The possibility of a private language
I'm not a Wittgenstein expert, but he held that a private language is impossible and that languages depend on socially agreed upon rules.
I think that's wrong. All that's required for a language is effective communication. There's no need for any agreed-upon rules. If some sounds operate to enable two people to communicate, or even for one person to communicate with themselves, then that's sufficient for there to be a 'language' in operation. If it works, it works. (And we do not need to be able to verify that it is working either - whether something is working or not is not a function of whether we can verify that it is).
For example, let's say I have a sensation - P - and I want to convey to you that I am having it. I use a sound 's' to do so. As it happens, you are disposed to think I am having sensation P if you hear me make the sound 's'. Well, communication just occurred. I just told you about my sensation successfully. I did that even if it was by pure fluke that you happen to have the thought "Clearbury is having sensation P" upon hearing me say "S". What seems to matter is not whether there were any agreed upon rules about what an 's' sound would mean, but just whether I was successfull in conveying to you what I wished to convey.
Another example: imagine an evil demon decides overnight to change what we are disposed to think of when we hear the words of our native languages. So, though I am today disposed to think of an unmarried man when I hear the sound made by saying 'bachelor', the evil demon makes it the case that when I wake up, I am disposed to think of a married man when I hear that sound. The evil demon changes everyone in the same way. Well, now none of the old rules apply, yet we'd all still be able to communicate just as effectively as we did before. We'd just be using different sounds, but teh same communication would occur.
I conclude that all that is required for a language is some set of sounds or symbols that will enable us to convey what we intend to convey by means of them. There is no need for there to be any rules that we've agreed to, or anything of the sort. The meaning of a word is individually subjective - that is, it is determined by what any particular individual uses it to try and convey - and effective communication occurs when two individuals use the same word to try and convey the same information.
No doubt there are problems with what I have just said, though at the moment I do not perceive any
I think that's wrong. All that's required for a language is effective communication. There's no need for any agreed-upon rules. If some sounds operate to enable two people to communicate, or even for one person to communicate with themselves, then that's sufficient for there to be a 'language' in operation. If it works, it works. (And we do not need to be able to verify that it is working either - whether something is working or not is not a function of whether we can verify that it is).
For example, let's say I have a sensation - P - and I want to convey to you that I am having it. I use a sound 's' to do so. As it happens, you are disposed to think I am having sensation P if you hear me make the sound 's'. Well, communication just occurred. I just told you about my sensation successfully. I did that even if it was by pure fluke that you happen to have the thought "Clearbury is having sensation P" upon hearing me say "S". What seems to matter is not whether there were any agreed upon rules about what an 's' sound would mean, but just whether I was successfull in conveying to you what I wished to convey.
Another example: imagine an evil demon decides overnight to change what we are disposed to think of when we hear the words of our native languages. So, though I am today disposed to think of an unmarried man when I hear the sound made by saying 'bachelor', the evil demon makes it the case that when I wake up, I am disposed to think of a married man when I hear that sound. The evil demon changes everyone in the same way. Well, now none of the old rules apply, yet we'd all still be able to communicate just as effectively as we did before. We'd just be using different sounds, but teh same communication would occur.
I conclude that all that is required for a language is some set of sounds or symbols that will enable us to convey what we intend to convey by means of them. There is no need for there to be any rules that we've agreed to, or anything of the sort. The meaning of a word is individually subjective - that is, it is determined by what any particular individual uses it to try and convey - and effective communication occurs when two individuals use the same word to try and convey the same information.
No doubt there are problems with what I have just said, though at the moment I do not perceive any
Comments (35)
You include the word "communication" in your argument against the activity happening. How will the "same information" be the "same" if it is only what is happening in each individual?
Where did my "disposition" to have such a belief come from?
Or, you're born into a culture that speaks a specific language (i.e., King's English, Street Slang, whatever) and we're trying to speak to each other at those levels of the language. I prefer to speak the language of philosophy with other people who also prefer to speak the language of philosophy. That is why I have joined this Forum. To check out what the "Main Thing" under discussion is (I don't know what it is yet), and what I could possibly contribute in that sense, either constructively or de-constructively.
But how do you agree to something unless a language is already up and running?
Excellent question, I'm glad that you asked that. We do it instinctually, we're creatures of instinct. We have a proto-language, as creatures of instinct. That, or I'm crazy. I'm leaning towards the latter, not sure about you.
In my example, no one agrees that S means "i am having experience P". I just use the sound in the hope that it will convey that meaning, and because the person I am uttering it to is disposed to beeive I am having experience P when I make sound S, the communication is successful. No agreement was needed or had.
What can I say? As creatures of instinct, we speak in ways that sound pleasing to the human ear. Does that realization upset you somehow? I think it's marvelous. It's awe-inspiring really, if you think about it. Innit?
Do you disagree with something i said? i am not clear what your point is
Is disagreement possible, on a metaphysical level? That's what I'm asking you. What do you, as a thinking person, think about it? I think disagreement is indeed possible on a metaphysical level. Metaphysics is a divisive field by its very nature. It's literally Meta-Physics, not Physics, so it has already alienated itself from Physics by literal meaning. We can go back and forth on that, since the origin of the term "metaphysics" had to do with the Medieval classification of Aristotle's manuscripts. Point being, there is no "one" Metaphysics today, in the 21st Century. It's not a science, despite Bunge's wishful thinking to the contrary. So, to summarize: I believe that agreeing and disagreeing, as acts, are metaphysically possible. And I find that marvelous, and awe-inspiring. Does that prove that private languages are possible? Of course not.
1) A system of symbols,
2) Speakers who understand meanings, and
3) A mammalian brain (and a tongue, and ears, etc.).
Those are the things that are needed for a language.
Your remark about probability does not address the question of "disposition" you introduced.
Where does that come from?
Well, you need to engage with the case presented in the opening post. If someone makes a case for thinking that P is needed for S, then one is not engaging with that case if one simply says "I think R is needed for S". That's just a thought, not a case.
So, if you think what I said in the opening post was false, then to engage with my case you'd need to say what more particularly was mistaken in what I said and why.
I was engaging with Wittgenstein, who thought language requires socially agreed-upon rules, for instance. I was trying to show why I think that is mistaken.
I agree with this, and I disagree with everything that you say after this. I'm being serious.
But the position you are opposing is not making a claim of necessity.
See, I don't understand that. I'm agreeing with you on some of the points that you're making. I'm telling you that I'm agreeing with you (why would I lie? I have no reason to). You tell me that you don't believe me, when you say "I don't think you are". Fine, believe whatever you want to believe. I'm just telling you that I agree with some of the things that you're saying. Constitute any kind of case for anything? About what? Why would I have to constitute a case for the points that I agree with you? In any case, if I have to constitute a case, it's for the people that don't agree with those points. Or are you going to tell me again that I'm derailing your Thread? What are your rules, then?
I don't see that it matters where or how a disposition arose, as that is not going to affect how effective it is at enabling communication between people.
Perhaps you could actually quote Wittgenstein. So far, you seem to be tilting against a windmill.
Quoting Clearbury
It was your idea. You presented it as what made communication possible.
Fair enough, then I apologize. I will make a case for the falsity of something that you said. You said:
Quoting Clearbury
False. I already told you what is required for a language. I already said it. Here goes:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
If you wish to ignore me, that is one thing. If you wish to accuse me of something, especially something formal, such as Thread derailment, and especially since you're not a moderator, then I will report your Thread. Drop the attitude, stop being so condescending, stop trying to engage in backseat moderation, and engage with what I said. Or, just ignore me, or politely ask me to leave this Thread. I won't warn you again.
But I supported it with an example. Do you think that I did not communicate with the other person in the example I gave?
That's not a case! You're just asserting things. Now, maybe you're God and saying it makes it so in your case. But I don't think you are and as such you owe an argument. You need to show that something I said was false. Doing that requires more than just saying "I don't agree", as if reality conforms to your will.
Anyway, I think this isn't really going to go anywhere useful so I will be ignoring you from now on. I was really hoping that there might be some out there who know more about Wittgenstein's view than I do and who might be interested in defending him against what I said or clarifying that he did not hold the view I have attributed to him.
It's called evidence. As in, facts.
Quoting Clearbury
Do I? I don't "owe" you anything. If you want me to craft a relevant argument, that's a different matter. You don't get to make up the rules of conversation just because this is "your Thread". But I'll indulge your request, since it is merely that, it is not a direct order that I have to obey. So, here goes:
1) If all that's required for a language is effective communication, then you can communicate with an Artificial Intelligence.
2) You cannot communicate with an Artificial Intelligence.
3) So, it is not the case that all that's required for a language is effective communication.
There's your argument. You are free to deny either the first or the second premise if you wish to resist the conclusion. You cannot deny both premises at the same time. I did not make up that rule. That is how the truth table works for conditional statements.
Whether the 'facts' you mention are facts and not falsehoods is what's under debate. Again, just saying something doesn't make it so.
As for the argument you presented, premise 1 is false, or at least it is false if by an 'artificial intelligence' you mean 'not a real intelligence, but something simulating one".
By hypothesis, a fake intelligence cannot understand anything or have any thoughts, as it has no mental states (only simulations of them). Thus, it cannot belief anything about what I meant to convey by making the sound 's'.
On the other hand, if you think artificial intelligences are real intelligences - so actually do have thoughts and other mental states - but they're just artificially created, then premise 1 is true, but premise 2 will then be false, for then why wouldn't communication be possible?
Then what premise are you actually denying, mate? You said that you denied premise one. If that's what you deny, then my strategy for arguing with you won't be the same as if you deny premise two. So which one is it?
Quoting Clearbury
I just gave you the case. The argument that I gave you, the modus tollens that I offered, is the case, mate. I hold it to be both valid and sound, as in, it's a valid argument (it's deductively valid), both premises are true, and the conclusion is therefore true as well.
As I said, it depends on what you mean by an artificial intelligence. I'll quote me: Quoting Clearbury
Mate. ChatGPT is an Artificial Intelligence. That's a fact. That's what people call it. Is that what you want to debate? Semantics? And you have the nerve to call me disingenuous? How is this not an instance of Pot Calling the Kettle Black, mate? Do you see the irony in what you're saying?
Yes, you did that time, not before. And I refuted your case. Your argument was demonstrably unsound. Premise 1 is false is artificial intelligence means one thing, premise 2 is false if it means the other thing it might mean. Either way, it is unsound.
And with that we're done. I'll be ignoring you from now on as you're either a troll or incapable of arguing sensibly.
No, it isn't. Because Artificial Intelligence means whatever the Merriam Webster Dictionary says it is, and ChatGPT is exactly that. So what did you actually refute, mate? Conventional semantics?
And with that, you are now officially reported to the moderation team.