mathematics falls into the same boat though. Whether you are talking about 1 + 1 = 2 or fire = hot, you still need a vessel to convey the message/thought. In mathematics it could be base 10, base 60, meters, feet, etc.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
What Ken said. Mathematics is a logic we use to describe the world. But what we cannot describe with math or tongue we cannot perceive.
And there is certainly reality beyond that which we can perceive. Simply evidenced by states of heightened perception instigated by some extreme scenarios like starvation, isolation, ethneogens, etc. More elaborately evidenced by dark matter, theories of parrallel universes, etc.
When we do encounter input that we cannot describe we are forced to reexamine those factors tht normally limit our perception.
And there is certainly reality beyond that which we can perceive. Simply evidenced by states of heightened perception instigated by some extreme scenarios like starvation, isolation, ethneogens, etc. More elaborately evidenced by dark matter, theories of parrallel universes, etc.
When we do encounter input that we cannot describe we are forced to reexamine those factors tht normally limit our perception.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-11-01 15:45:40)
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That's like saying language predates thought.Superior Mind wrote:
What Ken said. Mathematics is a logic we use to describe the world. But what we cannot describe with math or tongue we cannot perceive.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
We cannot perceive something until we experience it in some way. We can imagine wild things, but based on a set of already formed constructs in our data set of knowledge and memory. But when we do encounter something we cannot describe with words we hit a kind of existential paradox.
Someone discovered empiricism
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Hmmm I don't think that really works for maths. It doesn't seem logical - to me, anyway - to suggest that mathematics is an entirely human construct without any sort of logical "pre-existence" as per Platonism. Then again, I could be wrong - I haven't thought about it for a while.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
How does this support your contention that one cannot perceive something without language?Superior Mind wrote:
We cannot perceive something until we experience it in some way. We can imagine wild things, but based on a set of already formed constructs in our data set of knowledge and memory. But when we do encounter something we cannot describe with words we hit a kind of existential paradox.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
Not that we can't perceive without language, we cannot describe those perceptions which fall outside the scope of language. If there is a perception which cannot be described with ones own internal dictionary then one cannot know what it is they are experiencing. This limits what you actually see. Sensory input that isn't categorized and made explicit by the brain is a kind of white noise.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-11-02 08:50:42)
You've never seen a painting?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And what of newborns?Superior Mind wrote:
Not that we can't perceive without language, we cannot describe those perceptions which fall outside the scope of language. If there is a perception which cannot be described with ones own internal dictionary then one cannot know what it is they are experiencing. This limits what you actually see. Sensory input that isn't categorized and made explicit by the brain is a kind of white noise.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
Paintings can be described with words.
Newborns experience an immensely shocking situation.
Newborns experience an immensely shocking situation.
I'm still not seeing how not being able to describe something somehow lessens the experience and/or perception thereof or limits what one actually sees.Superior Mind wrote:
Not that we can't perceive without language, we cannot describe those perceptions which fall outside the scope of language. If there is a perception which cannot be described with ones own internal dictionary then one cannot know what it is they are experiencing. This limits what you actually see. Sensory input that isn't categorized and made explicit by the brain is a kind of white noise.
There was no word in the Navajo language for "airplane", but they still knew what it was and could see it just the same as anyone else.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
They were able to describe what they were seeing with language. However abstract their initial descriptions would have been.
They were able to eventually, by substituting and existing word (I believe it was the word for "owl"). But--according to your premise--up until that point, they were unable to perceive it. How on earth were they able to go through the mental process of substituting an existing word (after a while, mind you) if they were unable to perceive that which they had no description for?Superior Mind wrote:
They were able to describe what they were seeing with language. However abstract their initial descriptions would have been.
And it clearly wasn't an owl they were talking about--they were merely doing code substitution so as to relay the concept. That doesn't at all mean that they couldn't perceive it to begin with. They knew they were dealing with flying machines with men inside of them, but their language had no words to fit that description.
I would argue that most cultures that witness something that has no description in their language would chock it up to magic or some other supernatural phenomenon--much like man has done for thousands of years. Doesn't mean they can't still fully experience or perceive it--they just can't accurately describe it to someone else in their own terms.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
You're missing my point. We can use language to describe just about anything we encounter in the material world. Even if we have to invent some new words along the way. The stuff that is truly indescribable is the matter of concern. And what are experiences that are truly indescribable? Experiences that fall outside the scope of our intrinsically dualistic and materialistic language. Those experiences are not worth a damn in a verbal argument unless you experience them yourself.
Why must there be a verbal argument in order to make an experience "worth" something?
You are making a presumption about what it means to be "real" that, tbh, doesn't seem to have much foundation.
And you've circled back on your position that an individual can't truly perceive/experience something unless they can describe it in some way. Now you're saying that it's not "worth a damn" unless you can experience it for yourself; which, if we followed your original argument, would mean it can't be experienced/perceived anyway, so what's the point of trying to experience it for yourself? Unless you speak a different language that allows you to "properly" perceive/experience it, because then you could describe it.
So which is it? Do you need linguistic ability to describe the experience in order to perceive it, or not? You've made both arguments.
You are making a presumption about what it means to be "real" that, tbh, doesn't seem to have much foundation.
And you've circled back on your position that an individual can't truly perceive/experience something unless they can describe it in some way. Now you're saying that it's not "worth a damn" unless you can experience it for yourself; which, if we followed your original argument, would mean it can't be experienced/perceived anyway, so what's the point of trying to experience it for yourself? Unless you speak a different language that allows you to "properly" perceive/experience it, because then you could describe it.
So which is it? Do you need linguistic ability to describe the experience in order to perceive it, or not? You've made both arguments.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
Idk bro its been a long week. I assure I have a clear idea of what I'm trying to say in my head. Yes we can percieve things we cannot describe, but without a locus to understand what you are witnessing you are not really able to process the information before you oter than in linguistic metaphors. And I'm not talking about Amerindians seeing horses or airplanes for the first time. I'm talking about witnessing the absolute Other, the UFO, the unconscious, the hyperdimension, spirit world, etc etc. aka the realm of reality outside the bubble of our material existence.
Also, to a less surreal degree, language restricts how an individual perceives the material world. It shapes our aesthetics, kinship, economic priorities, and the way we understand the passing of time.
Also, to a less surreal degree, language restricts how an individual perceives the material world. It shapes our aesthetics, kinship, economic priorities, and the way we understand the passing of time.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-11-04 11:55:54)
Just wanted to say sup that you've totally blown my mind and that I agree with you 100 percent. I find it fascinating to read about feral children, lol. Kind of relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
I remember listening to a bilingual person once somewhere talk about how they can literally experience different perceptions of reality, based on whichever language they are speaking at the current time. Or something like that. Do they "think" in one language or another? Or is there a deeper level of intuition which is then converted and packaged into a form of communication?
also, I'm pretty amazed no one's brought up climate change yet. With Hurricane Sandy and all. That one's always ripe and juicy.
I remember listening to a bilingual person once somewhere talk about how they can literally experience different perceptions of reality, based on whichever language they are speaking at the current time. Or something like that. Do they "think" in one language or another? Or is there a deeper level of intuition which is then converted and packaged into a form of communication?
also, I'm pretty amazed no one's brought up climate change yet. With Hurricane Sandy and all. That one's always ripe and juicy.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-11-04 12:56:04)
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
Language is a really strange phenomenon. Consider how wild animals understand the world: directly with the senses, no filter besides what their bodies already create. We project ideas onto everything. Our constructs and systems of thought cloud that direct connection to raw nature. For tens of thousands of years our ancestors maintained that direct connection-- not because they didn't have language, because they did, and not even because they lived closer to nature-- but because they purposefully acted to maintain that connection, through regular shamanism and the use of psychotropic plants, which dissolve the boundaries that language and ego set up between us and everything else (including other people). By doing this they were able to not fall into the downward spiral of blind usury of the kind humans have been descending since the agricultural revolution.
Language is a tool that is now lagging our own evolution. We will have no choice but to abandon the retricting dictionaries of the past if we are to be able to conceptualize our own coming evolution which is evidenced by the exponential acceleration of history. In the ancient past language was less of a conceptual burden on people because languages didn't extend much beyond the family group. Languages were hyper locally adapted. Globalization is making it harder for people to communicate effectively, because the number of words and systems we have to express our ideas is being demandingly shrunken. This may be convienent for corporations, but it is not convienent for humanity.
Language is a tool that is now lagging our own evolution. We will have no choice but to abandon the retricting dictionaries of the past if we are to be able to conceptualize our own coming evolution which is evidenced by the exponential acceleration of history. In the ancient past language was less of a conceptual burden on people because languages didn't extend much beyond the family group. Languages were hyper locally adapted. Globalization is making it harder for people to communicate effectively, because the number of words and systems we have to express our ideas is being demandingly shrunken. This may be convienent for corporations, but it is not convienent for humanity.
Well I'm bilingual and I think in both Mandarin and English. Each language does give you a slightly different perception of things because of how the words are formed, kinda like George Orwell once said about newspeak, if you remove certain words from the language it will be a lot harder to conceptualize an idea.Spearhead wrote:
Just wanted to say sup that you've totally blown my mind and that I agree with you 100 percent. I find it fascinating to read about feral children, lol. Kind of relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
I remember listening to a bilingual person once somewhere talk about how they can literally experience different perceptions of reality, based on whichever language they are speaking at the current time. Or something like that. Do they "think" in one language or another? Or is there a deeper level of intuition which is then converted and packaged into a form of communication?
also, I'm pretty amazed no one's brought up climate change yet. With Hurricane Sandy and all. That one's always ripe and juicy.
Like the word for food in Chinese is both for rice and food, so when you think about food in Chinese you will always think there's gonna be rice involved. That's why lots of older gen Chinese people can't eat a meal without having rice involved and they get confused.
The discovery of a new supermassive black hole by astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA) could force physicists to completely rework models of how galaxies evolve. NGC 1277 has a mass of 17 billion suns (for comparison, the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way has a mass of about 4 million Suns) and contains an absolutely extraordinary 14% of the total mass of the galaxy it is in. The size of NGC 1277 is all the more astonishing because the surrounding galaxy is very small.
This could be the largest supermassive black hole found to date, and is much, much larger than it should be according to current models.
Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 132116.htm
NASA found your mom.
wow. i think someone hijacked newbie's account.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
NASA found your mom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
I'd be cautious if this were manned. You're liable to end up with a faceful of alien wing wong.
I'd be cautious if this were manned. You're liable to end up with a faceful of alien wing wong.
My password is too pro. It was just too good to pass up.13urnzz wrote:
wow. i think someone hijacked newbie's account.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
NASA found your mom.