If one comes across a complex set of symbols and those symbols are consistently ordered, then we consider them to be indicative of a language intent on communicating shared meaning. That is, we consider those symbols to be 'a language'. This is true whether those symbols take the form of words, hand-signals, flag-waving, smoke-signals, face-signals, radio-waves, binary-code, or whatever. The point is that as long as everyone receives the same signal, and as long as everyone receives the shared meaning from that signal, then communication (shared meaning) is possible. Thus, the constitutive elements of a social language are:

1) The complex ordering of symbols, of any type, each indicative of a specific meaning.
2) Social agreement as per the meaning of each symbol.
3) ... Therefore, effective social communication.

... One significant conclusion to be drawn here, is that 'humanity' is not the creator of languages. Rather, it is the translator of a language, into other languages. So, for instance, the English language is not created in isolation, but is instead to be understood as a particular way of translating the symbols already present within the mind. The reason an Englishman can communicate with a Turk, for example, is that the Englishman's language/symbols refer to the same symbols available to a Turk.

So, humanity doesn't create languages. It only creates symbols which will facilitate outward communication between other humans. These symbols are themselves reflective of a pre-existing language, so are not the origin of a language. I could, for instance, think of different words/symbols to mirror the French language, but ultimately I wouldn't be the creator of a language - I would just be the translator of one language into another. Hence, my point is that humanity translates a language that is received, internally, into symbols that will facilitate outward expression.

Now, given that experience is reducible to ordered sensations/quale (complex variations and amalgamations of light, sound, touch, etc.), these sensations (either individually, or as an amalgamation) can be considered as 'symbols' - the basis of a language. However, we are not consciously aware of the origin of these symbols. That is, we do not consciously create them. Hence, we use language, but are not [as humans] the originators of it. All we can do is translate a language into symbols which will facilitate shared communication at the physical level.

This is significant, for if we are not the originators of any language, then what is? Of course, we cannot attribute 'the world' itself as the originator of language. The world (if it exists) is what it is and does whatever it does. However, one thing that it cannot be held accountable for, is SELF-important sensations, designed purely for the sake of effecting individual response. For instance, if the world exists, it does not inflict the sense of pain, hot, cold, bitter, sweet, loud, pungent, bright, dark, etc. etc., upon us. Therefore, the world itself cannot be held accountable for the 'symbols' inherent within experience. Clearly, such symbols can no longer be deemed as merely translatory in nature. We have, in fact, finally reached the origin of language itself: The Self.

Now, given that the origin of a self-important language cannot be attributed to anything outside of the self, and given that 'we' conscious beings are not the originators of language (we are mere translators), I therefore conclude that there is a purely creative and rational element of the self (at a subconscious level), that is solely responsible for the creation of the symbols of a language, designed entirely to effect shared communication between 'translating humans'.

... That is, the sensations are the language of God. No other language exists. Only different translations of that language exist, which all ultimately can be shown to share a common meaning.



If you've gotten this far, thanks for listening. Rational critiques welcomed, as always, as this usually helps me to develop my arguments.

"These symbols are themselves reflective of a pre-existing language..."

You've conflated "language" with that which the symbols (of a language) signify. The rest follows from this error.

jamest wrote:This is significant, for if we are not the originators of any language, then what is? Of course, we cannot attribute 'the world' itself as the originator of language. The world (if it exists) is what it is and does whatever it does. However, one thing that it cannot be held accountable for, is SELF-important sensations, designed purely for the sake of effecting individual response. For instance, if the world exists, it does not inflict the sense of pain, hot, cold, bitter, sweet, loud, pungent, bright, dark, etc. etc., upon us.

I was completely with you until here.

The world - if it exists - also includes us - it is not something separate from us. We are an integral part of it and it's underlying order is an integral part of us.

So - if the world exists - then there is no question of it imposing something on us, or at least we impose things upon the world as much as it imposes on us. And it is really just one part of the world interacting with another part of the world.

So the language is simply a reflection of the underlying order by which the world - and we - work. The language of letters and words by which we are communicating now is just another thing that happens in the world.

jamest wrote:... One significant conclusion to be drawn here, is that 'humanity' is not the creator of languages. Rather, it is the translator of a language, into other languages...

I clearly missed a sequitur somewhere

CookieJon wrote:"These symbols are themselves reflective of a pre-existing language..."

You've conflated "language" with that which the symbols (of a language) signify. The rest follows from this error.

I'm arguing that the sensations/quale are symbols of a language we come to understand, as we do with words, flag-waving, morse-code, etc.. In other words, the sensations/quale are a means of communicating something to 'us', the translators of it. Therefore, they are indicative of a language.

Positron wrote:

jamest wrote:This is significant, for if we are not the originators of any language, then what is? Of course, we cannot attribute 'the world' itself as the originator of language. The world (if it exists) is what it is and does whatever it does. However, one thing that it cannot be held accountable for, is SELF-important sensations, designed purely for the sake of effecting individual response. For instance, if the world exists, it does not inflict the sense of pain, hot, cold, bitter, sweet, loud, pungent, bright, dark, etc. etc., upon us.

I was completely with you until here.

The world - if it exists - also includes us - it is not something separate from us. We are an integral part of it and it's underlying order is an integral part of us.

You are making ontological assumtions about our nature.

So - if the world exists - then there is no question of it imposing something on us, or at least we impose things upon the world as much as it imposes on us. And it is really just one part of the world interacting with another part of the world.

So the language is simply a reflection of the underlying order by which the world - and we - work. The language of letters and words by which we are communicating now is just another thing that happens in the world.

You cannot explain our language in terms of being a natural effect. As I said, the sensations must originate from within the 'self', since they are self-important. Nothing external to the self/body can be held accountable for the sensation of pain, for example. We know, then, that the self (whatever it is that we are), is the primal cause of such sensations.

jamest wrote:

CookieJon wrote:"These symbols are themselves reflective of a pre-existing language..."

You've conflated "language" with that which the symbols (of a language) signify. The rest follows from this error.

I'm arguing that the sensations/quale are symbols of a language we come to understand, as we do with words, flag-waving, morse-code, etc.. In other words, the sensations/quale are a means of communicating something to 'us', the translators of it. Therefore, they are indicative of a language.

I'd have thought it was the other way around; a language is a set of symbols used to signify stuff.

Mind you, you've obviously thought about it more than I have.

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

jamest wrote:... One significant conclusion to be drawn here, is that 'humanity' is not the creator of languages. Rather, it is the translator of a language, into other languages...

I clearly missed a sequitur somewhere

In a nutshell, the only true language is that signified by the symbols of experience - the sensations/quale. What happens, is that we come to understand the meaning of this language, but translate it into other languages, such as English. We don't actually create any languages. We just translate the only language that we come to know into numerous other languages. This effects outward communication.

CookieJon wrote:

jamest wrote:

CookieJon wrote:"These symbols are themselves reflective of a pre-existing language..."

You've conflated "language" with that which the symbols (of a language) signify. The rest follows from this error.

I'm arguing that the sensations/quale are symbols of a language we come to understand, as we do with words, flag-waving, morse-code, etc.. In other words, the sensations/quale are a means of communicating something to 'us', the translators of it. Therefore, they are indicative of a language.

I'd have thought it was the other way around; a language is a set of symbols used to signify stuff.

That's what I've said: the sensations/quale are a set of symbols used to "signify stuff"... and are thus indicative of a language.

jamest

You are using the word 'language' in an odd way, as human language is a set of arbitrary symbols, arranged syntactically. But I guess the term 'language' is not essential to your argument? I must admit, it's difficult to think of another one. A narrative?

jamest wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

jamest wrote:... One significant conclusion to be drawn here, is that 'humanity' is not the creator of languages. Rather, it is the translator of a language, into other languages...

I clearly missed a sequitur somewhere

In a nutshell, the only true language is that signified by the symbols of experience - the sensations/quale. What happens, is that we come to understand the meaning of this language, but translate it into other languages, such as English. We don't actually create any languages. We just translate the only language that we come to know into numerous other languages. This effects outward communication.

Sensations? Quale? Do you mean what most of us would call "thoughts"?

jamest wrote:This is significant, for if we are not the originators of any language, then what is? Of course, we cannot attribute 'the world' itself as the originator of language. The world (if it exists) is what it is and does whatever it does. However, one thing that it cannot be held accountable for, is SELF-important sensations, designed purely for the sake of effecting individual response. For instance, if the world exists, it does not inflict the sense of pain, hot, cold, bitter, sweet, loud, pungent, bright, dark, etc. etc., upon us. Therefore, the world itself cannot be held accountable for the 'symbols' inherent within experience. Clearly, such symbols can no longer be deemed as merely translatory in nature. We have, in fact, finally reached the origin of language itself: The Self.

I don't understand why an "originator" is necessarily a component. Language used for communication between entities has clearly evolved from something much simpler, and language has been observed in non-human creatures.

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

jamest wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

jamest wrote:... One significant conclusion to be drawn here, is that 'humanity' is not the creator of languages. Rather, it is the translator of a language, into other languages...

I clearly missed a sequitur somewhere

In a nutshell, the only true language is that signified by the symbols of experience - the sensations/quale. What happens, is that we come to understand the meaning of this language, but translate it into other languages, such as English. We don't actually create any languages. We just translate the only language that we come to know into numerous other languages. This effects outward communication.

Sensations? Quale? Do you mean what most of us would call "thoughts"?

I was referring to the direct sensations one has, indicative of 'a world', such as pain; cold; red; bitter; etc..

And what if there is no God? Are you saying that because language exists, there must be a God? That's a huge assumption.

jamest wrote:...I was referring to the direct sensations one has, indicative of 'a world', such as pain; cold; red; bitter; etc..

You mean the mental representation of different sensory inputs? That's just our brain's way of making a useful model of the world that allows us to function within it. It's a consequence of our evolution - nothing mysterious about it.

For example - we need a sense of 'redness' in order to make sense of our visual input. That doesn't mean 'redness' has any kind of independent existence aside from being a convenient mental label representing the particular stimulation of certain cells in our eyes in response (normally) to certain wavelengths of light (or in response to our imagining such stimulation whilst 'playing' with virtual models of the real world inside our minds).

It occurs to me that one possible counter to my argument would be along the lines of: if the world exists, then the sensations/quale are not indicative of 'a language', but instead are indicative of a translation from 'world language' into sensations/quale. That is, the brain is just translating external input into different meaningful symbols.

I've thought of a way to counter this. If the world exists, the only information we (our brains) have of it comes in the form of electrical impulses. These would be the symbols that the brain receives and translates/processes. However, there's a massive problem here:

Those symbols could be about anything.

As a means to understanding the problem, I've created a thought experiment:

Imagine that you're sat in a completely dark room. You are not aware of anything, except ordered signals (drum-beats, for instance) coming from various directions (indicative of the various points of sensory stimuli throughout the body). The problem you've got in trying to understand these 'symbols', is that there is no context. Nobody has told you what any of the symbols mean, and nobody has told you what the source of these signals is. You cannot know, for instance, that the signals coming from a particular part of the room are about vision, whereas the signals coming from another part of the room are about smell.

... The brain could not know that it was connected to eyes that 'see' or a nose which could 'smell'. The brain is in 'the dark' as much as you would be, above, just receiving similar signals from various places. The brain wouldn't know, for instance, that the signals were indicative of the fact that a fire was about to consume its body. The body would either cease to function or somehow survive, but the brain wouldn't know anything about the fire, regardless.

We could not translate Egyptian hieroglyphs until we found the Rosetta Stone. Why? Because nobody told us what any of the symbols meant or signified. Sure, we understood that the symbols were a language, but we could not translate it. This is why the brain cannot simply translate electrical impulses into other meaningful symbols. That is, our sensations and the 'human' languages derivative of them, cannot be caused by 'the world'.

The sensations are in fact a very complex amalgamation of entangled languages. We see ~something~, for instance, and also feel it. So, we can reference one language against the other in order to understand what these languages signify. For instance, we see something which also causes us to feel heat and then pain. Soon, we learn to avoid this 'thing' and call it 'a fire'. That is, we translate the symbols of the sensations into our own symbol - a symbol which facilitates outward communication. The individual meaning of these sense-symbols is facilitated by the cross-referencing of the different languages (sight, sound, touch, etc.). This is how we are able to learn what the sensations signify.