The possibility of a private language

Clearbury

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

Paine

I think that's wrong. All that's required for a language is effective communication. — Clearbury

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?

Clearbury

↪Paine

So, I want to convey to you that I am having sensation P. I randomly make the sound "S" in order to do that. As it happens, you're disposed to form the belief that I am having sensation P if you hear me make sound S. Thus, I say "S" with the intention of conveying to you that I am having sensation P, and you consequently form the belief that I am having sensation P. That was a successful bit of communication, it seems to me. It's hard to see how it could be more successful, anyway.

Paine

↪Clearbury

Where did my "disposition" to have such a belief come from?

Clearbury

↪Paine

Suppose it just arose randomly. That doesn't seem to affect whether the communication was successful or not. All that seems to matter is that my making the sound with the intention of conveying to you that I was having experience P, successfully conveyed that information. That its doing so was, say, a 1 in a billion shot, seems not to matter.

Arcane Sandwich

I would argue that everyone has a private language, however you wish to reasonably define such a term. What happens next is that, because we talk to each other, we agree to use some of the same terms. In doing so, our two private languages overlap. And where they overlap, that's common language between us. Now bring a third person and the same happens, now there's three of us talking. And that spreads, and it becomes a common language.

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.

Clearbury

What happens next is that, because we talk to each other, we agree to use some of the same terms — Arcane Sandwich

But how do you agree to something unless a language is already up and running?

Arcane Sandwich

But how do you agree to something unless a language is already up and running? — Clearbury

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.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

By the time we get to agree to things, we're already successfully communicating - and so don't actually need to agree to things (not that I'm against us agreeing to things or think it can't make things easier).

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.

Arcane Sandwich

By the time we get to agree to things, we're already successfully communicating - and so don't actually need to agree to things.

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. — Clearbury

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?

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

Does that realization upset you somehow? I think it's marvelous. — Arcane Sandwich

Do you disagree with something i said? i am not clear what your point is

Arcane Sandwich

Do you disagree with something i said? i am not clear what your point is — Clearbury

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.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

My post was about language and what's needed for one. You seem to be taking things off topic.

Arcane Sandwich

↪Clearbury

Then I apologize if I was, because I didn't intend to. Do you intend to enforce backseat moderation with your last comment? If not, then could you point me in the right direction, so that I can meaningfully contribute to this Thread? What's needed for a language, in my humble opinion, is:

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.

Paine

↪Clearbury

Your remark about probability does not address the question of "disposition" you introduced.

Where does that come from?

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

If not, then could you point me in the right direction, — Arcane Sandwich

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.

Clearbury

↪Paine

Assume it arose randomly.

Arcane Sandwich

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. — Clearbury

I agree with this, and I disagree with everything that you say after this. I'm being serious.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

I don't think you are. Plus those are just some more of your thoughts and they don't constitute any kind of case for anything.

Paine

↪Clearbury

But the position you are opposing is not making a claim of necessity.

Arcane Sandwich

I don't think you are. — Clearbury

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?

Clearbury

↪Paine

I think it is, for Wittgenstein does not say that a private language is unlikely, but that it is impossible. If something is impossible, then it is necessarily not so.

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.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

Yes, you're derailing the thread in my view. Unless you can make a case for the falsity of something I said, then you're not engaging with me or the subject matter.

Paine

↪Clearbury

Perhaps you could actually quote Wittgenstein. So far, you seem to be tilting against a windmill.

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. — Clearbury

It was your idea. You presented it as what made communication possible.

Arcane Sandwich

Yes, you're derailing the thread in my view. Unless you can make a case for the falsity of something I said, then you're not engaging with me or the subject matter. — Clearbury

Fair enough, then I apologize. I will make a case for the falsity of something that you said. You said:

All that's required for a language is effective communication. — Clearbury

False. I already told you what is required for a language. I already said it. Here goes:

What's needed for a language, in my humble opinion, is:

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. — 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.

Clearbury

↪Paine

It was your idea. You presented it as what made communication possible. — Paine

But I supported it with an example. Do you think that I did not communicate with the other person in the example I gave?

Clearbury

False. I already told you what is required for a language. I already said it. Here goes: — Arcane Sandwich

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.

Arcane Sandwich

That's not a case! You're just asserting things. — Clearbury

It's called evidence. As in, facts.

you owe an argument. — 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.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

As I say, someone who is so disingenuous as to think I mean that I have a right to a case from you is probably not worth debating with. The point - and that I need to spell this out is troubling - is that in order to be engaging with me, you owe a case. The point is not that everyone default owes me a case.

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?

Arcane Sandwich

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? — Clearbury

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?

you owe a case. — 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.

Clearbury

↪Arcane Sandwich

Then what premise are you actually denying, mate? — Arcane Sandwich

As I said, it depends on what you mean by an artificial intelligence. I'll quote me:

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? — Clearbury

The possibility of a private language

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions