AB,

As Jeanniebean had observed Michael isn't speaking our language. Michael is using the word language to mean something entirely different from what the word language actually means in the language from which the word language arose.

In other words, he's speaking a different language from the rest of us and this is why we can't understand what he means.

You see, if understanding is dependent upon language, as he claims, then only those who understand the language he is speaking can have an understanding of what his language means. Since he's not using the term language to mean what it conventionally means in the English language, then he's speaking in some other language which no one understands.

Based on Jeanniebean's epiphany here, it's probably safe to also conclude that since Michael is using the word language to mean something entirely different from its meaning in the English language, then he may very well be taking similar liberties with other words as well.

In short, Michael isn't speaking in English even though he's using words that are spelled exactly the same as English words. He's speaking in some other made-up language that no one understands but him.

It's kind of like a new version of pig Latin I guess, only he doesn't bother rearranging the syllables.

He probably meant to post this thread in the games forum as some sort of language cryptology game but accidentally posted it here instead.

Hope this helps.

Don't blame your lack of an ability to communicate on the people you are talking to. (Or maybe you like to think of yourself as "so intelligent" that nobody can understand you.)

Do you think your failure to communicate your thoughts and be understood is because you are so much more intelligent than everyone else? To you, we all must seem like morons who can't 'understand' you because we just aren't smart enough. I wonder if you find pleasure in that.

If you want to talk to people who are 'capable of understanding' I doubt if you will find them on this club.

Apparently we are all morons here.

We're morons on the Internet
who cannot understand
the genius of philosophy
with answers in his hand

If only we could understand
the language that he speaks
we could then evolve to be
cyberspatial geeks

Last night I re-read this entire thread from the very beginning. It is clear to anyone who chooses to sift through those pages that I was consciously deliberating others' beliefs and knowledge on the matter. My own construct of this notion was actually being built as the conversation progressed, and that is still the case. I have yet to arrive at a final conclusion.

As I am already aware, the matter of fact style that is so often displayed within my writing is often taken as if it is an implication or reflection that my thoughts are rigid. It is better to assume that the style itself forces me to question those things as absolutes, because that is how I criticize my own writing, as well as others' in a conversation such as this.

Through the use of common language, an inadequacy in understanding can be exposed regarding concepts. Such is the case, I believe, with the most commonly held definition of language. More accurately speaking, with the common meaning which is invoked when the term is being used does not adequately cover the function of the concept and closes off the possibility for a deeper understanding of relevant connections.

Communicating meaning in a formal language requires the pre-existence of commonly known terms with commonly held definitions. Communicating the existence of the inadequacy of a commonly held term's ability to allow the mind to grasp pertinent and relevant aspects of understanding demands that the commonly recognized correlations be shown. To show that a term has placed a cage on thoughts, what constitutes the term in question must be addressed. In addition, it must be clearly shown how and why the common meaning is inadequate. I feel that this has been done here regarding the terms language, thought, belief, and understanding.

My thoughts have became much more concise in the last 5 or 6 pages, and I am happy with the changes within my thoughts that have come as a result of everyone who has participated, despite the side-shows which still continue to add to the contemplation of the seemingly irreversible connections between language, thought, and belief which continues to go unrecognized by so many.

Well, that's good.

I confess that this discussion has caused me to think about this topic as well. I have also come to some very enlightening conclusions of my own. I won't attempt to share those insights since they diverge from the conclusions that you appear to be so passionate about.

Any attempt to share them would only result in an argument since my conclusions appear to be the exact opposite of yours.

None the less, even though we seem to have diverged in our conclusions I thank you for having initially brought up the topic, I did enjoy thinking about thoughts from this perspective.

The only reason I got on your case was because of your complete dismissal of my vantage point. When you told me that it's impossible to think like I do and that I'm only kidding myself if I think that way, all bets were off, and it became open season for retaliation.

Why you ever took that position in the first place is beyond me.

This whole topic has only helped to reinforce my understanding of the value of transendental meditations which can even be done in a waking state. In fact, I even have some books here that address that very topic.

In any case, I found value in the topic even though I may not see things the same way as you do in the end. It was also fun poking fun at you after your complete dismissal of my views.

I haven't done anything like that in a long time.

I think thoughts can be unspoken language if you have a very broad definition of what language is. (eg, language could be imagery, words, symbols...that may not be capable of being communicated to or understood by another person, but understood by oneself).

On the other hand, thoughts may not unspoken language if you have a narrow definition of what language is. (eg, language is a way to communicate things from one individual to another).

For instance, take the example given earlier of the person who wanted a cup of coffee, yet could not come up with the words to express what they wanted. (I have had this experience many times in my life---I can "think" it in my mind, I can see the hot cup of coffee, I know what it is, I want it, but darn it...I can't come up with the word coffee: and I even speak english all the time)

So, I was thinking in pictures of what I wanted, my language was pictures. Were there words attached to this in my mind? No. I did not have a word for it. But...if I drew a picture on a piece of paper or pointed to a picture of coffee, I would have been commnicating to someone, a form of language...if you include pictures as language. (My thought about having coffee was unspoken language if you consider my imagery and subsequent communication by imagery a form of language) (My thought about having coffee was not unspoken language if you do not include my visualizing coffee and communicating by imagery a form of language = then it was only a thought, not language)

So, I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. All posts are correct.

According to the dog whisperer, he asserts and demonstrates how dogs can pick up on your moods and attitudes and even the images in your mind. For anyone who believes in people who claim to 'talk to animals' (and there are a few) they describe it as a language of images and feelings received via mental telepathy, and of course subtle body signals. Even the slightest body signal will be understood by the animal.

We have a little dog whose "job" is to keep my Dad (who has Alzheimer disease) company. The presence of the dog calms my Dad a lot and that dog sits on his lap or beside his chair all day. I keep him with me at night.

One day I was bringing him back to Dad and I unhooked his leash and he looked at me as I said to him, "Now are you going to be a good boy now?" But I was thinking.. ". and take good care of Daddy today?" As I was thinking it I was picturing it in my head. The dog looked and listened to me intently. When I was finished, he got up and went over to Dad's feet and sat down next to him, looking up at Dad. Dad reached down and patted his head. The the dog looked back at me, as if to say, "See.. I'm doing my job!"

It was very interesting. :D

That's a nice story Jeanniebean

Mirror Mirror on the wall
K-9s barking down the hall
psychic language will enthrall
those who view their crystal ball

Look into the orb of stone
a telepathist's psychic phone
leave your message at the tone
then give your dog a bone

Communicate your magick thoughts
heal the world from evil plots
cook your herbs in cauldron pots
then give your dog his rabies shots

Language is the world of words
created by a bunch of nerds
conveying actions through its verbs
it's not the thought it harshly curbs

Dogs can bark and mirrors reflect
but words are but a speck
in the world of understanding
that our conscious psyches trek

You are such a poet and I can tell it comes very natural to you. You should be a professional lyric writer for musicians. You never run out of ideas.

Actually I can't do anything on my own.

That poem was inspired entirely by the interaction between your dog story and Mirror Mirror's response along with a little bit of the theme of this thread tossed in for good measure.

nice

I have to alter my opinion a bit.

WE are not speaking his language...

HE did however attempt to communicate on a different level and speak in a way I would understand...

An emergent intelligence allways catches my eye...

I now understand where he is comming from... (and still feel and think as I do that his premise needs correcting).

Being a still emergent intelligence myself I also admit that I may be wrong.

True, but it was his thread and he is attempting to communicate with lower life forms.

(Just kidding.)

Group hug time!

That's what I thought too.

It the part about his premise needing correcting that he didn't seem to be open to.

I confess though that I lost him in his semantic demands of the word 'language' itself.

Also the part about "Grave Human Error" was never clarified.

Did you understand what he sees as a "Grave Human Error"?

It would be kind of interesting to understand that part at least.

Maybe you could translate?

Or would that part become moot in light of his premise needing to be corrected?

I confess that I'm just in the thread for the poety at this point.

Although if there is some grave human error to be reveal it might be cool to hear it here before it hits CNN.

I thought you were dancing with your banana?

We can all dance with our bananas and hope the mods aren't watching this thread too closely.

You have allways been quite good at that...

This thread has added many facets to my own personal understanding, and it left off here...



One cannot understand an unidentified thing. Identification is the root of all language, thought, belief, and all understanding which comes only through these things. Perceiving the existence of correlations between more than one thing requires the perception and identification of more than one thing. The act of recognizing these relationships within perception constitutes thought. One does not need to know that they understand something in order to do so. One does not need to know that they are thinking in order to do so.

Analysis of experience happens in thinking creatures whether it is known to the thinker or not. It happens with creatures that possess rudimentary understanding and no known verbal or written skills, creatures that do not possess the ability to believe that they know something. This is true in all cases of thought. It happens during and after an experience in creatures capable of conscious and purposeful reflection... creatures capable of changing belief based upon conscious comparison of that previously held with current experience.

There are many levels/degrees of thought, belief, language, and understanding being interwoven here which all have the same foundation. That foundation is being sought after, and can only be done through a purposeful analysis of what is believed to be known.

The beginning of language/thought/belief(in the manner that I am describing) is the identification and recognition of what is believed about the correlations between elements of perception. It is applicable to all possible examples and knowing thatfacilitates the ability to distinguish between the different degrees of a creature's understanding. A more complex language grows out of the need to expand a creatures ability to identify and correlate these knowns. This includes the identification and subsequent correlations of the perceiver's own emotion and desire along with all prior held belief, which is only possible with more complex language. Formal language grows out of the need for the expansion of itself. Complex thought grows out of the need for the expansion of itself. They grow into one another, physiologically speaking as well. Belief about what is being identified and understood - as it correlates to other things - is understanding. Unknowingly or otherwise.

Experience can be had without being understood, therefore experience itself is not understanding. Understanding first necessitates the identification of different elements of perception, then recognizing how those things relate to one another and/or the perceiver.

Analysis of experience happens in thinking creatures whether it is known to the thinker or not. The degree of this is determined by the complexity of the thought involved. Simple creatures have simple analysis and do not require complex formal language. Knowing that drinking water removes thirst requires that the water and thirst have a separate identity, in addition the correlation between the two things must be understood in and of itself as a separate identity... one which we call quenching. That is a correlation understood. It does not require formal language for communication, but necessitates a self-contained means of the identification and recognition of separate elements of perception and their correlation(s) to one another and/or the perceiver... the most basic form of thought/language.

None of that requires post experience thought, but all of it requires simple analysis. So an argument to denounce the relevence of analysis in thought fails on a very basic level. Logic is innate in all thinking creatures in this way.