←back to thread

549 points orcul | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
farts_mckensy ◴[] No.41890001[source]
Stix's claim appears to be unfalsifiable. In scientific and philosophical discourse, a proposition must be falsifiable—there must be a conceivable empirical test that could potentially refute it. This criterion is fundamental for meaningful inquiry.

Several factors contribute to the unfalsifiability of this claim:

Subjectivity of Thought: Thought processes are inherently internal and subjective. There is no direct method to observe or measure another being's thoughts without imposing interpretative frameworks influenced by social and material contexts.

Defining Language and Thought: Language is not merely a collection of spoken or written symbols; it is a system of signs embedded within social relations and power structures. If we broaden the definition of language to include any form of symbolic representation or communication—such as gestures, images, or neural patterns—then the notion of thought occurring without language becomes conceptually incoherent. Thought is mediated through these symbols, which are products of historical and material developments.

Animal Cognition and Symbolic Systems: Observations of animals like chimpanzees engaging in strategic gameplay or crows crafting tools demonstrate complex behaviors. Interpreting these actions as evidence of thought devoid of language overlooks the possibility that animals utilize their own symbolic systems. These behaviors reflect interactions with their environment mediated by innate or socially learned symbols—a rudimentary form of language shaped by their material conditions.

Limitations of Empirical Testing: To empirically verify that thought can occur without any form of language would require accessing cognitive processes entirely free from symbolic mediation. Given the current state of scientific methodologies—and considering that all cognitive processes are influenced by material and social factors—this is unattainable.

Because of these factors, Stix's claim cannot be empirically tested in a way that could potentially falsify it. It resides outside the parameters of verifiable inquiry, highlighting the importance of recognizing the interplay between language, thought, and material conditions.

Cognitive processes and language are deeply intertwined. Language arises from collective practice; it both shapes and is shaped by the material conditions of the environment. Thought is mediated through language, carrying the cognitive imprints of the material base. Even in non-human animals, the cognitive abilities we observe may be underpinned by forms of symbolic interaction with their environment—a reflection of their material engagement with the world.

Asserting that language is not essential for thought overlooks the fundamental role that social and material conditions play in shaping both language and cognition. It fails to account for how symbolic systems—integral to language—are embedded in and arise from material realities.

Certain forms of thought might appear to occur without human language, but this perspective neglects the intrinsic connection between cognition, language, and environmental conditiond. Reasoning itself can be viewed as a form of internalized language—a symbolic system rooted in social and material contexts. Recognizing this interdependence is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of thought and the pivotal role language plays within it.

replies(2): >>41892877 #>>41896152 #
slashdave ◴[] No.41892877[source]
You are just redefining symbols (language) as thought. This is semantic nonsense and purely circular reasoning.
replies(1): >>41892985 #
farts_mckensy ◴[] No.41892985[source]
You're not getting it. The very proposition of discussing cognitive processes as comprehensible without language inherently relies on circular reasoning. The claim that thought occurs without language cannot be falsified. To analyze or describe thought, we must use language, which is the very tool that shapes and defines that thought. The discussion itself becomes impossible if you remove language from the equation, meaning language and thought are co-constituitve.

Just as Gödel showed that no formal system can be both complete and consistent, language as a system cannot fully encapsulate the entirety of cognitive processes without relying on foundational assumptions that it cannot internally validate. Attempting to describe thought without acknowledging this limitation is akin to seeking completeness in an inherently incomplete framework. Without language, the discussion becomes impossible, rendering the initial claim fundamentally flawed.

replies(1): >>41893036 #
1. slashdave ◴[] No.41893036[source]
You are under the false assumption that thought can only be described by language. Why are you constructing this false hierarchy? Furthermore, symbolic constructs are not by definition language. The opposite, really. Language cannot be formed without symbols. Symbols, however, do not need language.
replies(1): >>41893128 #
2. farts_mckensy ◴[] No.41893128[source]
How else can thought be described if not through language? I don't know what you mean by "symbolic constructs." Symbols are the foundation of language—they're not the opposite. There is no sense in which symbols exist outside of at the very least a protolinguistic system. Once you begin to associate sensory data with meaning, you are doing the work of creating language. To analyze or describe cognition, we must use language, which organizes symbols into meaningful constructs. That thought occurs without language is not even wrong per se. It's unfalsifiable, which frankly is worse than being wrong in a scientific context. As Wittgenstein puts it, 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.' Without language, discussing thought is impossible, making the claim that thought occurs without language scientifically untenable. It is an attempt to position thought as the transcendental signified.
replies(1): >>41893215 #
3. slashdave ◴[] No.41893215[source]
Yes, you need language to describe (discuss) something. But not everything that exists must have a description. Furthermore, meaningful does not require organization.

If you stand outside under the sun, do you have to be able to write the word "sun" in order to feel warm?

replies(1): >>41893451 #
4. farts_mckensy ◴[] No.41893451{3}[source]
You're sidestepping the problem. Feeling warmth is a sensory issue. Connecting the fact that you're feeling warm with the fact that you're in the sun is cognition. In order to do that, you are doing the work of creating language. Sun equals warm.