mechanism capable of defining the concept of understanding within that representation of the language without actually defining the language itself.

 

This makes no sense to me. What do you mean by ''defining the concept of understanding?''. You cannot define it. Or, how do you know that the other person understands your definition of understanding? It will not be understood by another person just by defining it.

 

 

 

 

In my discussion I would like to use English as the discussion mechanism in order to refer to some underlying aspects of the unknown language being represented.

 

What does this mean? Can you be clearer?

What is ''the problem'' you are talking about? Is it this understanding or is it something else? Is this philosophy? You should state your intentions clearly in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First, regarding the "moderators" decision to move this thread to "Speculation", my thread contains no speculations whatsoever and the issue I want to discuss consists of absolutely nothing but cold hard facts. (Facts most people would rather ignore!) If anyone sees an assertion I make which is not a cold hard fact, please bring it up so we can discuss the issue.

 

Secondly, the only response so far (from Lord Antares) seems to totally ignore what I have said.

 

His response, that "establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language" is "language itself" rather misses the point. People generally presume they understand the language they use. Now that is "speculation" and not defensible fact (misunderstandings occur quite regularly and to deny that such things occur is rather foolish).

 

Secondly, Mr Antares apparently ignored the phrase "My attack requires two fundamental concepts", and simply presumed these concepts were readily available and (I guess) already known by him. Lastly, his assertion that "it will not be understood by another person just by defining it" seems to presume a rather ignorant comprehension on the part of the second party in the communication of interest.

 

What I said was, "My attack requires two fundamental concepts: first, establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language and second, establishing a mechanism capable of defining the concept of understanding within that representation of the language without actually defining the language itself." I did neither of these things in my opening post. That post was made for the purpose of finding someone interested in thinking about the issue and nothing more.

 

His further assertion that I can not define what I mean by "understanding" is again a rather extreme "presumption".

 

Finally his question, what is "the problem" I am talking about was (as far as I am concerned) quite clearly expressed. My opening comment was, "The issue of understanding reality is something I would like to seriously discuss." That he totally missed that fact is simply beyond my comprehension.

 

He also apparently missed my further comment that "I would like to discuss the issue without making any assumptions about the language being examined." It seems to me that even the most uneducated individual would comprehend difficulty inherent in such an attack! Without defining a language, discussion is simply impossible.

 

My comment that I would like to use English is an admission that I fully understand the problems embedded in the presumption that the language is "understood" by the reader. That is a problem I will do my best to work around, but recognition that it is a serious problem must be comprehended by the reader. Something which seems to be totally beyond Mr. Antares comprehension.

 

If anyone else reading this thread is interested in discussing the subject (in English, my native language which I think I understand pretty well) I will present the first fundamental concept essential to any conceivable language. That would be the fact that every conceivable language requires a collection of symbolic representations of concepts essential to representing specific thoughts via that language. If no such representations exist, the language does not exist.

 

Please, if anyone thinks that is not a fact, please give me an example of a contradiction of that assertion.

 

Thank you -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

His response, that "establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language" is "language itself" rather misses the point. People generally presume they understand the language they use. Now that is "speculation"

 

Their language is more comprehensible than yours.

 

 

Secondly, the only response so far (from Lord Antares) seems to totally ignore what I have said.

 

It helps if you know what you're talking about. Or at least, if you try to express your thoughts clearly and consicely. As is, you sound like a hipster college student who just wants to sound deep. Let me know if there is actual substance you want to discuss. That's why no one else replied to your post: it didn't make sense to them.

 

 

 

Secondly, Mr Antares apparently ignored the phrase "My attack requires two fundamental concepts", and simply presumed these concepts were readily available and (I guess) already known by him. Lastly, his assertion that "it will not be understood by another person just by defining it" seems to presume a rather ignorant comprehension on the part of the second party in the communication of interest.

 

That's where you miss the point greatly. Everyone undertstands things to different degrees and many people understand different things. How can they agree on the definition of understanding if each of theirs is different? How does a person ignorant in physics undertsand when someone doesn't understand physics if they don't do themselves?

 

 

 

What I said was, "My attack requires two fundamental concepts: first, establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language and second, establishing a mechanism capable of defining the concept of understanding within that representation of the language without actually defining the language itself." I did neither of these things in my opening post. That post was made for the purpose of finding someone interested in thinking about the issue and nothing more.

 

Please be clearer.

 

 

 

 

My comment that I would like to use English is an admission that I fully understand the problems embedded in the presumption that the language is "understood" by the reader. That is a problem I will do my best to work around, but recognition that it is a serious problem must be comprehended by the reader. Something which seems to be totally beyond Mr. Antares comprehension.

 

There are two possibilities:

 

1) No one understand you because you are smarter than everyone

 

2) No one understands you because you are talking drivel

 

Take caution in identifying which one it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Dick, it seems you have provided some evidence for your claim by misunderstanding the word "speculation".

However some counter evidence might be the vast infrastructure man has built using language.

 

I think most of us understand that language has it's limitations but that's all there is. Written language, spoken language, sign language, you can even use math as a language. If you use it to communicate then it is a language and misunderstandings will occur.

I am curious as to what your proposal is.

If you would present it (instead of goofing around) and it has merit I feel sure discussion will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I misunderstood the word "speculation"? I thought the word referred to ideas which could possibly be wrong. If there is no possibility that a specific idea could be wrong then it could not possibly be speculation!

 

I do not understand your comment that counter evidence might be the vast infrastructure man has built using language. Do you mean that the vast infrastructure is evidence that language is not an issue to be examined? It is a fact that mankind has built a great number of languages many of which are no longer understood. My point is that there could exist an infinite number of possible languages. Does there exist any constraints applicable to all languages or is that an issue unworthy of thought?

The first issue I find interesting is that no one is born knowing a language. Every child must first experience a substantial collection of interactions with others who already know a language. This, together with other experiences they associate with that language leads them to eventually come to believe they know what the language is expressing. Without such a process, understanding of the relevant elements of any language is impossible. Misunderstandings are a very important aspect of any communications and I do not concern myself with that issue.

 

I want to discuss the significant issues of a language I do not know!

 

But I cannot discuss anything without using a language!! So I propose to use English to discuss the relevant issues. A language I feel I know pretty well.

 

The first issue I would like to bring up is the fact that the primary elements of a language are representations of "concepts". I have in mind here the idea expressed in English by the concept of "words". If we know (or at least think we know) the concept expressed by a particular word, then we can express a specific thought with a collection of such concepts. Of course I include in this collection of concepts elements not ordinarily seen as words in the English language. Those elements could be punctuation, spacing and any other concept meaningful to a writer in that language. (As I understand it, ancient Latin did not include spaces so the actual concepts being represented do not necessarily include all concepts being represented in a specific language.)

 

A second important aspect of any language is the idea of a dictionary (I am referring to the English concept usually embedded in the idea of a dictionary which provides the specific thoughts being represented by a specific word.)

 

If one knows (or at least thinks they know) the relevant concepts together with a dictionary defining those concepts they have the ability to express their thoughts in that relevant language.

 

So I have presented three aspects of any language essential to comprehending that language: concepts, thoughts and a dictionary.

 

If one knows the required collection of concepts and can list the thoughts essential to those concepts, they have sufficient knowledge to express their thoughts. This is the very essence of any conceivable language.

 

If you can comprehend what I have just proposed, I will produce a valid representation of any thought in any language. It turns out that the representation has some profound consequences.

 

Thank you -- Dick

Edited by Doctordick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am presuming "Scientist" did not comprehend what I proposed!!

 

Sorry about that! If I have misinterpreted your response let me know!

 

Have fun anyway!! -- Dick

Edited by Doctordick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being a whatever speaker I don't understand dimreaper's comment and request a translation if there is a joke involved.

 

However, more seriously, I endorse his choice of extract as it highlights what I (following my history teacher from years ago) see as a misconception.

 

 

 

If you can comprehend what I have just proposed, I will produce a valid representation of any thought in any language. It turns out that the representation has some profound consequences.

 

 

Let us try some examples

 

Please translate electric power generator from English into (Roman) Latin?

 

Please translate the Saxon word for cow into the Norman word?

 

I think there are differences between languages and a proper linguist could no doubt come up with a myriad of untranslatable concepts.

 

How many words do the Eskimo have for snow and how many do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be the fact that every conceivable language requires a collection of symbolic representations of concepts essential to representing specific thoughts via that language.

 

 

You mean words? Or maybe morphemes? Or phonemes?

 

 

 

If no such representations exist, the language does not exist.

 

Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist.

 

Thats seems to be like saying that without numbers, a number system doesn't exist.

 

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Could you expand on it a bit, please.

How many words do the Eskimo have for snow and how many do we?

 

About 1 or half-a-dozen, in both cases. Depending on how you define "word for snow". Is "sleet" a word for snow? Or slush? Or hail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being a whatever speaker I don't understand dimreaper's comment and request a translation if there is a joke involved.

 

However, more seriously, I endorse his choice of extract as it highlights what I (following my history teacher from years ago) see as a misconception.

 

 

 

 

Let us try some examples

 

Please translate electric power generator from English into (Roman) Latin?

 

Please translate the Saxon word for cow into the Norman word?

 

I think there are differences between languages and a proper linguist could no doubt come up with a myriad of untranslatable concepts.

 

How many words do the Eskimo have for snow and how many do we?

There are no untranslateable concepts, but there plenty of words that do not have a perfect 1:1 correspondence between languages and may require phrases, sentences or even paragraphs to fully explain the precise meaning especially if you want to get into shades of nuance and the connotation of the word in a particular context.

 

At worst, there are things that are difficult to translate succinctly. But that is rather different from being truly untranslateable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no untranslateable concepts, but there plenty of words that do not have a perfect 1:1 correspondence between languages and may require phrases, sentences or even paragraphs to fully explain the precise meaning especially if you want to get into shades of nuance and the connotation of the word in a particular context.

 

At worst, there are things that are difficult to translate succinctly. But that is rather different from being truly untranslateable.

 

Well thank you for your discussion example in classical Latin about electrical generators.

As I understood it the most the Romans knew about electricity was the word 'amber ' and lightning.

 

Anyway after this success I look forward to your translation into aboriginal of Bessel functions and elliptic integrals of the second kind into Australian Aboriginal language.

 

I had always understood that the Aboriginals mathematics consisted of the numebr system one, two, many.

 

Since I must bow to your superior knowledge I bow out of this thread.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well thank you for your discussion example in classical Latin about electrical generators.

As I understood it the most the Romans knew about electricity was the word 'amber ' and lightning.

 

 

Well, electricity and generator are from Latin so the fact that the technology did not exist then appears to be irrelevant. I believe modern Latin, as used by the Vatican has terms for things like this.

 

 

Anyway after this success I look forward to your translation into aboriginal of Bessel functions and elliptic integrals of the second kind into Australian Aboriginal language.

 

Any human language is capable of coining new words and expressing any ideas.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well thank you for your discussion example in classical Latin about electrical generators.

As I understood it the most the Romans knew about electricity was the word 'amber ' and lightning.

 

Anyway after this success I look forward to your translation into aboriginal of Bessel functions and elliptic integrals of the second kind into Australian Aboriginal language.

 

I had always understood that the Aboriginals mathematics consisted of the numebr system one, two, many.

 

Since I must bow to your superior knowledge I bow out of this thread.

You're confusing language with vocabulary. An exotic fruit you've never encountered before is not an untranslateable concept. It's just something you don't have a name for yet. Once you've encountered it, you can pick a name or steal one from some group that has one already.

 

"Names for things that a language's primary culture hasn't encountered yet" are very low on the list of things that are difficult to translate. Once it becomes something that is relevant for people to talk about, things generally pick up a name.

 

Otherwise, you might as well say that it is impossible to translate between 1950s American English and modern American English because back then they didn't have a word for emojis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am led to make a few comments. First of all, there is the idea of speculation (an issue I have little interest in). It should be clear that modern science essentially amounts to those specific speculations made earlier which have been defended by successful experiments. What they seem to fail to comprehend is that almost all aspects of modern science are in fact still speculations. There always exists the possibility of alternate concepts which would yield those known experimental results. To think otherwise would move the current concepts into the classification of religion. In essence I get the impression the readers of this thread are confused by their inability to comprehend the "speculations" I am attempting to put forward. I say again, if anyone sees an assertion I make which is not a cold hard fact, please bring it up so we can discuss the issue.

 

To Delta1212, who said "there is no such thing as an idea that cannot possibly be wrong, I would love to see his proof of that assertion!

 

At this moment, only "Strange" who said, "without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist" and "that without numbers, a number system doesn't exist", who seems to have some comprehension of what I am talking about.

I will attempt to expand on the issue here!

Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary).

Of significance is the fact that the actual language is an arbitrary construct. It can be seen as a secret code required to communicate any collection of ideas. Before communication can occur, definitions of the elements must exist. Bit codes on computers are an excellent example. Without a specific translation of those bit codes to the relevant language, they are arbitrary elements to be defined and that has some significant consequences.

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they seem to fail to comprehend is that almost all aspects of modern science are in fact still speculations. There always exists the possibility of alternate concepts which would yield those known experimental results.

 

 

I'm not sure who "they" refers to, but the contingent nature of scientific theories is pretty well understood.

 

 

At this moment, only "Strange" who said, "without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist" and "that without numbers, a number system doesn't exist", who seems to have some comprehension of what I am talking about.

 

Apart form stating a few basic ideas from linguistics, I don't have a clue what your point is.

 

 

 

I will attempt to expand on the issue here!

 

None the wiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Apart form stating a few basic ideas from linguistics, I don't have a clue what your point is.

 

 

 

My point is quite simple. If you have any thoughts you wish to communicate to another party you need to have a language presumed to be understood by both parties plus some means of referring to the specific concepts necessary to that language. In essence, all you really require is a means to refer to each and every concept essential to expressing your thoughts to the second party (words fulfill an important aspect of that need, an aspect normally referred to as "language"). The issue of knowing the representations of those concepts is essentially being aware of the definitions of the relevant concepts: i.e., what is commonly embedded in the idea of a dictionary.

 

A dictionary is essentially a list of the relevant concepts together with a sufficient representation of the possible meanings of that specific concept expressed via other concepts within that language. Prior experience is the only mechanism which actually yields the knowledge required to "understand the language". Once you have learned the language, the actual abstract representation of the concepts is essentially immaterial (consider computer representations with collections of binary codes).

 

That fact has real logical consequences!

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it ironic that someone trying to teach us about language, had trouble understanding the clearly defined ( in our rules ) term "speculations'.

 

Yeah, the Irony really seems to be lost on him.

 

 

If you have any thoughts you wish to communicate to another party you need to have a language presumed to be understood by both parties plus some means of referring to the specific concepts necessary to that language.

 

So you're saying in order for two people to communicate, they must have both the means, medium, and nouns to generate a communicable idea? What a miraculous idea, it's almost as if you could have said that in a sentence and no one would have disagreed with you, but instead you persist to communicate as if you are talking to a near nonexistent audience and write your ideas in the same format as a technically illiterate grandma and with the same flow as a an email with the subject "FW:FW:FW:FW:RE:FW:FW:FW:RE:LOL YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THIS, I GOT THIS GUY SO HARD"

 

 

 

That fact has real logical consequences!

 

You're not even going to try to elucidate us mere mortals to your magnificent breadth of wisdom over this topic? Such impressive communication skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say you're wrong exactly, but it seems like you think your insights are more profound than they actually are and are therefore overstating their importance.

 

Strange is right, I haven't seen anything in this thread so far that isn't pretty basic knowledge in the fields of just the general sciences or linguistics. At least, basic beyond a high school level where they tend to teach facts moreso than getting into philosophy of science or language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.