Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(17-10-2012 01:05 PM)Vera Wrote:  So, do you mean to say that if this child never learns the word "two", it would never grasp the idea of "twoness"?

No. It might not. It could call "two" anything, and relate "twoness" to any word it learned to reference in it's memory as the subconscious conflation of the multiple experiences of the "twos".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 01:48 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Quote:No. It might not. It could call "two" anything, and relate "twoness" to any word it learned to reference in it's memory as the subconscious conflation of the multiple experiences of the "twos".

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
A two by any other name would still be a two, you may call it two, deux, dois, you may not even have a name for it, but it still won't be one or three...

You also said, that the child would relate twoness to a word (two or something else), which kinda implies that the child already has the idea of twoness, just doesn't know what to call it...

BTW, speaking of this, there was a very interesting episode of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI about a tribe in whose language the future was behind and the past - ahead. You might find it particularly interesting (will try to find out which epi it was, if you're interested).

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 01:54 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(17-10-2012 01:48 PM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:No. It might not. It could call "two" anything, and relate "twoness" to any word it learned to reference in it's memory as the subconscious conflation of the multiple experiences of the "twos".

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
A two by any other name would still be a two, you may call it two, deux, dois, you may not even have a name for it, but it still won't be one or three...

You also said, that the child would relate twoness to a word (two or something else), which kinda implies that the child already has the idea of twoness, just doesn't know what to call it...

BTW, speaking of this, there was a very interesting episode of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI about a tribe in whose language the future was behind and the past - ahead. You might find it particularly interesting (will try to find out which epi it was, if you're interested).

NO ! It learns "twoness" by multiple experiences of seeing two objects, and hearing whatever word is used to "mean" twoness. It's NOT innate. It's learned.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 01:58 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Quote:NO ! It learns "twoness" by multiple experiences of seeing two objects, and hearing whatever word is used to "mean" twoness. It's NOT innate. It's learned.

Am I allowed to argue that it learns the idea of twoness by "seeing two objects" and it also learns what to call it when it hears the word others used to describe?

(And what if it cannot speak and uses a different means to express twoness, for example, sign language, would that be a slightly different idea of twoness because the sign to express it is different?)

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2012 09:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(17-10-2012 01:58 PM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:NO ! It learns "twoness" by multiple experiences of seeing two objects, and hearing whatever word is used to "mean" twoness. It's NOT innate. It's learned.

Am I allowed to argue that it learns the idea of twoness by "seeing two objects" and it also learns what to call it when it hears the word others used to describe?

(And what if it cannot speak and uses a different means to express twoness, for example, sign language, would that be a slightly different idea of twoness because the sign to express it is different?)

You can. But it would have no idea what the word meant when it hears it, if the concept of twoness had not already been learned. It had to get the information from somewhere. The word would have no meaning, if the baby had not learned something, a priori.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 02:07 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Quote:You can. But it would have no idea what the word meant when it hears it, if the concept of twoness had not already been learned. It had to get the information from somewhere. The word would have no meaning, if the ababy had not learned something, a priori.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along Smile

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 01:21 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2012 01:26 AM by I and I.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(17-10-2012 12:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 12:17 PM)Vera Wrote:  I still maintain that language is the main tool in the expressing of ideas. Would never go as far as to say it creates them (definitely not the more-or-less straight-forward, linear "parole). As somebody pointed out in this thread, there are some ideas that are mostly the product of language, but some exist regardless of language (which is why any given language can express any given idea, even if it's entirely foreign to it). I definitely side much more with Chomsky in thinking that the thought comes before the word.

How can a "thought" come before a word ? A "thought" is a "somthing". That "something" is "defined", or perceived as defined, or it's a "nothing". Can you give me an example of a "thought" *without* a word ? A "thought" requires "memory", or "reference" to "something".

A thought comes before an individuals words all the time. The thought or idea of a god existed before we were born, we were born then we learned of this belief/thought and how others in the past thought of this.

Language isn't an individualistic experience, it's a communal and cultural experience that comes with past concepts, past ideologies, and past belief systems.

This language in it's use in the communal sense is still a result of material production....Karl Marx. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 02:41 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 01:21 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 12:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How can a "thought" come before a word ? A "thought" is a "somthing". That "something" is "defined", or perceived as defined, or it's a "nothing". Can you give me an example of a "thought" *without* a word ? A "thought" requires "memory", or "reference" to "something".

A thought comes before an individuals words all the time. The thought or idea of a god existed before we were born, we were born then we learned of this belief/thought and how others in the past thought of this.

Language isn't an individualistic experience, it's a communal and cultural experience that comes with past concepts, past ideologies, and past belief systems.

This language in it's use in the communal sense is still a result of material production....Karl Marx. Drinking Beverage

Bullshit. Someone "else's" concept existed in a brain that had learned what that word means. THAT is some woo-woo. And that quote just contradicted yourself.

"Language isn't an individualistic experience, it's a communal and cultural experience that comes with past concepts, past ideologies, and past belief systems."

Among other things.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 05:36 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
does anybody else in here
remember Vera Lynn?
remember she said she would be here again
some sunny day?

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 05:38 AM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(18-10-2012 05:36 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  does anybody else in here
remember Vera Lynn?
remember she said she would be here again
some sunny day?

What has become of me, huh? Wink

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: