• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Does Knowledge require Language?

Pythagoras said:
I meant begging the question as in the Formal Philosophical Fallacy or "petitio principii" - however I take your comments on board.

PAX
Click to expand...
And I take yours... I typically answer posts with what's going through my mind, and don't try that hard to figure out what the other person meant... fwiw. Mostly cuz a lot of what I read from people in general looks to me like circular thinking that ends up back at the start, until the psyche "pulls itself together" and lather, rinse, repeat continues. As meaningful as it seems/feels, it's false, false, false, IME. It never leads anywhere but back to where it came from, having never taken a single step away.

Peace...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind comments guys; I'll definitely be popping in here from time to time. And while semiotics is my academic passion, shamanism and indigenous thought is my passion passion - and strangely enough, I see connections between these, and many other seemingly incongruous, modes of thought.

I'm looking forward to it.
 
^ these things go hand in hand,
in almost everything around us...

not wrapping what we think we know around the presence of such thoughts, is what keeps me moving forward, inward, and upwards.
 
^^thank you;-)

its also can be frustrating, and adds to the point that:
i had to look up "semiotics" to see that the whole of what you had said, was a majority of the meaning of my life - what defines me.

... and then, not having academic knowledge on A subject, or in general is what can define you to others.
(and further self expansion for sure)

so yes, indeed i do agree with your plan or path;-D

of higher mind
&
deeper understanding


im there too man, just going at it from a different direction.
stand with the meaning, stand by your word.
 
Pythagoras said:
I beg to differ. From my own perspective, and others in this thread the answer is a (perhaps not resounding) 'NO'

I think your post merely begs the question.

i.e. If we make every 'type' of knowledge, a 'type' of language, then one can conclude that Knowledge requires language.

I don't think the OP's use of the word 'language' is as broad as you would allow it to be. But then that is perhaps a question for the OP?

FIAT LUX
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not arguing something circular like that. At least I'm attempting not to.
What I'm saying is that there are logical frameworks that back any sort of operation of our brain. If we consider binary a language with words (a formal language), then the complex interplay of neurons and electric impulses could also be thought to constitute a formal language. In that case any grouping of "words" within that language that are organized to a coherent point can be considered knowledge. Such bits of knowledge are what allows us to walk without thinking, yet our brain is still active in the walking process.
I'm not simply saying that you can simply replace the usage of the word "knowledge" with the word "language."
If we consider mathematics a language, a descriptive language, then it shows us that there are "words" all around us in the form of laws of nature, physics equations derived from nature, and stuff like that. In that sense knowledge does require language.
Again I'm not getting this idea from anyone else, It came to me in a hang over, but it seems like a fresh perspective on the subject.
If people consider music a language, which millions of people do, and people consider math a language, which millions of people do, and people consider computer programming codes languages, then why wouldn't the language that comprises the functioning of our brain or world also be considered languages?
That question is what I am basing my line of reasoning on, I can provide more examples, but is not language simply the interplay between two or more objects? The state of one object informs the next object how to proceed. The results always seem to follow a logical path that can be deconstructed and understood, AKA translated. At it's most basic it's one thing "telling" another thing what to do, whether that's a rock in space bouncing off another rock, or the space of shape itself warping around a massive star, or a person ordering a cup of coffee. How do you draw a line between differing forms of communication?

Dedbeet said:
And I take yours... I typically answer posts with what's going through my mind, and don't try that hard to figure out what the other person meant... fwiw. Mostly cuz a lot of what I read from people in general looks to me like circular thinking that ends up back at the start, until the psyche "pulls itself together" and lather, rinse, repeat continues. As meaningful as it seems/feels, it's false, false, false, IME. It never leads anywhere but back to where it came from, having never taken a single step away.

Peace...
Click to expand...

So....you don't try to understand other people when you talk to them? Because why? "It never leads anywhere?" You're the one being circular. Having meaningless discussions because you assume they're meaningless.

Why not we all just go bungee jumping then, surely that would be more fun?

EDIT: I'm serious where can we meet up? I wanna go bungee jumping!
 
Last edited:
Hasn't anyone ever had a feeling? That feeling is then analyzed and interpreted with language. The feeling itself is knowing. It doesn't take any words to feel something.
 
yes, emotions...
and maybe the most true expression we have, Art:
merely a familiarizing/representative melding of color.
 
Dimlub lap vinducsub linacit tou calla bouranaska riski visaw idaliau liu liu mi mao unoma daie.

Does your knowledge comprehend this language?
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
Yes, but I'm not arguing something circular like that. At least I'm attempting not to.
What I'm saying is that there are logical frameworks that back any sort of operation of our brain. If we consider binary a language with words (a formal language), then the complex interplay of neurons and electric impulses could also be thought to constitute a formal language. In that case any grouping of "words" within that language that are organized to a coherent point can be considered knowledge. Such bits of knowledge are what allows us to walk without thinking, yet our brain is still active in the walking process.
I'm not simply saying that you can simply replace the usage of the word "knowledge" with the word "language."
If we consider mathematics a language, a descriptive language, then it shows us that there are "words" all around us in the form of laws of nature, physics equations derived from nature, and stuff like that. In that sense knowledge does require language.
Again I'm not getting this idea from anyone else, It came to me in a hang over, but it seems like a fresh perspective on the subject.
If people consider music a language, which millions of people do, and people consider math a language, which millions of people do, and people consider computer programming codes languages, then why wouldn't the language that comprises the functioning of our brain or world also be considered languages?
That question is what I am basing my line of reasoning on, I can provide more examples, but is not language simply the interplay between two or more objects? The state of one object informs the next object how to proceed. The results always seem to follow a logical path that can be deconstructed and understood, AKA translated. At it's most basic it's one thing "telling" another thing what to do, whether that's a rock in space bouncing off another rock, or the space of shape itself warping around a massive star, or a person ordering a cup of coffee. How do you draw a line between differing forms of communication?



So....you don't try to understand other people when you talk to them? Because why? "It never leads anywhere?" You're the one being circular. Having meaningless discussions because you assume they're meaningless.

Why not we all just go bungee jumping then, surely that would be more fun?

EDIT: I'm serious where can we meet up? I wanna go bungee jumping!
Click to expand...



Okay

I think I understand you better, the issue hinges on what we accept as being language. Is the OP referring to purely linguistic language, or a broader understanding of 'communication' or interaction. We'd need to ask the OP but I think the question was not as expansive as to include the collision of two rocks as an instantiation of language. I do get your point if one is employing a highly expansive conception of the word where one adopts an ontology that provides a language, or pseudo-language for every interactive process that occurs between one or more static demarcated object, regardless of agency. For instance you say that

then the complex interplay of neurons and electric impulses could also be thought to constitute a formal language
Click to expand...

I think this is really a stretch, and not a point I can agree on. If one hands over the mind and its activities to (eg - an exclusively neuroscientific approach), whilst in addition reducing all knowledge to the mind - hardly controversial then one of either two conclusions emerge: That knowledge requires language; or language requires knowledge. I don't believe that neuroscientists offer a naturalistic, objective 'language of the brain' of any depth.

Worsworth's 'Inward eye, that is the bliss of solitude"
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-wandered-lonely-as-a-cloud/
is an example of expressing recollection devoid of language.

I still disagree and think a narrower conception of language (linguistics) is what I think (?) the OP had in mind: If this is the case then several posters on the thread have shown that knowledge does not require linguistic language. Giving the examples of emotions, imagery (external, and mind centred) etc.

I understand your point more clearly now, you may be right but my belief remains that we do not need language for knowledge.

I appreciate the clarification, though still not convinced by it (Perhaps you have a paper or link that explicates this neuron-level brain language?)

I hope this thread has the legs to expand further on the subject exposing some thoughtful approaches such as your own..

Respectfully yours

Pythagoras

NUNC DIMITIS
 
Last edited:
Pythagoras said:
No, but I am sure you can enlighten us?
Click to expand...

It has been found in recent observations that infants whos mothers exposed them to sign language getures in addition to words while performing every day tasks, produced infants that were capable of clearly signing their first words as early as 4months of age, Furtherrmore by the age of one year, sign exposed children were begining to form their first full sentences. In comparison, the average non-signed baby will not speak their first words until around twelve months of age (though any time from nine months to fifteen months of age is considered within normal limits). Babies will not begin to construct simple sentences of two to three words until at least eighteen months of age.

So in conclusion, no, knowledge does not require language. Knoweledge which in its earliest form is learning which requires a simple meaning to begin.
 
stardust.hero said:
.

So in conclusion, no, knowledge does not require language. Knoweledge which in its earliest form is learning which requires a simple meaning to begin.
Click to expand...

See mine and CoffeeDrinkers' exchange above, where the central contention is what constitutes language.

I think that sign language IS language, using hands and arms to produce words rather than lips, lungs and vocal chords.

So I think I'd agree with Cofee cup on this that sign language is a language (its all in the name you see):):)
 
what about divination..?

if this is to be considered "real" -
is it recognized knowledge from a source of universal language; or a source of
universal knowledge from a recognized language?


allllright fine...
;-)
this thread has been an absolute Gem.!
 
^If you are talking about divination I would like to talk about contemplation, which I think is a similar topic. Buddhist meditation tries to eliminate all impulses during the meditation process in order to experience the "isness" of the here and now. It's a wonderful thing. Samadhi!

My apologies OP, for not sticking to the subject at hand. I would say that there have been numerous examples throughout this thread that demonstrate why linguistic languages are not necessarily required for knowledge, on a whole host of topics. But once you start stretching the meaning of the word "language" you can get some interesting results.

So, Pythagoras, are you saying that you are unconvinced of a "language of the brain"? or are you saying that even if such a thing as a "language of the brain" existed there are still ways to circumvent this language in order to directly "know" something?
The former question seems to be at best an issue of semantics, or at worst just incomplete science on the subject. It might take some time to conclude one way or another.
I think if you hold that the function of the brain does use a language of its own, however, then you can probably plot out an evolutionary tree of "brain languages" similar to how we have a family tree of human languages that have changed and evolved over time, branching off similar ancestors and getting influenced by unexpected sources.
It could be a fascinating area of study, whether or not you call it a language.

It's just that math and linguistics and logic are tied intimately together, which is tied to the natural world, and the distinctions are by no means clear cut. So I was curious about what people thought of this approach.
 
^^

I think we have exposed the nub of half of the OP's question:

The definition of language - and how limited (linguistics), or expansive
such as
It's just that math and linguistics and logic are tied intimately together
Click to expand...
.

I think the discussion would be much assisted if the OP explained what his/her understanding of language was. I'm certainly not close minded as to reject what you have put forth but if we both interpret the question differently then we are bound to reach differing conclusions.

It's really over to the OP on this one:)
 
^I'm not so concerned about who's right or not, but merely going somewhere with the discussion. That's all I ever care about in these juicy philosophical topics.

What is your opinion on what constitutes a language?
I envision two atoms bouncing off one another, and then following their logical path, as a form of communication. Maybe not a complete language, per se, but a small part of it.
How is that any different than one person saying something to another, maybe say a set of orders to be carried out, and then the soundwaves hits the person's ears, and starts a chemical reaction in the brain?
 
^^

In this case I took the OP to be referring to spoken/written languages (perhaps as far as maths and logic), perhaps sticking closely to the dictionary definitions

1. The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way
a study of the way children learn language
language development
2. Any nonverbal method of expression or communication
a language of gesture and facial expression
3. The system of communication used by a particular community or country
the book was translated into twenty-five languages
4. A system of symbols and rules for writing programs or algorithms

The common denominator seems to be that the subject/object of language presumes 'agency'. As atoms do not have agency* they may communicate (in the broadest sense) but they are not using language qua communication.


*Let us put aside Panpsychism and Panexperientialism for the moment.
 
^after reading this, It says that Language is life and matter. I say this because life has DNA, which acts like a language through RNA. As for matter, when non-living things crystallize or forms structure, I see that as fitting with definition 4.

However before looking at this, and I might lean toward this more, I see/saw language as a condensed form of some larger order structure.
So for example, a CD has small bumps arranged in a specific pattern which a laser reads and transcribes into music.
The sentence: "My day at the park" is a condensed form of a whole day of sensory experiences. So instead of giving you each experience piece-by-piece(if that was even possible) i send you a sentence instead and when you receive it expands to mental scenes of tress and grass and open air/sky, just as bumps transcribe into audio signals via the laser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top