Interesting, so the boy will associate his senses with the thoughts he is thinking about in that experience. So what if he is thinking of something of something like a "black hole" in which you can only perceive visually. I think in that case all he is left is to think of the image of a black hole. In other words the boy will associate certain thoughts with which he was able to perceive them with his senses or feelings, and at the base level you might only be left with images. — Thinking

I'm just curious about how language, the so-called sophisticated version we use in ordinary and also specialized discourse an example of which is your posts, has, in a way, failed at capturing the complete experience - the whole enchilda of the accompanying sense-data naturally associated with words - of words. I've enjoyed chocolate, too much to be honest, but when I encounter the word "chocoloate", I don't, nobody does, experience the sweetness, the crunchiness, the aroma, etc. which I do when I'm actually munching on a chocolate bar.

It's as if "chocolate" refers to something other than the sensations I described of biting down on one and, at some level, these very sensations are what chocolate means to us and that's what I find odd.

Truth be told, there are many times when people can access the complete experience of words albeit in a fragmented manner. However, these occasions are few and far between and what usually happens is words are stripped of their associations (sensory or otherwise), associations that are part of their natural environment and also are essential features that go into their definitions. The aftermath of such processing, done automatically probably due to neurological constraints, is words whose meanings are, for this reason, incomplete. That's what I suspect is the downside. The upside is we'll be spared sensory overload and confusion - our senses have other more important chores and what happens if you see a bar of chocolate floating around with poop in your toilet?

My hunch is that it all boils down to patterns. Words, if you look at what they really are - their definitions - are basically patterns extracted from the world and its contents. Patterns are abstractions and while sensory patterns do exist, what our minds are really interested in are the motifs that go towards creating categories, a necessary step for words to have meaning. Patterns/motifs don't have smells/colors/sounds/flavors/texture.

Even animals who can communicate ideas, orally or gesturally, must translate their internal flow of non-verbal feelings into forms that can be expressed symbolically. When your dog or cat paws at you to get your attention, they are expressing a feeling common to mammals. — Gnomon

One language is symbolic, the other is an inborn (previously mutated) language.

Human lingual communication is fully (save for onomatopoeias) symbolic. Dogs pawing cats and deer nodging horses or lions with their nuzzles are pervasive across the mammallian branch of living things. So I would venture to say that mammal language excluding human verbal languages are all inborn, non-symbolic. They are the most basic form of translating impulses into non-symbolic language. A bird's cry over her nest form which her eggs have been tossed or stolen is heart-wrenching. This is not symbolic language, it is a language that is first level tranlation. If you step on the toes of a lion, he'll roar in pain.

A boy who has never learned to speak human language will nevertheless a lot fo human-only concepts developed all by himself. He'll have an idea for the difference between red and green. Heavy and light. Up and down. Pain and pleasure. Hunger and fulness, joy and sadness.

Once you introduce him to a language, he'll learn amazingly fast those concepts which live in his world, and he can overcome the threshold eventually that separates his world form the world of those ideas, which only society can instill in humans. These society-only induced ideas are not present ever in his pre-language state.

One language is symbolic, the other is an inborn (previously mutated) language. — god must be atheist

Yes. Human verbal language uses abstract symbols & vocalizations, while most animal non-verbal communication uses more concrete (physical) signs & symbols, including body language such as wagging tails. Human babies tend to use "inborn" gestures and sounds before they learn how to use the abstract symbols of adult language. Both body language and verbal language are symbolic, in that they imply some meaning beyond the obvious body movements. So, the boy without language should still be able to communicate feelings and ideas in symbolic gestures, until he learns the conventional meanings of abstractions like spoken words and marks on paper. :smile:

Body Language : Gestures in language acquisition are a form of non-verbal communication involving movements of the hands, arms, and/or other parts of the body. Children can use gesture to communicate before they have the ability to use spoken words and phrases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestures_in_language_acquisition

Symbol :
2. a thing that represents or stands for something else,

I totally agree with what you say. I just wish to add that some symbols that are means of communication and their understanding and or / transmission is inborn. A dog will wag its tail without learning, and another dog will understand it without learning. That's, for the lack of a better word, level 1 symbolism.

Level 2 symbolism is not inborn; it is learned, and culturally driven. In Indian they show "come here" with the same hand gestrue that they use in Hungary to mean "go farther away".

In Hungarian "yes" is said as "igen".

There is no rhyme or reason in level 2 symbols that can be reeingineered to reality, to impulses. It is not inborm, only the CAPACITY to use a level 2 symbolic language is inborn.

In my highschool years I figured that learning a new language is level 2/a symbolic communication, and math is level 3. Pure math, where number manipulation is divorced from quantities. (A quantity is a number combined with a unit of measure. 1 Km, 34.3 miles, 4 hours, 33 minutes, etc.)

I think in concepts. — god must be atheist

To me the word concept refers to abstractions in language. I can imagine thinking in images (taken in a broad sense, not just visual images, iow some kind of sensory collections), but the moment the word 'concept' comes in, to me that includes words at the very least.

I would say communication exists in bodylanguage, there is a empathic bond between people that makes us see bodily expressions as atleast as important as words.

Say you say: Im fine, but you have a sadness in your face. Would I consider you being fine or would I think that you are you are not. How I interact with someone is much more related with bodylanguage than linguistic communication. The linguistic comprehension however refine what is on someones mind besides affective cues. If I am angry its helful if I can explain why Im angry so the issue can be adressed for example. But I think bodylanguage, and this involves voice properties aswell, is a hard wired part of natural communication between people.

I really recommend the book Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language as a fantastic book in how to understand this interactive part of human communication.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manwatching-Field-Guide-Human-Behaviour/dp/B000PSAITU

I would say communication exists in bodylanguage, there is a empathic bond between people that makes us see bodily expressions as atleast as important as words. — Equinox

I would say that communication exists in all causal relations. Effects communicate their causes and vice versa. Behaviors communicate intent. Behaviors inform us of intent.

Good point! :) How would you concider cell receptors as involved in communication? (Not in our social level but in a biological level)
The G protein coupled receptors is very cool! :)

"GPCRs are involved in a wide variety of physiological processes. Some examples of their physiological roles include:

The visual sense: The opsins use a photoisomerization reaction to translate electromagnetic radiation into cellular signals. Rhodopsin, for example, uses the conversion of 11-cis-retinal to all-trans-retinal for this purpose.

The gustatory sense (taste): GPCRs in taste cells mediate release of gustducin in response to bitter-, umami- and sweet-tasting substances.

The sense of smell: Receptors of the olfactory epithelium bind odorants (olfactory receptors) and pheromones (vomeronasal receptors)

Behavioral and mood regulation: Receptors in the mammalian brain bind several different neurotransmitters, including serotonin, dopamine, histamine, GABA, and glutamate

Regulation of immune system activity and inflammation: chemokine receptors bind ligands that mediate intercellular communication between cells of the immune system; receptors such as histamine receptors bind inflammatory mediators and engage target cell types in the inflammatory response. GPCRs are also involved in immune-modulation, e. g. regulating interleukin induction[21] or suppressing TLR-induced immune responses from T cells.[22]

Autonomic nervous system transmission: Both the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are regulated by GPCR pathways, responsible for control of many automatic functions of the body such as blood pressure, heart rate, and digestive processes

Cell density sensing: A novel GPCR role in regulating cell density sensing.
Homeostasis modulation (e.g., water balance).[23]
Involved in growth and metastasis of some types of tumors.[24]

Used in the endocrine system for peptide and amino-acid derivative hormones that bind to GCPRs on the cell membrane of a target cell. This activates cAMP, which in turn activates several kinases, allowing for a cellular response, such as transcription."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor


Biologically aswell in terms of "communicative properties" we find neuropeptides:

"Neuropeptides are little proteins produced by neurons that act on G protein-coupled receptors and are responsible for slow-onset, long-lasting modulation of synaptic transmission. Neuropeptides often coexist with each other or with other neurotransmitters in single neurons. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide

I don't deny that the origin of the concepts, of at least some of them, have been planted by societal influence, such as by language. In school in grade school they taught us that a car accident is when two cars collide. I am sure the concept of accident never would have occurred to me without any prior knowledge or connection.

You represent and store concepts, that are not visible or in any way sensory, but the outcome of complex computations in the brain, in your mind in forms of words. I represent and store these things in my mind without words... I simply conceptualize the concept.

When you think of it: words are mere identifiers attached to the concepts. There is no longer a logical connection to call the concept "accident" than to call it anything else as long as it is unique.

I store concepts without an identifier, I store them in their essential forms (as I understand them).

Some people asked me how I verbalize my thoughts. There is a lot of translation going on, constantly. My reading speed, my comprehension speed is slower than those of those people who think in words. I also get exhausted listening to lectures, literally mentally drained. And I believe this is the real reason why I can't read. The reading speed is not in sync with the comprehension speed, due to the translation I constantly need to perform.

I am not szitting you, guys. This is real, I am not making this up, although I do admit that my insights about my own way of thinking do get perfected, and therefore changed over the time as I mature and am more aware of feature of it.

I agree with you and believe you. concepts even in spirituality are taught by many through analogies such as lotus flower and enlightenment concepts and is used mainly to get the correct images in your mind to conceive and memorize those ideas too.

In my highschool years I figured that learning a new language is level 2/a symbolic communication, and math is level 3. Pure math, where number manipulation is divorced from quantities. (A quantity is a number combined with a unit of measure. 1 Km, 34.3 miles, 4 hours, 33 minutes, etc.) — god must be atheist

Can we say that level 3 is an operation of symbols, logic, which is totally divorced from the meaning of the symbols? The operations are universal, and the meaning which is involved with the operation appears to be a completely different type of meaning from the meaning which is involved with having the symbol represent something. In this case, the case of logical operations, the meaning is involved with the way that relations between symbols can be manipulated. So some instances of moving symbols around are valid, meaningful, and others are not. Therefore we appear to have two distinct types of meaning, the meaning involved with what a particular symbol represents, and the meaning involved with how a symbol is related to other symbols.

So at the other end, is level 1, where a symbol is automatically related to something particular. But isn't that thing which the symbol is related to, really just another symbol? The dog understands another dog's wagging tail by relating it to something else, like a memory, but this thing is just another symbol of something else. So the "inborn" "symbolism" you refer to here is just a fixed form of relating one symbol to another. The higher level, logic, allows symbols to be moved around freely, and one symbol to replace another by stipulating specific valid relationships, but it is really just a more free form of the lower level. The second level is somewhere in between, the relations are to an extent fixed, but fixed by cultural practices which change over time, so there is some degree of freedom.

Can you explain to me how you view level 1? How do you get beyond the idea that meaning is just a relation of one symbol to another. Do you see the symbol as relating directly to an activity? What else could the symbol relate to, which is not essentially just another symbol? How can we get out of the infinite regress of symbols, to understand the concept directly as you do? What is a concept if it is not just a structure of symbols related to each other in specific way?

I may have infinite differences with you, becasue I beleive in the evolutionary theory.

level one (this is the main thrust of your questioning, as I see it) is not a worked-out or acquired or experiencially-learned or a priori learned process. It is simply a biochemically driven reaction that was precipitated by DNA functionality.

One dog happened to be born with wagging its tail when it felt good. The other dogs did not get it.

Until another dog dog got born who but for a DNA change understood the signal.

And a third dog got born who both acted and understood the significance of tail wagging. It was not taught to him; he just did it because his DNA was so shaped that within his system this became the modus operandi.

The offspring of this third dog had a much better chance of survival for several reason. So those dogs that wagged but not understood, or understood but not wagged, or did neither, all lost the future generations (eventually) to the dog that was the third kind in this description / tale.

You are a very smart person, so I shan't go farther in this explanation. You just have to put yourself in my shoes, sort of pretend-wise, and this will become obvious to you.

I don't mean to convince you; I just mean to make you see how I see the whole thing unfold to Level 1.

Honestly I see the possibility for both of these being correct pretty high. Perhaps your both right? or perhaps we can only guess which one is right and the other wrong.

I may have infinite differences with you, becasue I beleive in the evolutionary theory. — god must be atheist

You don't think I believe in evolution? Do you know that there is more than one evolutionary theory? So I think that reducing to "the evolutionary theory" is a mistake.

level one (this is the main thrust of your questioning, as I see it) is not a worked-out or acquired or experiencially-learned or a priori learned process. It is simply a biochemically driven reaction that was precipitated by DNA functionality. — god must be atheist

OK, let's say that it is caused by DNA. Don't you think that the DNA must have acquired it somehow? I believe that that sort of proposition leads to a dead end. You are saying that there is some sort of underlying cause which is innate, but then you get to DNA as that underlying cause, and we are left with the question of what caused the DNA.

You are a very smart person, so I shan't go farther in this explanation. You just have to put yourself in my shoes, sort of pretend-wise, and this will become obvious to you.

I don't mean to convince you; I just mean to make you see how I see the whole thing unfold to Level 1. — god must be atheist

I can see what you are saying, but I find it unacceptable, because when I proceed through the unfolding and get to level 1, it's unsupported. This tells me that it must be wrong, because if I follow the steps down to the bottom step, and find that there is nothing underneath that bottom step, I see the whole ladder as fundamentally wrong, imaginary.

There is a strong chance that we are both right. Because humans have not been made in each other's image. We are diverse, in looks, preferences, and it seems in thinking modes as well. Fundamentally different. I am fully aware that I am different from those who think in words. The difference I found was that people are verbal, can speak without any flaws, fluently, in nice, round, well-constructed sentences. And they have an advantage over me in job interviews. However, I think my translation speed really suits my writing speed. So I make fewer mistakes in writing than in my speech.

To make judgement who is right and who is wrong would be similar to decide who is more ethical: a horse or a bumblebee. Or who is more intelligent: a table or a large avalanche falling down a mountain side.

Don't you think that the DNA must have acquired it somehow? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the sort of statement because of which I have a strong suspicion you don't understand evolutionary theory.

But you're right, there are more than one of those. I can make five such right now in front of your nose, to prove your point.

1. Evolution: the animals get bigger and bigger until they become man.

2. Evoluiton: god gives changes to animals to become bigger and better.

3. Evolution: the environment changes to accommodate the changes in animals.

4. Evolution: the strong protect the weak, thus the weak will survive.

5. Evolution: all offspring are the mathematical middle in every aspect between the parents that brought the individual to life.

There you have it.

I don't think we should discuss this any further, MetaUnder. It's not going to end happily. Let's pull out while we can.

I don't think we should discuss this any further, MetaUnder. It's not going to end happily. Let's pull out while we can. — god must be atheist

Well, ending the discussion right now would be an unhappy ending, so if an unhappy ending is what you're afraid of then don't end it. But I really do not understand your refusal to explain or discuss these points. You put forward some thoughts and ideas, then you simply refuse to justify or even elucidate those ideas. It's as if you are afraid, or incapable, of elucidating what you are trying to say.

This is the sort of statement because of which I have a strong suspicion you don't understand evolutionary theory. — god must be atheist

OK, so there are actions which "are precipitated by DNA". I don't think evolutionary theory explains to you how DNA learned how to cause these actions. So I'll repeat, " don't you think that the DNA must have acquired it somehow?" If DNA acquired this ability through evolution, then maybe I am as ignorant about evolution as you think, and you might enlighten me with some principles here.

If DNA acquired this ability through evolution, — Metaphysician Undercover

Listen, you person: chemical compounds don't acquire knowledge. I am running out of patience with you. If you only listened to your grade 11 chemistry teacher, you wouldn't ask increibly stupid questions like this.

Please leave me alone, I beg you. While the going is bad, but not horrible.

Listen, you person: chemical compounds don't acquire knowledge. I am running out of patience with you. If you only listened to your grade 11 chemistry teacher, you wouldn't ask increibly stupid questions like this. — god must be atheist

I did not use the word "knowledge".

You spoke of "level 1 symbolism", for lack of better words, as "a biochemically driven reaction that was precipitated by DNA functionality".

Now, DNA are highly complex molecules, consisting of huge numbers of atoms. If DNA has the capacity to precipitate level 1 symbolism, don't you think that they must have acquired this capacity somehow. Or are you thinking that level 1 symbolism just magically appeared? Why would it be that other levels of symbol use must be learnt, while level 1 magically appeared?

Please leave me alone, I beg you. While the going is bad, but not horrible. — god must be atheist

OK, please do not reply. This conversation is finished. Thank you.