Grammar Introduces Logic
log·ic| ?läjik noun 1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic | the logic of the argument is faulty | he explains his move with simple logic.
late Middle English: via Old French logique and late Latin logica from Greek logik? (tekhn?) (art) of reason,
from logos word, reason.
__The Apple Dictionary
We see from the above that the name for the rules of inference, logic is almost the same word for human utterance, logos = word, reason. So human utterance and thought, which are inferential, are practically one. The verbal narrative is thus established as being rooted within logic.
Grammar introduces all speakers to logic. This is my central claim.
Let me proceed to make a logical argument about some details of English grammar.
Prepositions and postpositions, together called adpositions (or broadly, in traditional grammar, simply prepositions) are a class of words used to express spatial, temporal, {categorical and cognitive}* relations (in, under, towards, before) or mark various semantic roles (of, for).
*My additions
A preposition or postposition typically combines with a noun phrase, this being called its complement, or sometimes object. A preposition comes before its complement; a postposition comes after its complement. English generally has prepositions rather than postpositions words such as in, under and of precede their objects, such as in England, under the table, of Jane although there are a few exceptions including "ago" and "notwithstanding", as in "three days ago" and "financial limitations notwithstanding.
__The Apple Dictionary
Over the years Ive grappled with clarifying a simple and useful definition of preposition. Recently, I have perceived the wealth of prepositions that express a spatial or temporal relation between two parts of a sentence. Now I see, for the first time, a definition that says this (see above).
I want to add to this an observation that gives a quick and simple overview of prepositions that, so far, has given me an easy handle on this word class.
I think the preposition can be labeled as being a particular type of conjunction. It is the conjunction of (among other categories) space and time. As such, it expresses itself as a part of speech of foundational importance.
I now know that the study of any language grammar is, if you will, the laypersons approach to making a study of logic. If you can say it, you can think it. This leads me to a claim that language is the medium of reason and, and this, in turn, leads me to the speculation that cognition also has for its medium, language. In this context, I note that language is expanded in scope to include all of the sensory forms of signification (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell).
Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you cant practice cognition outside of language.
Grammar is logic, and logic is concerned with the parsing of continuity, so language, which is narrative continuity = logic.
The foundation for the central importance of the preposition is its utility as a signifier of spatial and temporal relationships between common things.
As pertains to the scope and depth of this importance, it should suffice to claim that spacetime is the ultimate conjunction. This is my premise.
late Middle English: via Old French logique and late Latin logica from Greek logik? (tekhn?) (art) of reason,
from logos word, reason.
__The Apple Dictionary
We see from the above that the name for the rules of inference, logic is almost the same word for human utterance, logos = word, reason. So human utterance and thought, which are inferential, are practically one. The verbal narrative is thus established as being rooted within logic.
Grammar introduces all speakers to logic. This is my central claim.
Let me proceed to make a logical argument about some details of English grammar.
Prepositions and postpositions, together called adpositions (or broadly, in traditional grammar, simply prepositions) are a class of words used to express spatial, temporal, {categorical and cognitive}* relations (in, under, towards, before) or mark various semantic roles (of, for).
*My additions
A preposition or postposition typically combines with a noun phrase, this being called its complement, or sometimes object. A preposition comes before its complement; a postposition comes after its complement. English generally has prepositions rather than postpositions words such as in, under and of precede their objects, such as in England, under the table, of Jane although there are a few exceptions including "ago" and "notwithstanding", as in "three days ago" and "financial limitations notwithstanding.
__The Apple Dictionary
Over the years Ive grappled with clarifying a simple and useful definition of preposition. Recently, I have perceived the wealth of prepositions that express a spatial or temporal relation between two parts of a sentence. Now I see, for the first time, a definition that says this (see above).
I want to add to this an observation that gives a quick and simple overview of prepositions that, so far, has given me an easy handle on this word class.
I think the preposition can be labeled as being a particular type of conjunction. It is the conjunction of (among other categories) space and time. As such, it expresses itself as a part of speech of foundational importance.
I now know that the study of any language grammar is, if you will, the laypersons approach to making a study of logic. If you can say it, you can think it. This leads me to a claim that language is the medium of reason and, and this, in turn, leads me to the speculation that cognition also has for its medium, language. In this context, I note that language is expanded in scope to include all of the sensory forms of signification (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell).
Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you cant practice cognition outside of language.
Grammar is logic, and logic is concerned with the parsing of continuity, so language, which is narrative continuity = logic.
The foundation for the central importance of the preposition is its utility as a signifier of spatial and temporal relationships between common things.
As pertains to the scope and depth of this importance, it should suffice to claim that spacetime is the ultimate conjunction. This is my premise.
Comments (110)
My Achilles' heel! :cool:
Causal understanding of water displacement by a crow
It seems that the crow is using cognition. If the crow has no language, then it is using cognition outside of language.
Quoting ucarr
Language and formal logic are no more synonyms than language and fortran. The latter is a specific use of language. Language is a human extension of perceptual interaction with the world, and is continuous with perception , which is already conceptual and cognitive prior to the learning of a language. Our embodied perceptual-motor interaction with the world plays a large role in the origin of the structure of linguistic grammar. Animal cognition already implies a spatial-temporal grammar.
As I see the above, it's not a refutation, but rather, a call for greater precision. Suppose I revise my claim to say, "grammar, the inferential platform and medium of language, is synonymous with logic"?
Quoting Joshs
Let's look at a piece of what you've written above.
Quoting Joshs
Let's look at definitions of three of your important words.
con·cept | ?kän?sept |
noun
an abstract idea; a general notion: structuralism is a difficult concept | the concept of justice.
Philosophy an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects.
cog·ni·tion | ?kä??niSH(?)n |
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.
per·cep·tion | p?r?sepSH(?)n |
noun
the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses: the normal limits to human perception.
__The Apple Dictionary
Do you deny that perception and abstraction are opposites?
Do you deny that perception does not imply knowledge?
Do you deny that the pre-language period of a toddler invokes the hard problem of communicating what it's like to be an experiencing individual with an innate POV?*
*Toddlers intentionally modulate their cries, grunts, moans, chuckles etc. in service to parents trying to decipher the wants and needs generated by their child's innate POV. This, I claim, exemplifies the child's linguistification of the crude "words" listed above.
How does the child, untaught, know how to modulate his crude "words" into intelligible signifiers? I claim such knowledge derives from the child's hard-wired, deep-speech aptitude, articulated by Chomsky.
If you claim that deep speech aptitude in pre-language toddlers shows that perception is conceptual and cognitive prior to language, then I claim that it simultaneously shows that its power of linguistification establishes perception, cognition and language as not discreet and thus temporal priority goes out the window.
I disagree that "formal logic" and "Fortran" are similarly related to language in that both represent specific uses of the language.
I see formal logic as the semantical component of language, which does not represent a structure , but a meaning, whereas Fortran is a specific syntactical language form used to convey a semantical meaning. Under any language (Fortran, French, English), you will need to adhere to a logical based semantics for coherence, but the form can vary among types of languages. That is, logic is not a language, but a component of language, whereas Fortran is a type of language.
Quoting Joshs
This references a specific type of non-linguistic thought, specifically "how to" thought. That is, a chicken knows how to jump on the perch and likely engages in some form of non-linguistic reasoning when plotting her course from the ground, into the coop, up the ramp, and onto the perch. That is akin to much higher human non-linguistic "how to" knowledge, as when we can disassemble, repair, and reassemble an automobile transmission without putting a single action into language before acting.
Living my life with dogs, cats, goats, and chickens, I am very sympathetic to the view that animals have much higher levels of thought than people wish to give them credit for, but I don't think your reference to "perceptual-motor interaction" touches on those higher levels of animal intelligence. That is to say, I agree with you to the extent you suggest that there are all types of thought without language, but I believe your example of "how to" language points to the least controversial one that is generally conceded by the staunchest of deniers of meaningful thought without language.
Logic, then, being an attribute of language, stands subordinate to language. This feels intuitively like something useful to my argument, but, first, I must ask how symbolic logic can stand alone (which it can) without being its own language?
It is the symbol that is the syntactic element of the language and the meaning that is the semantic element of the language.
English: "If I go to the store, I will buy milk."
Symbolic logic: S --> M
In English, the syntax were those certain words, and should I have said "If I now am go to store, I after have milk,' perhaps I mean the same thing, but my syntax is all screwed up. You hear that in pidgins, where a foreign speaker can be understood without properly using accepted format.
In symbolic language, the semantical content of your symbols is heavily abstracted, but there still must remain an accepted syntactical form.
Consider:
S --> M
S
Therefore M.
This is logically sound, yet it's entirely irrelevant whether we are talking about stores and milk, meaning the specific semantical content of the symbols has become irrelevant, as for any S that occurs M will follow, regardless of what S or M represent.
If I create a syntactical error in a syllogism, that will likely negate the truth of the syllogism, but that has to do with the precision and limited room for error when your syntax is so abbreviated.
I think a good example of a logical syntax error is one that occurs quite literally in computer programming. The computer immediately recognizes what you've attempted is not "understood" by the computer. You've just spoken gibberish to the computer as it might have much less room for error than a human in understanding a pidgin.
Anyway, somewhat nascent thoughts on my behalf with some of this, so tinker with what I've started if some of this doesn't hold.
Quoting Hanover
How about this: Fortran is a specific language offering its own semantics based on a logical syntax whose form is in turned based on a certain semantics. Meanwhile , formal logic is an empty syntax whose formal features are based on a certain semantics.
Quoting Hanover
Most of those depictions of how to language ( like Dreyfus , for instance) deny that skills are conceptual in nature. Thats what allows them to deny meaningful thought without language
I infer you've concluded the video shows no practice of language by the crow.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
With my two above quotes of myself I lay foundation for making the claim that a broadly inclusive definition of language allows language production via the five senses. Bearing this in mind, I claim the crow understands and practices the visual language of water displacement towards making the desired object reachable.
From the evidence of the crow's purposeful behavior, I infer the claimed visual language was learned through observation. The visual objects within the frame are the syntax of the visual language and the displacement effect (with acquisition of desired object) is the semantics of the visual language.
In making my claim, I'm stretching the common usage of "language" in an effort to make it suitable as evidence and support.
I argue that my use of the stretch is not pettifogging and foolish because it's of a piece with claiming that language is not limited to verbal practitioners. I claim, instead, that the distribution of language capacity is not binary: humans linguistic; remainder (of animal kingdom) non-linguistic. The distribution of language practice comprises a range that possesses no sharp and distinct boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic. From here I proceed to claiming perception_cognition_language are not discreet.
You might argue the crow had no intention to communicate a method for acquiring the desired object via water displacement, and thus makes no practice of language on behalf of the observer. I acknowledge the range of language practice has discernible levels of sophistication, especially as it pertains to intentional communication.
Category error and general confusion here. Conjunctions join phrases, clauses, words, and sentences. They are defined in syntactical not physical or temporal terms. Prepositions can be prepositions of time or space, and those are distinct categories. Both terms originated in classical grammar. For the purposes of your OP, a functional grammar, like SFL, might be more useful.
Language is a very particuliar form of skilled behaviour that, yes, is not uni-modal; but nevertheless has very specific properties that are well defined and understood and distinguish it from other forms of skilled behavior and non-linguistic communication. So, American Sign Language, for example, is a perfectly valid language but me making a cup of tea or physically showing you how to do that, more analogical to your crow example, is not.
Some of the specific attributes that define language include:
1. Individual modifiable units
2. Negation
3. Question
4. Displacement (e.g. tense)
S. Hypotheticals and counterfactuals
6. Open endedness (novel utterances)
7. Stimulus freedom (open responses)
You can't make crow behaviour into individual units that can be reorganized to meet the criteria above. Not only is there no language there. There is almost nothing at all like a language,
It depends what you mean by language.
Britannica defines language as "a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves." However, birds, as well as other animals do have language, in the sense that their calls, postures and other behaviours do convey information to other birds and animals, such as location of predators and sources of food.
The crow clearly cognizes that the food is on top of the water, and so is aware of the concept "on top of", which we call a preposition.
The crow has an awareness of logic. The crow knows that the water level will rise if an object is placed into the water. Therefore, the crow knows that if it places an object into the water, then the water level will rise.
Other crows learn that the water level will rise if an object is placed into it, not through verbal communication, but through behavioural communication, by observation of the behaviour of the crow attempting to reach the food.
There are two main theories as to how language evolved. Either i) as an evolutionary adaptation or ii) a by-product of evolution and not a specific adaptation. As feathers were an evolutionary adaptation helping to keep the birds warm, once evolved, they could be used for flight. Thereby, a by-product of evolution rather than a specific adaptation. Similarly for language, the development of language is relatively recent, between 30,000 and 1000,000 years ago. As the first animals emerged about 750 million years ago, this suggests that language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation.
I would propose that the human is not conscious of 99% of those events within the body necessary for the body to survive in the world, eg, heart rate, etc. I would also propose that 99% of what the human is conscious of at any moment in time is not linguistic, eg, when driving we don't have time to verbalise everything we are aware of within each constantly changing scene. I would conclude that at any moment in time, 99.99% (metaphorically speaking) of the actions taken by the body necessary to survive in the world it finds itself are not linguistic. IE, human interactions with the world are not fundamentally qualitatively different to that of a non-linguistic crow, although admittedly are quantitatively different.
Humans don't need language to survive in the world, but language enables the communication of thoughts between people. This creates a collective mind that is far more powerful than any individual mind making it up. Language thereby allows each individual a greater understanding of the world than would be possible without language. With such understanding, they have the possibility to significantly alter the environment they find themselves within.
That's animal communication not language. Conveying information is not a high enough bar for language.
Wouldn't surprise me. Prepositions in Irish are integrated with the subject. For example, "to me' is one word. A much more central word class are verbs.
"Grammar is the logic of speech, even as logic is the grammar of reason.''
I agree @ucarr did write i) "grammar, the inferential platform and medium of language, is synonymous with logic" ii) Grammar is logic iii) logic is almost the same word for human utterance iv) Logic, then, being an attribute of language, stands subordinate to language. However, I don't know whether @ucarr is saying that logic or language came first.
My belief is that language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation. This is the theory posed by linguist Noam Chomsky and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in that language evolved as a result of other evolutionary processes, essentially making it a by-product of evolution and not a specific adaptation. The idea that language was a spandrel, a term coined by Gould, flew in the face of natural selection. In fact, Gould and Chomsky pose the theory that many human behaviours are spandrels. These various spandrels came about because of a process Darwin called "pre-adaptation," which is now known as exaptation. This is the idea that a species uses an adaptation for a purpose other than what it was initially meant for. One example is the theory that bird feathers were an adaptation for keeping the bird warm, and were only later used for flying. Chomsky and Gould hypothesize that language may have evolved simply because the physical structure of the brain evolved, or because cognitive structures that were used for things like tool making or rule learning were also good for complex communication. This falls in line with the theory that as our brains became larger, our cognitive functions increased.
The sentence "come here" doesn't contain any preposition, yet signifies a spatio-temporal relation.
The nature of spacetime must ultimately be language, since language is the most general algebraic structure. For something to obey rules it's got to conform to the rules of language otherwise it's unintelligible. In spacetime you've got objects, these correspond to nouns, you've got time, which correspond to verbs and functions and you've got space which is prepositional. There isn't anything in spacetime that isn't describable in language. Notice how all attempts to unify the sciences involve trying to boil them all down to one language within a unified grammar. The thoughts we model reality with must also be continuous with that reality and continuity implies shared structure. In the CTMU this is called the metaformal system and it couples that which you describe the universe with that which structures it.
https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Principle_of_Linguistic_Reducibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIv4GiDGOk - language of spacetime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXvUyrhAaN8 - reality is a language
What is language for if not conveying information ?
My conceptualization of logic is based on this premise: logic is a synonym for continuity and, moreover, logical operations (such as language) are concerned with the parsing of continuity. Logical operations, therefore, express themselves as systematic analyses of a whole for the sake of manipulation-with-intention. This said manipulation, ultimately, must gravitate back to its source. Analysis always has a gravitational orientation back to its source, the whole. Language, viewed thus, expresses itself as a systematically modulated medium of derivatives in search of a whole.
Let me illustrate with a parallel. When a prism parses the visible light spectrum into a rainbow of colors, white light, the whole, gets parsed into a language, as it were, of color derivatives in search of the whole from whence they came.
All of this is to say that the grammar of language, no matter how cognitive & cerebral, remains rooted in the physicality of spacetime.
Now I can present my foundational premise: logic = continuity = (literal, physical) motion.
As a general statement about logic (and therefore about language), I claim that it is a concomitant of motion.
Of course my above claim is subject to cogent refutation.
Baden, RussellA and alan1000 have made responses of essential importance.Quoting Baden
Our views differ in terms of the quantum vs. the continuum. Baden says the boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic is quantum; I say it is continuum.
Quoting RussellA
Is the human brain hard-wired for language, or did it reconfigure itself for language in response to environmental prompts? Since the entire animal kingdom encounters environmental prompts, I lean towards believing the high-cognition version of language that is human is hard-wired.
Quoting alan1000
Yes. Language arises directly from the physical environment of animation, and remains rooted there, no matter how refined into abstract cerebration it becomes.
I quote these important observations of correspondents in order to acknowledge their impact upon my arguments which, given the cogency of the observations, must presently remain tentative.
Conveying information is a necessary but not sufficient condition for language. That should be obvious from what I wrote. Passing wind may convey information as may a million other non-linguistic events. Language is special and specially defined in comparison.
Not exactly. Though language has specific attributes that help identify it, there is room for debate around some of those attributes, e. g. recursion. And if we are to take it that language evolved over time, we ought to make conceptual room for a theorised primitive proto-language. However, there is no serious consideration given in academic linguistics to incorporating crow behaviour or tea-making behaviour under even the broadest umbrella understanding of language. That doesn't mean some of your other ideas aren't pertinent but you might be being a tad overambitious in the scope of your project here.
I'm trying to follow along here a little, but I don't understand any of this. What could logic have to do with spacetime, for instance? The OP speculates people are introduced to logic through language, and thus logic and language are irreducible. They then must have developed alongside each other from some proto-language, and for some reason this means that spacetime is the ultimate conjunction between ... ?
Yes, and can form a "complete thought" due to the fact that it fulfils at minimum the necessary requirements of a clause, i. e. it contains a verb and everything necessary for the verb in its syntactical context (its complements). And a clause whether singularly acting as a sentence or doing so in conjunction with other clauses, forms the most important semantic building block of language. Here again, the verb is central, and prepositions peripheral.
(Edited for clarity).
Passing wind can't be inherently non-linguistic otherwise you wouldn't be able to identify it and communicate it to us via language. In otherwords, it has to be language-like for it to enter into and be informationally accepted by your linguistic model. If the structure it exists in weren't itself a language, you would be able to say what "it" is using language, as there'd be no structure connecting it with your identification of it.
The OP make some leaps I would need to look more into. Just trying to clarify a few points from my own background in linguistics, so far.
I can identify rocks and communicate their existence. Rocks are not a language either. So, I was clarifying what a language is and isn't, not saying that anything could not be put into language. And this is me being extremely charitable in interpreting your objection.
Yes, you seem to be competent at linguistics. I only know the basics - and not very well.
Maybe try to be a little more focused? My problem has always been what appears to be yours: profundity. You or I might be smart, but it is difficult to write profoundly all the time. I find that I get the best product if I stay down to earth and then expand on what I'm writing.
You really have a bone to pick it seems. Unfortunately for you the Philosophy Forum doesn't give out participation awards. Or any awards. Must be the leftist idealism.
If you follow the point of contention, you'll better be able to determine whether such interjections are helpful/necessary/relevant. I'll try to be as precise as I can with my phrasing.
I think language and logic are contemporaneous co-functions. I intuit this because, in my experience, a healthy, functional brain cannot long operate illogically. Environmental forces soon put illogical behavior in check along the axis of survival. The purposeful individual, being conscious, must proceed under guidance of some degree of foundational common sense, otherwise death. There is no viable intent apart from a foundation within logic. Translated broadly, this means an individual must move about with purpose within his-her environment. Within the crucible of survival, logic and language are forged jointly as co-equals. As such, both logic and language emerge as non-random animation.
Homo sapiens differs from the rest of the animal kingdom not in terms of a quantum leap forward from non-language to language, but rather from non-verbal langue to verbal langue.
In its broadest generality, langue_logic is motion organized by need_intent_purpose.
It's the degree of supportable abstraction that separates non-verbal langue from verbal langue. The animal kingdom, although linguistic, is non-verbal, therefore non-literate. It uses the language of purposeful animation within the immediate context of personally physicalized expression of intent. Unlike homo sapiens, it cannot record complex, intricate motion-with-intent as a continuity of abstract signification i.e., a book. It cannot take a book and, via internalized motion (which is a good definition of the operation of intellect) reanimate, via the imagination, complex signification of same.
Okay. Here's your recognition of upwardly developmental language across a continuum.
Quoting Baden
lin·guis·tics | liNG??wistiks |
plural noun [treated as singular]
the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics.
__The Apple Dictionary
One of the foundational reasons I'm making my claims herein is the desire to make the following change to the above definition,
the scientific study of ^ verbal ^ language
So, yes. In reference to the non-homo sapiens animal kingdom, language is more properly the study of psychology than academic linguistics.
:smile: :up: :100:
Exactly. No conscious individual in possession of information needful of communication exits without simultaneous possession of language.
Yeah. My attempt at reasoning herein lies sprawled across a long block chain of (supposedly) connected ideas. See below where Hallucinogen does an excellent job of compacting the block chain into a short paragraph, with links to articles that elaborate.
Quoting Hallucinogen
"Come here," being a command, contains the implied subject "you." If we're stretching definitions here, then I say that a better characterization is the claim that the verb "come" is a complement of the implied subject "you," as it makes (an implied) claim about the subject: you are a conscious individual who can obey my command.
The main point, however, is that "come here" is only a complete thought because of both the verb and the subject. Verb_Subject is the building block of grammar, unless you can cite a language that lacks one or both of these.
As to the peripheral status of prepositions, can you cite a language that never signifies spatial and temporal relationships between nouns? RussellA's Chinese quote (somehow) signifies the preposition; I suppose it's implied.
I agree with this. It's good advice. Plain English is the best approach and I'm working on it.
Anyone who wants to label me profound is welcome to do so, as I consider it high praise. Thank-you.
If, by chance, by profundity you mean obscurity, then yes. That's a profound fault, as it means my attempts at communication are failing fundamentally.
Even so, intuitive leaps are a permanent part of my mental landscape. Even as I work towards plain speaking, I accept this part of myself. Moreover, folks (including me) are always complaining about narratives that aren't simple as pie. As for writing populist philosophy, that's a tall order, but striving for the impossible is an item on my to do list.
Speculation Vs Scholarship > Your cautionary alert is appropriate and good. Of course we rabble come to public forums to cluck cluck like roosters having a little bit of fun. Maybe more a than a few hot breezes circulating the public houses have prevented more than a few wars, no?
:chin: Well, it beats your poetry, I guess. :cheer:
@ucarr
I appreciate your open and engaging investigation but I can't help but feel you are making stuff up on the fly as it suits you, redefining terms in your own idiosyncratic way and so on. Anyhow, I'll leave you guys to it and may jump back in later if you settle on a coherent set of definitions and some kind of recognizable theory.
The crow will never explain the universe nor construct a society dependent on technology. Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning. Animals can communicate but that is not the same as conceptualizing and reasoning which are dependent on language. Now if they can teach each other sign language or evolve to have language such as humans have, then they be able to conceptualize as humans do. That ability is dependent on language, and our ancestors may not have had language.
Our problem here is language. Does logic mean the ability to respond correctly to stimulus or does in it me the ability to conceptualize and communicate concepts to others?
Animals do not have gods and neither did early man because a god is a concept, and is not manifested in nature. We need terminology that distinguishes the difference between figuring out how to get food or evade a predator, and figuring out how to create and use technology. Language is essential to the conceptual reality we have created for ourselves.
Not all languages can lead to manifesting the technology we have, but suspect they can all manifest a concept of god. Sumerians could never have the technology we have today because they did not have the necessary concepts and words for classifying trees are different from bushes and something living is different from being inanimate.
Hello, Athena,
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
What about pets? Out of the whole animal kingdom, about 150 species can be domesticated for life alongside humans in friendship.
We're told humans have dominion over animals. Maybe pets receive God's presence through humans? When a pet takes instruction from human to do a good deed, or when a pet, on its own initiative, does a good deed, such as save an endangered human, is that not a pet_God connection?
logic = motion + intent
The scope of this claim is broadly inclusive. It begs the question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related.
Let me address this question.
My arguments have lead me to an all is motion point of view. I know this is a trap baited by the lure of panacea found. Let me protect my ego with a strong dose of skepticism towards ultimate Eureka! moments.
All is NOT motion. I know. Im digressing, as usual for my mind, a rambling forager. Alright, but just a quick moment for this:
The sciences examine motion existentially; the arts and humanities examine motion qualitatively. In short, the former measures things; the latter munches on those measurements. There. Thats how I address the begged question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related under the rubric of,
logic = motion + intent
So now, if you be cognitive individual, you practice motion + intent. Speaking in the vernacular, we call this finding food, shelter & fire. Following closely upon the tail of the basic three come the secondary three: finding love, family & community. The lotus in the garden of the magic seven is, finally, finding cosmos, which means, colloquially, practicing unselfish love for others.
All cognitive individuals possess language because, as you know, all cognitive beings seek the magic seven listed above and, as you know, none of the above happen outside of language games.
Language and its inherent logic are cerebration of motion, which is intelligence.
Consciousness and its emergent property, intelligence, are the two greatest creations of our universe.
So now, as you might surmise, I speak to the great, cosmic love-in: The Big Bang Animation, an all-inclusive universal narrative. This narrative, the voice of God, operates so broadly inclusively, it easily contains, even if paradoxically, our community of theists_atheists. Thats right. Theism & atheism are sub-divisions of one source, the universal narrative. I digress.
The Big Bang Tango, universal background radiation, headwaters the lines-of-force motion that cognitive individuals are sourced from and bound unto.
Well now, the night is late, the campfire bright and the claim uttered: We are motion!
Chatter, anyone? Some chatter before bedtime?
We are motion? What is motion?
No! E-motion. We are E-motion.
Now wait a minute. I think "
The crow must be cognisant of the following concepts in order to gain the food:
Causation = putting a stone into the water will cause the water level to rise.
Negation = not putting a stone in the water will not cause the water to rise
Time = because putting a stone in the water in the past caused the water level to rise, putting a stone in the water in the future will cause the water level to rise
Space = the stone is spatially separated to the water
Logic = the water level will rise if a stone is put into the water. If the crow puts a stone into the water, then the water level will rise
Open-endedness = the stone the crow uses may be different in size and shape to the stone observed by the crow in the past
Concepts = the crow cognizes the glass beaker is not the stone
Relations = the crow must cognize that the food is on top of the water
Reasoning = the crow is observed to act in an ordered and rational way
Hypotheticals = the crow must reason that if a stone is put into the water, then the water level will rise.
Displacement (things not present) = the crow must cognize that the food will rise up the beaker if a stone is put into the water
Open response = the crow cannot predict how many stones are required to sufficiently raise the water level, but continues until it has reached its goal.
Questioning = the crow examines its environment in order to discover what tools are available for it to reach its goal.
Concrete nouns = the crow can distinguish between the beaker and the stone
Abstract nouns = the crow's hunger determines its course of action
Verbs = the crow cognizes that movement of the stone is required
Prepositions = the crow must cognize that the stone is outside the beaker.
Simile = the stone the crow uses may be different in size, colour and shape to the stone previously observed.
Conjunction = the glass beaker is not the stone, meaning that there is a glass beaker and a stone.
Adverb = the crow cognizes that the stone must be moved carefully and deliberately
Adjective = the crow cognizes that the colour of the stone is not relevant to its task.
IE, pre-language, the crow has the necessary concepts required for language.
Quoting Athena
How human language could have evolved from birdsong
The article suggests that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that that human language combines two forms of communication already found in the animal kingdom. There is the expression layer, the changeable organisation of sentences, such as birdsong, where learning plays a role in song development as it does in language development. There is the the lexical layer, such as the communicative waggles of bees. At some point between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of communication.
IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed.
:up:
That depends on one's definition of God. I really hope this thread stays focused on scientific facts and logic. The only thing that clearly separates humans from other mammals and social animals is the ability to come up with a concept such as the concept of gods, and behave as though this intangible reality is a tangible reality. No other animal would do that.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, all animals including humans are preprogrammed for those things, however, there are some differences between reptiles and mammals. Mammals have more parenting instincts than reptiles and among the mammals, some are better programmed for social behavior than others. Bonobos are more like humans than chimps and chimps have a better memory than baboons, leading to chimps having better social instincts than baboons.
Being a human with cognitive abilities does not necessarily mean thinking conceptionally and only that ability separates humans from the rest of the animals. I work with cognitively challenged people so I am seeing language is not enough for conceptual thinking and you begin with an argument about reasoning. Our ability to reason is very low when we are children and improves with age. However, brain damage can also prevent us from having the ability to reason, so reasoning is more than having language. If we can not grasp complex concepts, we can not reason well. This is certainly true for those with right frontal brain damage and those suffering from dementia.
Quoting RussellA
Sure everything about being human is built on what already existed. But not all humans can reason, as I explained. Being able to reason through complex concepts is unique to humans, and there are humans who function at the level of animals, incapable of reasoning.
[b]Quoting ucarr
Yes, Grammar introduces logic. And if people do not learn grammar they do not learn good logic. Math is also an important path to logical thinking. Children should learn the rules of grammar and math if we want them to grow up with the skills for logic.[/b] Teaching grammar and logic to the masses was not possible before the twentieth century. Since mass education, humans have been on a different path than the religiously controlled path they were on, because now they hold many different concepts as true and important.
So, in your view, mental manipulation of abstract concepts is the marker distinguishing humans within animal kingdom.
Quoting Athena
Are you suggesting, with the above, that negative effect on reasoning can sometimes occur without negative effect on language?
It depends on where the line is drawn between a complex concept and a simple concept
My belief is that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation. IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed (using the term animal to refer to non-human).
It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality. After all, if animals were not able to reason and conceptualise, then humans would have had nothing to build on.
There are many professionals who believe that animals can reason and conceptualise
For example, as regards reasoning:
Planning for the future by western scrub-jays
Animal cognition
Do animals have reflective minds
As regards conceptualising:
Many animals can think abstractly
Analogical reasoning in animals
Ability of animals to think abstract concepts
Such a conclusion would not be surprising, as humans are animals. I am sure that even the crow has a basic understanding of the concept "on top of" (what we call a preposition), in that the crow certainly perceives that the food is on top of the water. Though I am sure other articles may be found concluding the opposite.
Quoting RussellA
Reacting to our environment is not equal to logical thinking. Reacting to a warning cry is not equal to thinking, as we can observe in dogs that bark at every sound regardless of how much it is punished for this behavior. Some dogs do not distinguish between a thief and a mailperson. They are not thinking, only reacting.
Perhaps some experiments will help in understanding thinking. If you have some time try thinking about hyohamous and tell me the meaning and value of it. Do you understand hyohamous as well as you understand Hypotheticals, or is your ability to under one and the other different? Now grab an electric wire and ten minutes later grab the wire again. Was the experience the same both times? What changed? An alligator will endure an electric shock once its teeth get hold of meat but if it does not have the taste of meat, it will pull away from the shock. It can take several shocks before the alligator stops its attempts to get the meat. What concepts does the alligator understand?
Can you provide a definition of "hyohamous"?
Several areas of the brain are involved with the ability to use language. However, right frontal lobe brain damage really messes up a person's ability to reason, and I don't think this necessarily means a loss of language. It is more along the line of connections between different parts of the brain and it is the frontal cortex that separates us from animals. Animals can make sounds that communicate alarm, a call for a mother, sexual attraction, excite calling everyone to come and eat. That is not conceptual thinking nor equal to human reasoning which is a matter of making associations, what happens in the cortex. This is what makes your statement "Grammar introduces all speakers to logic." so true.
Quoting Letitia Pirau
The importance of a healthy brain able to connect signals from different areas compliments what you said about the importance of the connections made with grammar and knowing how a word fits into a sentence.
Where did human language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness come from if not from pre-existing non-human animal abilities ?
Humans are animals. Today, the human animal has a particular ability as regards language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness that non-human animals don't seem to have.
Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language, etc is relatively recent, possibly within the last 30,000 to 100,00 years.
I can understand human language, etc as a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that whilst feathers evolved for warmth, as a by-product could be used for flight. I can understand human language as combining two existing forms of communication, the expression layer, eg found in birds, and the lexical layer, eg found in bees.
However, if that is not the case, I cannot understand the mechanism that originated human language, etc totally independently from any pre-existing non-human animal ability.
My question is, what is the mechanism that enabled the origination of human language etc
totally independently of any pre-existing non-human animal ability.
Quoting Athena
Sounds very human to me.
Quoting Vladimir Zivanovic
. Quoting RussellA
Let us look at different animal brains. The following link has pictures and explanations.
Quoting Lakna
We must understand humans do not think alike, most of our thinking is learned and few humans have developed logic skills. That is why this thread is so important! We can not understand what democracy is without learning the principles and reasoning of democracy, any more than a person could be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist without learning and being indoctrinated.
All social animals also do a lot of learning and have the ability to transmit information, so it is not just one chimp who washes the sand off the food but the whole troop will learn to do so. We can see the logic of doing that, but imitating others is not a function of logic. To repeat the first link..
.Concentrating on the environment and your senses is just individual perception, which mustnt be confused with logic.
The Egyptians were experts at measuring and math, however, they were not exactly logical. We make a big deal out of the Greeks because they took math further to proving what a triangle is and this moved them from superstition to science. Greek thinking was unique. They brought us to rule by reason rather than a god authority over the people. However, I can not think of math without also thinking of India and the zero. Interestingly India's math stayed superstitious believing such knowledge was given by a god, instead of holding a secular understanding of proves and logic. Believing a god gives us language or math and made humans from mud is not exactly logical thinking.
There is no such word. I was making a point about the importance of words to our thinking. When we do not have a word for our thought we can't think that thought, we can not communicate that thought to ourselves or others. Or if we have a word but not a definition which is also words, we have no understanding of the word. The point is animals are capable of human logic because they do not have the necessary words. We can not discuss quantum physics without the vocabulary.
Animals do not have the brain structure nor the vocal structure for language and surely not for logic. But they have what comes before our large cortex and ability to speak a language. The human difference has evolved but perhaps today more and more humans are being pushed out of mainstream society because they do not have the IQ's for advanced education and high-tech jobs? I am also concerned that education for technology is not adequate for all humans because we must learn how to be good citizens and we can not rely on religion for moral training because religions are not compatible with science and logical thinking.
I agree with the Lakna article, where she wrote:
1) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
2) Humans brain has the ability of complex processing such as conscious thought, language, and self-awareness due to the presence of a large neocortex while animals brain has a less ability of complex processing.
3) Humans brain produces a high cognitive capacity with complex processing including conscious thought, language, and self-awareness............animals show less cognitive capacities.
This agrees with what I previously wrote in that "It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality."
I agree with you when you wrote that i) reacting to the environment is not logical thinking, ii) imitating others is not a function of logic, iii) perception must not be confused with logic.
I agree with you when you wrote that believing a god gave us language is neither reasonable nor logical. Society needs reason and logic.
Though I disagree with you when you wrote that i) most of our thinking is learned, ii) logical thinking is not an inborn talent but something you learn.
Is thinking learnt
Cognition is a higher level function of the brain and manipulates concepts used in reasoning, logic and language. Cognition requires thinking, but thinking does not require cognition, ie, I can think about my observation of a fact in the world without of necessity cognizing about it. IE, as thinking doesn't require cognition, it is innate and does not need to be learnt.
Is logical thinking an inborn talent or learnt
The Lakna article makes the point that it is not that humans are intelligent and cognitive whereas non-human animals are neither intelligent nor cognitive, rather he makes the point that both humans and non-human animals have some degree of intelligence and cognitive ability. IE, as cognition is present in both humans and non-human animals, cognition and thereby logical reasoning is part of the evolutionary process rather than something solely learnt by humans - though of course humans can improve their innate logical reasoning through subsequent learning.
In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make?
Quoting RussellA
I'm experiencing a natural impulse to balk at construing by-product-of-evolution as being a broadly inclusive, natural phenomenon. In your example of bird feathers being engineered by evolution for warmth, I think of bird legs. They accommodate walking very poorly. It seems to me birds have but minimal adaptation to life upon the ground. Overall bird design, with its wings, weak legs, lack of arms and beak instead of mouth, suggests a life form engineered by evolution for life in the air. If evolution targeted warmth through wing design for birds, it's strangely indirect and inefficient, as a heavy coat for warmth scarcely needs wing design, a specific, aerodynamic form. However, walking on feeble, unarticulated legs, even with a warm coat, offers little promise of survival on the ground. It seems arse backwards to supply wings for slow, wobbly walking, making flightless birds easy pickings for predators. Evolution appears more on point for supplying wings as a survival mechanism through flight.
Quoting Athena
:smile: Alright. We're on the same page re: grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.
If we suppose a human individual sustains damage to the brain's logical component, might we suppose such person could still make grammatical utterances? However, speaking this way would now be powered by rote memory without comprehension in the manner of a parrot?
If we suppose the opposite, namely, that a human individual sustains damage to the brain's language component, might we suppose such person could still think logically and thus form grammatical utterances in the mind's ear? However, thinking in this way would now be lopped off from the ability to voice aloud these utterances, thus requiring the person to write their communications?
I pose these two situations in an effort to assess the degree of interweave between grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.
If we're looking at a permanent triad of interlinked co-functions, then it feels reasonable to conclude language permeates the entire animal kingdom.
This conclusion leads us to the following comparison:
Language = (intentional) communication via signifiers
Entire Animal Kingdom -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers
Humanity -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers_abstract_(intentional) communication via abstract signifiers
Humanity alone (apparently) possesses sufficient cerebral processing power to decode abstract signifiers, both spoken and written. Only humans can produce objective recordings of experience that, via abstract signifiers, communicate lengthy, complex narratives (books, movies, etc.).
The article How human language could have evolved from birdsong differentiates between the expression part of language and the lexical part of language. For example, given the lexical components of subject "John", verb "to see" and object "bird", many different expressions may be created. Such as: "did John see the bird?", "John saw the bird", "you say that John saw the bird", etc. This is syntax and the semantics.
The article proposes that the foundations of the expression part of language and the lexical part of language were pre-existing in various non-human animals prior to human language.
Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language only began about 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Was there a magical spark that gave language to humans? It seems more sensible to believe that human language developed from something pre-existing in non-human animals.
Quoting ucarr
Birds being engineered by evolution sounds remarkably teleological. Were feathers engineered by evolution for flight, or did animals having feathers discover they could fly. As Aristotle said: Natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of spontaneity or chance is this true it follows that they must be for an end
It has been suggested that feathers had originally functioned as thermal insulation, as it remains their function in the down feathers of infant birds today, prior to their eventual modification in birds into structures that support flight.
It is considered probable that many, if not all, non-avian dinosaur species also possessed feathers in some shape or form. For example, the coelurosaurs were a small, slender bipedal carnivorous dinosaur with long forelimbs, believed to be an evolutionary ancestor of birds. I cannot picture the Tyrannosauroidea, a member of the coelurosaur family, flying, even though it probably had feathers.
Perfect! And that reminds me of DANIEL KAHNEMAN's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Actually thinking requires huge amounts of energy and most of the time we are running on automatic to conserve energy. That is running on memory and reacting, not in-the-moment intentional thinking. And even if we are trying to intentionally think through something, we are not very good at it unless we have learned the higher-order thinking skills. Add to that, without life experience our understanding of life is not enough for a good understanding of most things. That is why children must learn to diagram sentences and the rest of the rules of grammar and math, If you are interested there are videos and books explaining all these things and why we are prone to making bad decisions, even if we know the skills and have life experience.
Campaign ads and commercials come from years of research and experience in how to hook our attention and influence our thoughts and sense of desire. Quoting ucarr
Now you are too focused on language. Every second of the day our brains with flooded with information from all sense receptors and memories, many memories that are also associated with feelings.
As you said grammar is about connections so is logical thinking. The cortex orchestrates these connections, and in the left and right brain battle for dominance, the cortex suppresses this thought or that one, so rational will dominate over desires and urges. I think at times we have all thought "I would like to beat him to a bloody pulp" but immediately that thought is followed by a stern warning that that is not acceptable behavior and will have bad consequences. :rofl: The baboon does not have the intelligence of a chimp because it has poor memory and acts on impulses like the Three Stooges.
The baboon does not have the self-control chimps have. Neither does a person with right frontal brain damage have the self-control of a normal person. PTS and a bad childhood can also exaggerate reptilian responses to life, meaning the right brain and emotions are dominant, not the left brain and logic. For this reason, and because learning the rules of grammar and math strengthen the left brain functions and can make it dominant, SCHOOLS MUST FOCUS ON THE CHILDREN LEARNING GRAMMER AND MATH, AND STOP PASS THEM TO HIGHER GRADES UNTIL THEY DROP OUT OF SCHOOL , LABELED WITH BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND UNWORTHY OF THE TEACHER'S TIME.
Quoting ucarr
I have zero understanding of why you say that. Language has nothing to do with the animal world. They do not think of God and go about life as though a god will take care of them and help them win wars. Neither do they have romantic notions of love and live as though love will resolve all problems in a relationship if only s/he would be the perfect lover. With language, we imagine what should be and then take action to make things as they should be. Animals don't do this. They do not live by language as humans do.
Since I agree with the above, I think you and I are walking the same path in our journeys through this conversation.
Quoting RussellA
With the above, we come to the gnarly question of teleology vis-a-vis natural processes operating on a life-bearing planet.
Now I ask myself whether arguing existence of a foundation for modern, human, verbal language that predates humanity contains some flavor of the teleological POV re: evolution.
I'm gawking at the formidable switch at the center of a highly-charged, long-standing debate:
Explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve Vs explanation of phenomena in terms of the cause by which they arise
As I gawk, I'm reminded of Goethe's claim that interest lies embedded within the switch between conflicting claims, both of which are true. This is a handy guideline for steering a course towards non-binary thinking, another principal inflamed by debate.
I'm also reminded of a super-gnarly concept of my own: origin boundary ontology. It's an attempt to plot a metaphysical course of action touring the terrain of the chicken/egg question.
Just now, I'm leaping over that bog.
How about this question: If a process is logical, is it necessarily teleological? If logic is motion that's ordered and specific, and thus directional rather than random, how can it not have a purpose? From here we move on to asking, "Are natural processes logical, or random collisions? We know from chemistry that two specific elements combine in specific ways? In this situation, does specificity look like intention and purpose?
Even if two specific elements can be proven to have combined by random chance, as in the case of a highway accident wherein a truck carrying chlorine collides with a truck carrying sodium and the result is a flood of sodium chloride spilling across all four lanes. Since the two elements are highly specific in their chemistry, can the production of sodium chloride by accidental collision be legitimately deemed random?
Does earth evolution example natural logic?
Let's suppose a situation of totally random collisions between elements inhabiting a cosmic gas cloud spanning several galaxies worth of volume. The end result, after eons, produces coalescence into a new star. Since the new star will subsequently produce elements that, dispersing, eventually coalesce into planets orbiting the star, thus forming a solar system that, eventually, produces a life-bearing planet, can we assert the counter-intuitive conclusion that randomness sometimes transitions into logic that, in turn, transitions into life and therefore into purpose?
Too bad the Hebrews and then the Christians gave us a different understanding of creation and the Christians went on to kill and exterminate the pagans and heathens and destroyed the pagan temples which were places of learning, throwing us into the dark ages. But then Zeus did fear that mankind would learn all the technologies and turn their backs on the gods. For this reason, he gave Pandora a box full of mercies to slow man's progress and delay the inevitable. Christianity sure did slow our progress and I am not sure we would have recovered if old documents did not lead to the renascence and the church had not used Plato and Aristotle to justify its power and authority.
No other animal creates its reality around such notions, nor kills its own species with the notion they are doing the will of God. Bird sounds and language are not the same thing.
The following is a link.... https://worldbirds.com/bird-symbolism/
Bird Native American Symbolism
Native American mythology and folklore speak profoundly of different kinds and species of birds serving as a connection between the human world and the spirit one. The divinities charge these winged creatures with duties like delivering messages from the Creator to us. Although the messages and the methods of delivering these messages are neutral; however, the nature of the message casts birds in different roles. This explains how some bird meanings in Native American folklore vary from villainy and jealous competitors to heroes and wise advisors.
Different Native American tribes also designate birds as their clan animal. While some clans decide to relate themselves to a specific type of bird, like the raven clan or the eagle clan, others choose to follow a more generalized approach. These clans include the following:
The Fusualgi clan or fuswvlke bird clan also known as the bird clan of the creek
The anijisqua bird clan or antisiskwa clan also known as the bird clan of the Cherokees
The feather clan of the Mikmaq tribe
In addition to the tribes solely dedicating themselves to these creatures as their clan animal, we can also see various bird spirit animal and bird totem crests in most northwest coast tribes. To this day, the bird totem poles proudly display artistically, creatively, and culturally significant carvings of birds like eagles, thunderbirds, and ravens, among many others.
The descendants of many Native American tribes and clan members also recall enchanting tales, legends, and stories about different species of birds. Almost all tales end with a moral conclusion to teach the value of life to their young members.
Bird Christianity Symbolism
Tribal recognition of bird symbolism is the living embodiment of what many religious scripts and leaders tell us. In other words, birds are so much more than hollow bones and feathers; they are living representations and symbols of hope and strength. Even throughout the bible, the significance of these creatures is incredibly dominating. They appear again and again, from the start till the end, sometimes as nothing but an exemplary reference while other times they play a vital role in the formation of history.
The question comes down to, what do birds symbolize in the bible?
Birds symbolize mercy, hope, and divine intervention, among other things. It is a bird that carries the Israelites to safety on her wings. It is also a bird that brings back the olive branch to Noah, signifying the end of the legendary flood. A bird also accompanied Jesus on his first temple visit. They bring bread to the prophets when they are hungry, hope when they feel defeated or alone, and relief when they feel anxious.
I should have written, "sustains damage to the brain's speech component..."
I think the gist of the argument of RussellA and me (apologies if I misrepresent RussellA) is that language_general has a long run up to language_verbal, which latter requires abstract thinking, such as what you and I are doing when we read and interpret, via abstract thought, the symbolic marks displayed on our computer screens. We're arguing the entire animal kingdom participates in language_general, with various examples given. The crux of our argument is that the boundary line between animal kingdom and humans is not non-language/language but, rather, language_general/language_verbal. Only humans speak, write and read words, which is to say, comprehend abstract symbols that signify specific experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom does not appear to have the cognitive processing power necessary to navigate symbolic word signifiers abstracted from experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom is thus non-verbal and non-literate. That's a long way, in our view, from saying the animal kingdom is non-linguistic.
Out of interest who says crows don't have language? Firstly they're very vocal birds and we don't understand what the purpose of such crowing and cawking means as we don't speak "crow." secondly there's non-verbal communication which interspecially is even harder to discern.
But we know ourselves that we have non verbal communication in abundance as humans:. Smiling, crying, dancing, thumbs up, high fives and the middle finger. We use our body to communicate as we do our voice.
Simply walking with an upright straight posture and chin up suggested confidence and authority while being stooped over, small with shoulders shrugged in and chin down suggests submission and lack of confidence.
I think it's prudent to assume other animals communicate in similar formats
My response to @ucarr presented a hypothetical, not my belief that crows don't have language.
@ucarr had previously written: "Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you cant practice cognition outside of language".
If it is true as I believe that the crow is using cognition, and if it is true as @ucarr wrote that it is not possible to cognize outside language, then it would follow that crows must have language.
There is language and Language
Lakna Panawala's article What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain makes sense to me.
She wrote:
1) The main difference between humans brain and animals brain is that humans brain has a remarkable cognitive capacity, which is a crowning achievement of evolution whereas animals brain shows comparatively less cognitive capacity.
2) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
3) Humans brain has the ability of complex processing such as conscious thought, language, and self-awareness due to the presence of a large neocortex while animals brain has a less ability of complex processing.
I find it hard to believe that there was a magical moment when one day there was no language and the next day there was language. Surely, language has developed over a long period of time.
Lakna wrote that humans have more ability of complex processing than non-human animals, not that non-human animals don't have any ability of complex processing. She wrote that complex processing includes conscious thought, language and self-awareness.
@ucarr used the division language-general of non-human animals and language-verbal of humans. Another terminological division could be between language of non-human animals and Language of humans, where language with a capital L is defined as language practised by humans. If this were the case, then I would agree that non-human animals don't have Language, although I would still argue that non-human animals do have language.
Every living thing communicates in some way. To be able to communicate requires a means of communication. Language is a means of communication.
Non-human animals communicate using non-verbal signals, bees dance, hummingbirds use visual displays, etc. Humans communicate using both non-verbal and verbal communication, smiling, crying, speaking, writing, etc.
The Britannica defines human language as a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves.
Wikipedia defines animal language as communication using a variety of signs, such as sounds and movement.
In summary, both non-human animals and humans communicate using language. Non-human animal language is non-verbal, human language is both non-verbal and verbal.
Excellent addition to the discussion. We can push what you said further by discussing the democratic behavior of animals. Making group decisions involves communication. However, they are not making logical arguments to persuade others to vote but physically influence the decision. I enjoyed this link
Quoting Russell McLendon
We can imagine two Tyrannosaurus rex competing for a kill and physically telling each other they are the biggest and meanest and the other one better back away. We hardly think of this creature as being logical. The OP is about grammar and its role in logic. I am not sure the communication skills of animals are the same subject as what learning the rules of grammar has to do with learning to be logical thinkers. This matters because our schools are not preparing our young to be logical thinkers. We are assuming all humans are working with logic and that just is not true. Most of the time we are reacting with as little thought to our behavior as a horse gives to his behavior. We need to be real about this and not confuse animal communication with human logical thinking.
And what does that have to do with learning grammar as a path to learning higher-order logic thinking skills? I could be wrong but I think the discussion has confused language with logical thinking. Our disagreement is not about the communication skills of animals, including the human species. Our disagreement seems to be about what logic has to do with thinking foolishly or logically. Man, oh man, humans can do some really stupid things because they hold false beliefs and tend to be more emotional than logical.
I am stressing this because it has such important educational and cultural consequences. The US democracy could fall if we do not get this right.
:smile: :up:
At an early point in this conversation - I think before your entrance - some correspondents - now dropped out - attacked my claim that logical thinking does not occur outside of language. From there, the argument went to a possible refutation of my argument via example of animal behavior deemed possible logical thinking outside of language (the crow displacement video). Henceforth, the conversation centered on a debate whether non-humans practice language.
I now have some agreement, I think, to the effect that the entire animal kingdom practices language, logical thought and behavior, whereas humans alone also practice verbal language: spoken and written.
Quoting Athena
I've been mulling over the question whether logical thinking is taught in the schools. I think I can deduce that some measure of such is being taught because I see no way to teach anything without lessons based in logical thinking. I think it true that lessons in logical thinking need to be much more robust, especially in the primary grades. This would ensure that students immediately set about building a strong foundation for becoming life-long learners in all endeavors.
This has been the goal of formal education since the beginning. That's why primary schools are also known as grammar schools. The problem is not the mission, but the execution of it.
Even if a school caters to low-income students, it can empower such students to success with rigorous grammar lessons because logically thinking students of low income, no less than logically thinking students of high income, can successfully compete in the job market.
Alas, with respect to grammar lessons, mass media entertainments are the enemy.
I don't agree with this statement:
1) Logic does not need to be introduced. It permeats all things in the human mind. Even before we learn to speak and certainly before learning grammar.
2) A lot of things are based on or connected to and use logic. Grammar is just one of them.
3) Grammar can be used by both speakers and writers, as an automatic process, i.e. without using logic consciously, even if it's structure --because it consists of other elements besides a structure-- is based on logic.
(I don't remember --and I don't think in general-- that in school grammar is learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic.)
Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. It depends on what you mean by "conscious", but there are many kinds of animal that communicate information without language (language, that is, in the linguistic, symbolic sense).
Yes. I agree that the logical operations of the mind enacting goal-oriented behavior begins in toddlers who lack verbal language.
"Introduction," as used in my sentence, refers to a classroom situation wherein students are tasked with bringing a fully conscious mind to learning the reasoning behind the syntax of their native tongue. Learning to speak and write with conscious intention to articulate well-formed sentences, as guided by conscious grammatical manipulation, marks the beginning of conscious logical thought for many, if not all. Aside from prodigies, toddlers don't operate at the cognitive level of verbal expression via conscious intention.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Right. Like many, I've spent much of my life speaking my native tongue by ear, without giving much thought to grammatical manipulation towards best communication.
Now that I'm getting my conscious bearings in the grammar of my native tongue, I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity.
I put your closing, parenthetical statement in bold because it places you on my side of the aisle re: the debate. Yes. Communication of information is not language in the sense of verbal language that uses symbolic signs and thus requires abstract thought for decoding. Indeed, as I've never seen an animal reading a book, it's safe to say verbal language is exclusive to humans.
Quoting Janus
This claim is a bit more tough to judge. Let me venture the claim that if communication of information is intentional, as, for example, a growling dog warning a postman away from his yard, then it is language, albeit non-verbal language. If, on the other hand, I'm standing at the base of a hill when, suddenly, a boulder dislodges from its position and rolls down the hill and smashes into the ground near my parked car and I race off in my car, having concluded my previous location was unsafe, then that's an example of communication that's not language because there was no intention motivating its occurence.
If we acknowledge that most behavior is either goal-oriented, or makes some kind of sense, as opposed to being completely random, then I say that all cognitive beings infuse some level of logic into their animation, oftentimes this coupled with intention to signify meaning to other cognitive beings via modulated animation. This is a way of saying being alive and conscious is synonymous with being linguistic.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote there except the quoted sentence; "linguistic" means "of the tongue", and I would reserve its use for the symbolic languages which are unique to humans. This defines the traditional area of study of linguistics.
The study of the other animal forms of communication involves different domains of investigation, for example ethology and animal cognition, as I see it.
You're right.
I've been using "language" and "linguistic" to convey "intentional communication capable."
If "language," by definition, means verbal expression (and it does), then, by current vocabulary standards, I've been wrong to claim all of the animal kingdom possesses language.
It's well established that "communication" is the word to be used when referring to transfer of information that's non-verbal.
I'm wondering if language_general can work as a term for the intentional, non-verbal communication of animals whereas language_verbal can work as a term for human communication. Communication would apply to both modes of language; vocabulary, syntax, grammar and linguistics would only apply to verbal language.
I make these suggestions because language, in my thinking, conveys intention (appropriate for all of the animal kingdom) whereas "communication," feeling subject neutral, does so to a lesser degree.
This is very good! Was it applied in your school? Is it applied in schools in general in your country or any other country you now? (If yes, please name it.)
Quoting ucarr
Yes, this process is carried out consciously. But my point was that school grammar is not learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic, i.e. explicitly.
Quoting ucarr
OK, so if undestand well, you didn't have the experience you referred to in your "introduction", but you mentioned it as an ideal scene. If this is so, I fully support such an idea.
Quoting ucarr
Nice.
I think our problem is our definition of logic and I wish others were here to discuss what is logic and do animals have logical thinking? I think you and I have agreement that humans need to learn logic. That means logic is something that is different from instinct, right? To perceive danger and react is instinctive.
Mammals instinctively care for their young. Instincts are hard-wired into the brain and this is passed on from generation to generation. Some birds learn to speak, but is it logic? I think not. Imitating another is not using logic. Exactly what is logic?
It might be beneficial to follow all those similar subjects. When we get to the computer explanation we are talking about programming. When we say an animal behaves in a certain way because it is hard-wired to do so, we are speaking of programming. Now we might consider is programming equal to logical thinking? I think not, AI can not think as a human thinks. And when it comes to humans, memorizing a lot of facts is not equal to logical thinking. Memorizing facts is perceiving and reacting, like a computer. If this, then that. What makes a human different is the ability to question if this and that is the only possibility. Now we have logic. There is a degree of imagination in logic.
The human difference- why is experience a better guide to this than deductive logic? What makes the human experience different from other animals and computers?
By the way, humans are not programmed for logical thinking. They only have the potential and might I say the dark ages were dark because the pagan temples that taught the rules of logic were destroyed and religion replaced logical thinking, leaving humans with instincts but not reason. At least the US is slipping into a dark age and perhaps the rest of the world as well.
Right, but although I'd say 'linguistic' is commonly used to refer only to spoken and written symbolic language, 'language' itself, although it shares the same etymology, is more widely used: "body language", "computer language", "sign language" and so on. Also the visual arts and music are often referred to as languages.
So, I have no problem with saying that animals have their own kinds of languages; languages of sign, though, not of symbol.All symbols are signs, but not all signs are symbols.
I agree with this. :up:
Interesting question. What I've worked out for myself, so far, is that logic, basically, is continuity parsed. Whole into parts via analysis and, in reverse, parts reconnected according to strict rules of valid continuity back to whole.
Are the instincts of humans and animals logical? I hope so. If I have survival instincts (and I do) I certainly hope they're viable and thus logical. The difference, as I say, lies between low res(olution) cognition i.e., instinct and high res(olution) cognition i.e., rationation.
We humans want to learn logic to better plan for the achievement of our sincere goals, and thus for our happiness and fulfillment.
That cartoon is excellent!
Do you think animalslearn logic? What does it mean to learn logic?
I so wish everyone would watch this video
Our understanding of animals was incorrect. The notion that animals communicate is new. The notion of animals having feelings and feelings involving hormones was non-existant. We held the belief that humans were a special creation of a god, and not like animals. As we learn more we have to resolve a lot of conflicts between old and new thinking. But I don't think we should take this so far as thinking animals are as logical as humans, in complete deinial about how the cortex makes human thinking different.
On the other hand, dogs have a sense of smell far superior to the human sense of smell, and through smell, they access a lot of information that is outside of our awareness. Insects can be superior to humans in specific ways and different animals can be superior to humans in their way. But none of them will use math and science to learn more about reality. They will not concern themselves with learning the rules of grammar.
When you put your hand onto something hot and it burns you, you yank your hand away. Many call this a reflex without conscious thought. I call it high speed, low res processing, or gross thinking. If I throw a rock into a burning fireplace, it doesn't jump out in pain. No processing, thus no logical processing. I say all processing is logical. This is to say cognitive processing is bound up in continuity and acts accordingly. If a bug tries to fly into my eyeball, I jack-knife away in the continuity of action/reaction. All logic is action/reaction; in parallel, all cognitive processing is, likewise, action/reaction. When my reflexes keep me from burning up, or being blinded, these actions make sense, don't they? When a beast is getting cornered and it either attacks or flees, that makes sense doesn't it? Our reflexes aren't always correct? Are they ever irrational?
Quoting Athena
I, RusselA, Janus, Alkis Piskas and others don't disagree with you. We never have. None of us claims animal reasoning is equal to human reasoning. We're just saying the divide between animal/human isn't no-reason versus reason. Instead, we're saying the divide is between low-res reason versus high- res reason.
Let me begin by saying I am not sure of my arguement but like you, I am trying to figure this out.
You may be on to something. Let us test it. When I was a child I wanted to fly and I had no idea why that was not possible so I kept jumping off high things hoping to fly. Is that logical thinking? Or how about if we are dying of a terrible plague? We know God is punishing us, so we appease this god by 1. sacrificing a human being. 2. Appease the god by going from town to town whipping ourselves. 3. Appease the god by killing the Jews who are an offense to Him or attack the Muslims and take back Rome, or Isreal. Is that logical thinking? Is believing in angels and demons logical thinking? Where do we draw the line between logical thinking and illogical thinking? Now if an animal runs from a fire is that logical thinking because it hopefully gets a good result? Where would be if we had always run from fire?
Quoting ucarr :chin: What is the action and reaction to a mathematical possibility that reality is multidimensional? We work with numbers and grasp quantum physics why? We understand photons and the center of the universe because we are reacting to our experiences? Right now we have a mass of people who believe the Bible is God's truth and science is not about truth so we can ignore it even when a virus is killing people. That is logical thinking? Covid and Trump has made the argument about logic a very serious one and I am so glad you are continuing this debate about logic.
Quoting ucarr :chin: What did you think when I offered ways of appeasing a god? Are those ideas rational or irrational? The video explains why they are irrational. How about Trump and how we handled a virus? Do you think everyone is behaving rationally? Or do you think the government is trying to control us and God sent Trump and is now giving us angels of death who are killing the evil politicians? Is it logical to jump off high things with the hope of flying? I think giving up on flying might be a logical choice, but those did not give up the idea, figued how to fly.
Quoting ucarr
I wish all those folks were still here arguing. How about, reasoning and logic are two different things? Of course the Bible is God's truth and God gave us Trump as he promises in the Bible to send us kings. And does that reasoning support democracy and rule by reason, instead of rule by authority above us? You started with learning grammar is learning logic. Is studying the Bible learning logic?
This thread needs more arguments about what language has to do with logic. What is beautiful about math is it crosses all language barriers. 2+2=4 is a universal truth, regardless of what language is spoken. Science is also about universal truths and this path of thinking appears to have begone with some Greeks and leads to the notion that humans can know truth and live by reason, instead of being ignorant and living by authority over the people.
Our understanding of logic includes our understanding of morality and the human potential. Arguing animals are logical degrades democracy and justifies autocracy. I really think equating human logic with animal logic is harmful to democracy as that throws us back to living like animals and power struggles instead of having education for the higher order thinking skills.
How high did you climb before jumping off?
My claim animal instincts are consistent with reason doesn't imply natural preclusion of irrational thinking and behavior.
Recognition of animal reasoning does not promote human devolution.
Quoting Athena
Do you think desire to appease an all-powerful aggressor irrational?
Do we read symbolic language as we read verbal language? Is a logical narrative, like a verbal narrative, a continuity of signs that must be decoded and understood?
Can one language be a component of another language?
The issue for me is education. Reasoning and logical thinking are not the same. If it is not understood that learning math and grammar are important to learning how to think logically, the necessary lessons will not be taught and the student will not become a logical thinker. The student will remain like an animal basing decisions on feelings instead of on logic. Then we will have young males gunning down people and other social problems because the masses are not getting the disciplined thinking of education.
Let's see, what was the chemical Trump told people to use to avoid getting covid. You know, the chemical that killed a woman's husband. "Trump says he's taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID". "Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus cure". That is reasoning. The information science and doctors use is based on logic and we have a religious mass that rejects science.
You know all those people who refused to use masks and said the government is trying to control us and the attack on the Capitol Building and the man who bashed in Pelois's husband's head. That is all reasoning, not logic.
The US is in a crisis because of bad reasoning and I am arguing we can use math and grammar to improve the reasoning of the masses. And yes, thinking animals and humans reason and confusing that with learning and using logic, has brought us down to the level of animals with half the nation believing Trump, who demonstrates all the characteristics of a tyrant, is a good father to our nation, put in the position of president by the power of God so obviously the election that put Biden in power was corrupted! Great reasoning, huh?
Logic and grammar
There was no magical moment when non-human animals became human animals.
I cannot imagine a magical moment when one day animals communicated without language, had instinct without logic, were without conscious cognition of concepts, lacked any sense of morality and the next day were able to communicate with language, had reason with logic, had conscious cognition of concepts and thought about the moral implications of their actions. It seems more sensible to assume a gradual evolutionary change between animals with lower intellectual abilities to animals with a higher intellectual abilities, a process lasting millions of years.
Humans must have an innate ability to perceive what is logical
In order to perceive the colour red, I must have the a priori ability to perceive red. Humans cannot perceive the infra-red as they have no innate a priori ability to perceive infrared. Similarly, for a human to understand logic they must have a pre-existing innate ability, an ability already existing in non-human animals. It would be logically impossible for an animal to be able to perceive something of which they no innate a priori ability to perceive.
The definition of language
The Britannica defines language as "a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves" If language is defined as something used by humans, then I agree that animals don't have language. But as a cursory search on the internet brings up numerous example discussions of non-human animal language, then I cannot accept any definition of language that does not include both human and non-human animals. Of course, human language is far more complex than non-human language, but this is a difference in quantity not quality.
Grammar is logical
Traditional logic is based on grammar, such as all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal. The validity of an argument depends on the relationship between subject and predicate, meaning that if you don't know what a subject and predicate are, then you cannot determine the validity of the argument. Traditional logic depends on knowing the parts of speech. Parts of speech such as categoramatic words, nouns such as men, mortal and Socrates and syncategorematic words, such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Parts of speech such as quantity, such as how much, how many and quality, such as intelligent, honest. Parts of speech such as prepositions such as against, on top of and conjunctions, such as and, but, although. To learn grammar requires one to learn logic, to have the logical skill of analysis and synthesis, how to make distinctions and how to see resemblances.
The natural world is logical
Life has evolved in synergy with the natural world over 750 million years, not independently, but as a single unity. Life has been dependent on its survival because of its intimate relationship with the world in which it lives. Logic is intrinsic in the world and logic begins in the space-time of the world. For example, an object A is object A, object A is not object B, if object A is to the left of object B then object B is to the right of object A, if object B is added to object A then there are two objects, if there are three objects and one is removed then two objects remain. The logic humans use is founded on the logic they discover in the world. Onto this fundamental logic discovered in the natural world that is known instinctively, innately and a priori, a more complex logic may be developed within language, such as the study of arguments, inductive and deductive logic, syllogisms, propositional logic, first order logic etc.
How to discover the nature of reality using a semantically closed language
The question is how can language serve as a basis of a metaphysical philosophy that enquires about the nature of reality, of what is universal and necessary. As Tarski observed, language is semantically closed, yet the nature of reality is external to the language that is attempting to discover it. As Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus, "what can be shown, cannot be said". As David Hume showed our knowledge is not absolute but based on inference, where all we can say is that after observing the constant conjunction between two events A and B for a duration of time, we become convinced that A causes B.
Understanding using language can only be metaphorical
It seems that the best we can achieve in our understanding of the nature of reality is our use of language as metaphorical, in that all we can really say, as it were, is that There Are More Stars In The Universe Than There Are Grains Of Sand On Earth.
I am rushing and want to drop another way of looking at language and communication.
Quoting Wix
If only you were a teacher.
This is what a good teacher makes her students experience and feel directly and naturally. No facts and figures hammered into memory, just a direct experience of life as something dynamic revealing itself moment to moment to those paying attention. Life long learners emerge from such classroom experiences because authentic education is half a step from entertainment.
A successful life is one that maintains child's play from cradle to grave.
I won't become a classroom teacher, but from time to time I think about doing programs for schools that might encourage children to embrace their curiosity and learning. I sure wish I could find someone to do this with me.
Quoting ucarr
Yes, yes, yes! Teachers are forced to teach for the test and are too controlled by the government!
What I want to do is exactly what you said should be done. Yes, entertaining and engaging.
The battle between facts and feelings.
The relationship between facts and feelings
There are various combinations:
1) I feel something but have no facts to support it. I feel that the other political party is a threat to democracy but have no facts to back up my feelings.
2) I have the facts but have no feelings about them one way or another. I know that the elephant can eat as much as 200kg of plants in a single day, but such factual knowledge is of no importance to me.
3) I feel something and have the facts to back them up. I feel that Modernist art is more artistically important than Postmodernist art, and can present facts that justify my belief.
4) Sometimes facts and feelings are coexistent. My feeling of a pain is a fact, my emotion about an aesthetic is a fact and my conscious awareness of the colour red is a fact.
A logical language may express the illogical ideas.
Language is founded on grammar and grammar is intrinsically logical. A language that was not logical would be incomprehensible. However, language using a grammar that is intrinsically logical may be used to express ideas that are intrinsically illogical: "When the day becomes the night and the sky becomes the sea, When the clock strikes heavy and there's no time for tea. And in our darkest hour, before my final rhyme, she will come back home to Wonderland and turn back the hands of time." A word such as "Wonderland" may have a logical sense even though it may not refer to any logical fact in the world.
Education requires both facts and feelings
Education without both facts and feelings is doomed to failure. We may admire Monet's The Magpie 1868 for its aesthetic and representational brilliance, but the painting becomes more memorable when we know that in the same year he wrote I must have undoubtedly been born under an unlucky star. Ive just been turned out without even a shirt on my back from the inn in which I was staying. My family refused to help me any more. I dont know where Ill sleep. I was so upset yesterday that I was stupid enough to hurl myself into the water. Fortunately no harm was done. Effective communication rests on an appropriate mix of facts and feelings. Ineffective communication happens when one or the other is ignored.
Deconstruction of text
It is unfortunately common today for mainstream media to put their audience into a certain emotional frame of mind using only those facts that support their point of view. Taking a specific example, if at a particular moment in time five facts supporting Brexit have been discovered and five against, it would not be unexpected for the BBC to publish one for and four against, and protest that they only publish the facts, which is true. Such is an example of Derrida's concept of presence and absence, where a text must be deconstructed in order to arrive at a correct interpretation.
Deconstruction of metaphysics
Similarly in the philosophical aspect of metaphysical dualistic oppositions, where an hierarchy is established that privileges one thing over another. Certain logic is built on the metaphysical claim that internal/external, absence/presence, is sharply and clearly defined, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. Here, both A and not A cannot be true. But this assumes A and not A are external to each other. But in reality, this is never possible. If A is a proposition, can A ever be free of the proposition not A. "I am in Paris" means that "I am not in Marseilles", "I am not dead", "Me not someone else", etc, but it must be the case that the meaning of "I am in Paris" includes the meanings "I am not in Marseilles",etc. The truth and meaning of of proposition A "I am in Paris" must include all those propositions not A.
Summary
Effective communication requires both feeling and facts and using a language that is fundamentally logical yet can express ideas that are far from logical.
One big step towards good teaching is to perform instruction rather than to talk instruction.
The way to perform instruction is to become an actor in the classroom. This is a way of saying the teacher must personalize the lessons she intends to share with students. More often than not, the life of the person teaching, in the here and now, is more interesting than the subject matter to be conveyed. A teacher teaching physics is more interesting with more impact if she's living as a physicist than if she's just reciting details of the laws of physics.
All public speaking is theater and the living person before us speaking is more intrinsically interesting if she be vivid with life and dynamical with grace in action. This compared to stark information leaves no contest. Let me add that vivacity and charm are blanched by ignorance and illogic and thus the actor-as-teacher spews no bogus content.
Partisan punditry boils down to money. Spinning narratives that glorify consumers is the stock in trade of the snake oil salesperson. If you plausibly cast buyers in heroic mode, they'll throw their money at you.
Quoting RussellA
Quoting RussellA
Yeah. Dualism overflows with forking oppositions: on/off; yes/no; open/closed etc. The seminal genius of George Boole is indisputable. His Boolean algebra supports the entire IT industry, BUT the Einstein_Bohr debate, in my understanding, has been won by Bohr.
Quoting RussellA
This is important.
Quantum mechanics is reality. My guess is that the strangeness of it is due in part to the contortion of its dimensions when it's viewed through the lens of Boolean Logic, which is intrinsically three-dimensional.
Perhaps Quantum mechanics is not strange when viewed through Bohrian Logic.
Speculation - Bohrian Logic inserts into the on/off switch the undecidable, or superposition as follows:
[on]/\[on=off]/\[off].
Bohrian Logic, I'm guessing, is intrinsically four-dimensional. That kicks non-contradiction to the curb.
Quantum computing is here; with this one quantum-leap insertion (superposition) into Bohrian Logic, it's not enough to say quantum computing renders Boolean encryption obsolete.
A four-dimensional universe renders our three-dimensional universe liminal, which is fascinating!
Physicists Leonard Susskind & Gerardus t'Hooft have a notion of our three-dimensional universe as being intrinsically holographic with a real part (material) and a cognitive (imaginary?) part (information).
Well now, suppose our three-dimensional, holographic reality is a boundary to a higher four-dimensional
reality with an inherent logic that transcends spacetime! What does that do to Boolean Logic? Aha! The perplexing strangeness of quantum mechanics.
Similarly, if we lived in a spatially 2D universe, we would observe things appear and disappear for no logical reason. Yet, because we live in a spatially 3D universe, such appearances and disappearances are logically explainable.
Would it follow that, although we believe we live in a spatially 3D universe (ignoring the ten dimensions of Superstring Theory), the fact that some things appear illogical is evidence that in fact we are living in a spatially 4D universe.
The following example, attributed to the 14th C French philosopher Jean Buridan, illustrates the limits of logic. Consider the proposition "Someone at this moment is thinking about a proposition and is unsure whether it is true or false". Is it true or false?
You cant be sure its false, because someone in Australia might be thinking, for example, about the Riemann Hypothesis, establishing the truth of which is an unsolved mathematical problem. But if you are unsure, then the proposition in that case is true, so you have established it and you arent unsure. Therefore, the proposition must be true: and yet as far as any of us know you might be the only person in the world who is thinking about a proposition at this moment, and you are not unsure of the truth of that proposition, because you have just established that it is true.
As Tarski showed, language is semantically closed, so even logic is limited by a self-referentiality.
That's how I see it. I claim tentatively that when logical narrative runs aground in paradox, said paradox, being a higher-order dimension in collapsed state at a given matrix of expanded dimensions, acts as signpost to a higher order matrix of expanded dimensions.
Quoting RussellA
Yes. Language tends to impart analytical truth to it declarations. Origin boundary-ontology, even in the case of God, depends upon analytical truth.
Consciousness eludes definition as it eludes reification.
Reading your explanation while listening to classical music is an awesome mental and feeling experience. All the posts here have been extraordinary, one building on top of another bringing me to a thinking and emotional crescendo and this is something we should experience every day. It is what I seek when I turn on my computer. It is what gives me faith in human beings along with Elvis singing if we can think it we can make it so.
I gather we are from different countries and that certainly improves the discussion because it gives us different points of view. I suppose some of you may not be familiar with the past news reporter, Walter Cronkite. He seemed to take great care to report the news with the balance we need to understand the facts and think for ourselves. That fairness of reporting is something our young have not experienced and that distorts their understanding of democracy and our human potential. Our present amoral society being the result of education for technology with unknown values, and very bad for humanity.
I have a book on economics that explains how important trust is to doing business and having a good economy. We must return to education for good moral judgment. We must return to grammar and math as it was taught before our infatuation with technology. You all give me more hope than I have had in many years. :heart:
I'm more Clanadonia.
Clanadonia Drummers on Buchanan St.
The bagpipe is wonderful and my goodness the bagpipe player in the video had a lot of lung power. In general, the aggressive male behavior is sexually arousing and the female belly dancer was a great of expression of what is happening. The one known exception to the taboo of fathers having sex with their daughters is a tribe that hunts and kills hippos. That is a dangerous thing to do and upping the testosterone increases the chances of success.
Along this line, the Roman soldiers in their metal and leather suits are also hot. Hum, I wonder how much our sexuality plays into war?