The relationship of words to thought.
John Jones
Words do not convey thought.
John Stafford
John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
What would be a mirror of thoughts?
Lee
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:nhoj-F9E054.1...@news.supernews.com...
Visual arts, live music, a computer program, tai kwon do, body language,
cooking something like Blumenthal, warfare, looking into the eyes of
your newborn, reaction to the first moon landing and Kennedy's
assassination, a non verbal relationship with an pet that has been
around for more years than you can remember are some examples.
After 6 million years of struggle as a species we are probably entitled
to express ourselves in all of these ways and more.
http://www.icademyglobe.org/siteadmin/files/cave_painting_l.jpg
I bet most on this group could add more stuff that mirrors their own
thoughts.
John Jones
A mirror of thought would be the metaphor that one would use to assert
that a thought presents itself through a sign.
Smiler
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
Yours certainly don't.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Sleepalot
>Words do not convey thought.
Prove it.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Sleepalot
>Words are a public conveyance.
Category error. A bus is a public conveyance.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
John Jones
> John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Words do not convey thought.
>
> Prove it.
>
I prove it through a PUBLIC demonstration.
Don't try it on or you WILL come off worse.
Christopher A. Lee
<sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Words are a public conveyance.
>
>Category error. A bus is a public conveyance.
But try using it as a public convenience.
Steve Knight
That's why we have the Vulcan mind meld.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Michael Gordge
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
Oh so ewe're not using words to convey that thought? fucking idiot.
MG
Sleepalot
>Sleepalot wrote:
>> John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Words do not convey thought.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
>I prove it through a PUBLIC demonstration.
The only thing you have proven, is that you're an idiot...
>Don't try it on or you WILL come off worse.
...and a twat.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Syd M.
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
We can see that in your case, JJ.
PDW
Sanity's Little Helper
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
Well, yours certainly don't.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
Sanity's Little Helper
In his case, the death grip might be more useful, followed by a syringe
filled with haloperidol.
ZerkonXXXX
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought. Words
> do not convey thought.
A "public conveyance" says nothing. Conveyance serves an action. What is
this action now made more convenient?
John Stafford
"Lee" <moo...@127.0.0.1.com> wrote:
> http://www.icademyglobe.org/siteadmin/files/cave_painting_l.jpg
I wonder if those paintings might have been visual aids to teaching.
John Jones
Words are always public property. They never refer to anything private.
Mike Painter
bid-it-ti-bang mean, they being words used by me to describe things.
The world is filled with words used and or made up within a family group to
describe private things.
panam...@hotmail.com
No, a bus is a "public conveyance".
> They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
But since they're all we have, we should do the best we can with them.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Alex W.
> John Jones wrote:
>>
>> Words are always public property. They never refer to anything
>> private.
> Then I'm sure you will have no problem telling m what fa-fa and
> bid-it-ti-bang mean, they being words used by me to describe things.
> The world is filled with words used and or made up within a family group to
> describe private things.
You really shouldn't use words like that in a public forum.
Children might be reading this!
It's simply not cromulent!
Errol
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
I wonder if you read Thomas Tsoi
http://www.thomastsoi.com/research/files/The%20Relationship%20between%20Language%20and%20Thought.pdf
"Evidences in psycholinguistics have shown that thought can exist
without the
presence of language. What this means is that language cannot be
equated to thought.
In addition, language is neutral to the thought which it conveys, it
is merely a medium
for transporting thought from one person to another."
Sounds pretty much the same to me.
JJ Words are a public conveyance.
TT language is neutral to the thought which it conveys, it is merely a
medium
for transporting thought from one person to another."
JJ They are not a mirror of thought.
TT What this means is that language cannot be equated to thought
Hmmm! You also say
>A mirror of thought would be the metaphor that one would use to assert
>that a thought presents itself through a sign.
Is this sign comprised of the private mentalese Language Of Thought
(Fodor)?
Does this mean you are supporting a Representational theory of mind?
If so, why are you being so cryptic?
Errol
> On Nov 15, 2:04 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
By the way you cannot say that "Words are a public conveyance". and
then contradict yourself with "Words do not convey thought". Unless
you were thinking of "public conveyance" as equivalent to a transport
medium and then "convey" as meaning a "mirror" to language
Mike Painter
To teh pure, all things are pure.
Besides, these are "clean" words from childhood, or so my mother claimed.
Alex W.
> Alex W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:58:49 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Words are always public property. They never refer to anything
>>>> private.
>>> Then I'm sure you will have no problem telling m what fa-fa and
>>> bid-it-ti-bang mean, they being words used by me to describe things.
>>> The world is filled with words used and or made up within a family
>>> group to describe private things.
>>
>> You really shouldn't use words like that in a public forum.
>> Children might be reading this!
>> It's simply not cromulent!
>
> To teh pure, all things are pure.
As in "pure as the driven slush"?
"Duke's pure drivel"?
:-)
> Besides, these are "clean" words from childhood, or so my mother claimed.
I make it a point never to trust my mother in these matters.
Mothers are sneaky that way....
Lee
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
Like a prehistoric hunters meeting complete with whiteboard?
haiku jones
> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> Words do not convey thought.
Ah, a self-referrential post. Very good.
Haiku Jones
Smiler
They used 'magic' markers?
John Jones
So far, it looks like a babble written with some letters taken from the
English Alphabet.
Allobalahilli?
John Jones
> On Nov 15, 2:04 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
>> Words do not convey thought.
>
> I wonder if you read Thomas Tsoi
>
> http://www.thomastsoi.com/research/files/The%20Relationship%20between%20Language%20and%20Thought.pdf
>
> "Evidences in psycholinguistics have shown that thought can exist
> without the
> presence of language.
How would they know?. Come on. How would they know? They can't know.
> What this means is that language cannot be
> equated to thought.
> In addition, language is neutral to the thought which it conveys, it
> is merely a medium
> for transporting thought from one person to another."
No, that's stupid. I'm surprised if an academic wrote it. I could tear
it to shreds.
John Jones
I wasn't equating their meanings.
John Jones
At least some member of the public heard it.
Mike Painter
To bad. They are words with specific meanings that convey a particular
though in a private manner.
Your in ability to understand them shows that words are not always public
property.
haiku jones
Yes. But being merely words, it conveyed
no thought.
Haiku Jones
Errol
> Errol wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2:04 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
> >> Words do not convey thought.
>
> > I wonder if you read Thomas Tsoi
>
>
> > "Evidences in psycholinguistics have shown that thought can exist
> > without the
> > presence of language.
>
> How would they know?. Come on. How would they know? They can't know.
>
By observing the presence of thought in deaf dumb and blind people,
infants and animals
> > What this means is that language cannot be
> > equated to thought.
> > In addition, language is neutral to the thought which it conveys, it
> > is merely a medium
> > for transporting thought from one person to another."
>
> No, that's stupid. I'm surprised if an academic wrote it. I could tear
> it to shreds.
Only if you attach your own private meanings to the words.
The statement...
"it is merely a medium for transporting thought from one person to
another.", does not imply that actual subjective thoughts are
conveyed. That is impossible.
It is a shortcut meaning that person A had a subjective thought,
converted it into language and conveyed it to another person, who will
translate it back into the receivers subjective thought (person B)
John Jones
> John Jones wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>> ZerkonXXXX wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
>>>>>> Words do not convey thought.
>>>>> A "public conveyance" says nothing. Conveyance serves an action.
>>>>> What is this action now made more convenient?
>>>>>
>>>> Words are always public property. They never refer to anything
>>>> private.
>>> Then I'm sure you will have no problem telling m what fa-fa and
>>> bid-it-ti-bang mean, they being words used by me to describe things.
>>> The world is filled with words used and or made up within a family
>>> group to describe private things.
>>>
>>>
>> So far, it looks like a babble written with some letters taken from
>> the English Alphabet.
>> Allobalahilli?
>
> To bad. They are words with specific meanings that convey a particular
> though in a private manner.
They don't.
There's no link between a word and its meaning in the word itseklf
Mike Painter
>>
>>> "Evidences in psycholinguistics have shown that thought can exist
>>> without the
>>> presence of language.
>>
>> How would they know?. Come on. How would they know? They can't know.
>>
>
> By observing the presence of thought in deaf dumb and blind people,
> infants and animals
At best that would say that their definition of language is a bit limited.
Animals communicate with non-verbal and to a lessor degree verbal methods.
Deaf, dumb, and blind people also learn to communicate.
So do infants.
>
>>> What this means is that language cannot be
>>> equated to thought.
>>> In addition, language is neutral to the thought which it conveys, it
>>> is merely a medium
>>> for transporting thought from one person to another."
>>
>> No, that's stupid. I'm surprised if an academic wrote it. I could
>> tear it to shreds.
>
> Only if you attach your own private meanings to the words.
> The statement...
> "it is merely a medium for transporting thought from one person to
> another.", does not imply that actual subjective thoughts are
> conveyed. That is impossible.
Evidence?
>
> It is a shortcut meaning that person A had a subjective thought,
> converted it into language and conveyed it to another person, who will
> translate it back into the receivers subjective thought (person B)
You now say "subjective thought" as opposed to just "thought". How do you
determine what is subjective and what is not.
How do you determine that a transmission or reception problem is not the
cause.
If you say "red" and I hear "read", that is a transmission/reception
problem.
Sleepalot
>Mike Painter wrote:
>> John Jones wrote:
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>>> ZerkonXXXX wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000, John Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Words are a public conveyance. They are not a mirror of thought.
>>>>>>> Words do not convey thought.
>>>>>> A "public conveyance" says nothing. Conveyance serves an action.
>>>>>> What is this action now made more convenient?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Words are always public property. They never refer to anything
>>>>> private.
>>>> Then I'm sure you will have no problem telling m what fa-fa and
>>>> bid-it-ti-bang mean, they being words used by me to describe things.
>>>> The world is filled with words used and or made up within a family
>>>> group to describe private things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So far, it looks like a babble written with some letters taken from
>>> the English Alphabet.
>>> Allobalahilli?
>>
>> To bad. They are words with specific meanings that convey a particular
>> though in a private manner.
>
>They don't.
>There's no link between a word and its meaning in the word itseklf
Unless it's onomatopoeic...
>
>> Your in ability to understand them shows that words are not always public
>> property.
>>
>>
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Errol
> Errol wrote:
> > By observing the presence of thought in deaf dumb and blind people,
> > infants and animals
>
> At best that would say that their definition of language is a bit limited.
> Animals communicate with non-verbal and to a lessor degree verbal methods.
> Deaf, dumb, and blind people also learn to communicate.
> So do infants.
>
I agree that the indications of thought can represent a basic form of
communication. Pulling a face when tasting something bitter is
communication.
The point is that some linguists propose that thought is totally
determined by language, but evidence of thought without the formal
structures of language is compelling
> > It is a shortcut meaning that person A had a subjective thought,
> > converted it into language and conveyed it to another person, who will
> > translate it back into the receivers subjective thought (person B)
>
> You now say "subjective thought" as opposed to just "thought". How do you
> determine what is subjective and what is not.
> How do you determine that a transmission or reception problem is not the
> cause.
> If you say "red" and I hear "read", that is a transmission/reception
> problem.
Yes! I deliberately called it subjective thought to highlight that I
understand thought is not a process that can be shared between two or
more people. My neurons are mine only. My red might not have the same
subjective feeling as your red. Words are tools that assist us in
conveying shared meaning, but there are no guarantees that
transmission/reception misunderstanding will not occur.
The problem seems to be with the meaning of the word "thought".
sometimes it is used as the subjective experience and sometimes as
common but objective ideas such as mathematical proofs, economical
theories etc.
Mike Painter
> On Nov 18, 6:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Errol wrote:
>
>>> By observing the presence of thought in deaf dumb and blind people,
>>> infants and animals
>>
>> At best that would say that their definition of language is a bit
>> limited. Animals communicate with non-verbal and to a lessor degree
>> verbal methods. Deaf, dumb, and blind people also learn to
>> communicate.
>> So do infants.
>>
> I agree that the indications of thought can represent a basic form of
> communication. Pulling a face when tasting something bitter is
> communication.
> The point is that some linguists propose that thought is totally
> determined by language, but evidence of thought without the formal
> structures of language is compelling
I had a computer science prof who had an article on this as required reading
in one of his courses.
I rememeber that after W.W. II an experiment was done with Japanses war
brides fluent in English and Japanese.
"When I grow up I want to be?"
In English the answer was "housewife"
In Japanese the same people answered "Teacher".
I wish I could find the article again but 1968 was a few years ago. I can't
even remember the name of the hard bound magazine it was published in.
>
>>> It is a shortcut meaning that person A had a subjective thought,
>>> converted it into language and conveyed it to another person, who
>>> will translate it back into the receivers subjective thought
>>> (person B)
>>
>> You now say "subjective thought" as opposed to just "thought". How
>> do you determine what is subjective and what is not.
>> How do you determine that a transmission or reception problem is not
>> the cause.
>> If you say "red" and I hear "read", that is a transmission/reception
>> problem.
>
> Yes! I deliberately called it subjective thought to highlight that I
> understand thought is not a process that can be shared between two or
> more people. My neurons are mine only. My red might not have the same
> subjective feeling as your red. Words are tools that assist us in
> conveying shared meaning, but there are no guarantees that
> transmission/reception misunderstanding will not occur.
>
> The problem seems to be with the meaning of the word "thought".
> sometimes it is used as the subjective experience and sometimes as
> common but objective ideas such as mathematical proofs, economical
> theories etc.
I still hold that the words do transmit the thought subjective or not.
Without evidence I don't see any difference between words conveying thoughts
and analog or digital electrical signals conveying words.
Errol
I think the actual though could be richer due to memories that are
invoked during the thought process. Take a glass of red wine swirl it,
see the tints of light, sniff it, taste it, then the next day recount
the subjective experience to another person. It will be difficult to
duplicate the experience in words unless one is a master of prose.
Mike Painter
Not for me :)
I've never found any wine I like the flavor of and it all tastes the same.
Same for 99.9% of all teh booze I've ever tasted.
I have bought into the various studies that seem to show red wine is good
for you in small amounts and now drink 2 oz a night. I'm at teh point after
several months that I don't dislike teh flavor.
John Jones
It wouldn't be syntax.
Sleepalot
You're a one-trick pony: your game is "bullshit baffles
brains". It's boring.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385