Difference between revisions of "Language"
(→Mathematics=) |
(→References) |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Context== | ==Context== | ||
| − | The original use of language is not fully known, but it was clearly | + | The original use of language is not fully known, but it was clearly an evolutionary adaption. The most common theory is that language made humans better able to survive by organizing the hunt for food and encouraging the creation of stable social structures.<ref>Charles W. Bryant ''How did language evolve?'' https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/language-evolve.htm</ref> |
The original form of language was spoken and it dates back to the end of the Neolithic age, around 150,000 years ago. Written language began around 6,000 years ago, probably in Sumer. | The original form of language was spoken and it dates back to the end of the Neolithic age, around 150,000 years ago. Written language began around 6,000 years ago, probably in Sumer. | ||
| − | Many of the dynamics the internet creates are, at this point, well understood: We know its capacity to help users find one another, making it easier than ever for people to get involved in conspiracy networks; | + | Many of the dynamics the internet creates are, at this point, well understood: We know its capacity to help users find one another, making it easier than ever for people to get involved in conspiracy networks; We also know how social media platforms prioritize inflammatory content and that as a result, ideas and information that make people angry travels farther and faster than ever before. |
==Problems== | ==Problems== | ||
* People will always try to use their words to convince you to [[Trust]] them. Why do they do that? Because it works. | * People will always try to use their words to convince you to [[Trust]] them. Why do they do that? Because it works. | ||
* Human language was created and is optimized for social interactions. It simple does not work well in highly structured situations where exact logical decision making is required. Philosopher that use natural language can never be precise in what they mean. | * Human language was created and is optimized for social interactions. It simple does not work well in highly structured situations where exact logical decision making is required. Philosopher that use natural language can never be precise in what they mean. | ||
| + | ==Uniquely Human== | ||
| + | Language use is a complex cognitive phenomenon, and is one of the areas that | ||
| + | distinguishes humans from animals. Humans learn words at rapid rates, learning about 45,000 | ||
| + | words around the time the average person graduates high school (Radford, 2004). Cognitive | ||
| + | psychology studies how people think, remember, create, and speak. Cognitive development | ||
| + | theory is ever changing as more knowledge is gained and added to the catalogue of information | ||
| + | already in existence. Compounding on this study is the field of psycholinguistics, founded by | ||
| + | linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s ideas have set the standard for the way that language | ||
| + | acquisition and development is viewed.<ref>Kevin C. Costley, ''Avram Noam Chomsky and His Cognitive Development Theory'' (2013-06-10) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543301.pdf#:~:text=Chomsky%E2%80%99s%20view%20adheres%20to%20a%20natavistic%20approach%20in,enable%20them%20to%20learn%20and%20acquire%20certain%20skills.</ref> Given this view he is adamantly opposed to think that the ability of Large Language Model ([[Artificial Intelligence]]) in 2023 can be considered to be like the language processing in humans. In other words the AI has no mental symbol for cat, just a bunch of references to others talking about cats. | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
===Natural language=== | ===Natural language=== | ||
| − | The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein taught us 70 years ago that words gain their meaning from how they are used. In other words, they do not have intrinsic meaning at all. Rather, they form a set of potential “moves” in a game he called a language game. That language game exists in order to facilitate human beings cooperating with one another to accomplish tasks. | + | The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein taught us 70 years ago that words gain their meaning from how they are used. In other words, they do not have intrinsic meaning at all. Rather, they form a set of potential “moves” in a game he called a language game. That language game exists in order to facilitate human beings cooperating with one another to accomplish tasks.<ref name=wittgen>Ludwig Wittgenstein, ''PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS'' Translated by G. E. M. ANSCOMBE First published 1953 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf</ref> Words in the dictionary, while appearing to have concrete definitions, are defined in terms of other words. We learn those words by observing human behavior and listening to them talk as they use them. Words and how they fit together (grammar) do not, in fact, have to be logical or represent anything “real”. Instead, they are tools that help human beings work together. Other theories are also proposed, see the section on Philosophy and Physiology below. |
| − | + | Wittgenstein wanted people to use language carefully so that the speaker and hearer could agree on the meaning, but there was no meaning in language beyond that. This creates a real concern that Natural Language is not sufficient to convey all of the meaning that is needed to express all true statements in our technology-driven world. That need has been addressed by invented languages like those that follow in this section. | |
| − | |||
===[[Policy Language]]=== | ===[[Policy Language]]=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The big question here is whether an unambiguous policy can be created that clearly expresses the intent of the administrator that a mechanistic authorization validation will be effective. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What has been suggested is that an AI could determine intent and apply it. The problem is that AIs are given instructions in a natural language so it is not clear that it is possible for the AI to do better than a human in rigorously applying policy. | ||
| + | |||
===Mathematics=== | ===Mathematics=== | ||
| − | + | Niels Bohr appreciated math as a language that allows us to talk about things that cannot be expressed in natural language. It allows us to think about things that are not accessible to natural language. | |
| − | === | + | |
| + | ===Metamathematics=== | ||
| + | the field of study that deals with the structure and formal properties of mathematics and similar formal systems.(a term originated by Hilbert)<ref>S. C. Kleene, ''Introduction to Metamathematics'' 1950 ISBN 978-1258437961</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Philosophy and Physiology== | ||
| + | There remains much disagreement about the basis for language and its acquisition by humans. Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky were both influential figures in the field of philosophy of language and linguistics. | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Wittgenstein's Later Work | ||
| + | ## Wittgenstein's later work, especially as described in his book, Philosophical Investigations<ref name=wittgen />, focused on language and its use. | ||
| + | ## He warned against mentalistic temptations and criticized his own earlier formal account of language in the *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*. | ||
| + | ## Wittgenstein emphasized the importance of understanding language in terms of its practical use and context. | ||
| + | # Chomsky's Critique of Wittgenstein | ||
| + | ## In 1969, Chomsky reviewed some of Wittgenstein's later work and scored it almost as severely as he had B.F. Skinner's behaviorist perspective a decade earlier. | ||
| + | ## Chomsky criticized what he perceived as Wittgenstein's "empiricist speculation." | ||
| + | ## He misread some passages in Wittgenstein's works, but his main criticisms were rooted in their fundamental differences regarding mentalism. | ||
| + | # *Mentalistic vs. Anti-Mentalistic Perspectives | ||
| + | ## Chomsky's approach is mentalistic, emphasizing internal cognitive processes and innate structures (such as Universal Grammar). | ||
| + | ## Wittgenstein, on the other hand, took an anti-mentalistic stance, focusing on language as a social practice and rejecting mentalistic explanations. | ||
| + | ## Chomsky accused Wittgenstein of neglecting the mental essence of cognitive activities and failing to consider unconscious thought processes. | ||
| + | # Wittgenstein's Influence on Linguistics**: | ||
| + | ## Despite their differences, Wittgenstein's work can be used to critique some of Chomsky's views. | ||
| + | ## Wittgenstein's emphasis on practical language use aligns with modern sociolinguistics and pragmatics. | ||
| + | ## His ideas continue to shape discussions about language behavior and meaning. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Chomsky's and Wittgenstein's interactions highlight the ongoing debate between mentalistic and anti-mentalistic approaches in understanding language¹². | ||
| + | |||
| + | Source: Conversation with Copilot, 5/25/2024 | ||
| + | (1) Chomsky, Wittgenstein, and the Behaviorist Perspective on Language - JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27758883. | ||
| + | (2) Möchte Chomsky erklären, was Wittgenstein beschreibt? - De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/witt-2019-0005/html. | ||
| + | (3) Chomsky's Criticism of Kripke's Wittgenstein - Deusto. https://paginaspersonales.deusto.es/abaitua/konzeptu/nlp/kripke.htm. | ||
| + | (4) Universal Grammar: Wittgenstein Versus Chomsky | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3136-6_38. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Does Language Constrain Thought=== | ||
| + | Our thoughts remain flexible, shaped by culture, experience, and upbringing. Habitual language use can influence our thinking patterns and actions, but it doesn’t rigidly confine our mental processes. Language may not constrain thought, but it does play a role in shaping how we perceive and express our experiences.<ref>University of Central Florida, ''Language and Thinking'' https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/reading-language-and-thought/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Language]]s were designed to communicate only those ideas which were needed to be shared. The use of any language tends to limit thoughts to that which the language can carry. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Consider quantum mechanics, or general relativity. They were born into a world where the language was calculus. That was extended to include matrix, tensor and a few other geometric and set theories. Some how those ideas have limited quantum theories into ruts of thought that are inadequate to the job assigned. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | [[Category: Language]] | ||
[[Category: Philosophy]] | [[Category: Philosophy]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Mathematics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 09:32, 16 October 2024
Contents
Full Title or Meme
A Language allows expression of thought or gives commands for action.
Context
The original use of language is not fully known, but it was clearly an evolutionary adaption. The most common theory is that language made humans better able to survive by organizing the hunt for food and encouraging the creation of stable social structures.[1]
The original form of language was spoken and it dates back to the end of the Neolithic age, around 150,000 years ago. Written language began around 6,000 years ago, probably in Sumer.
Many of the dynamics the internet creates are, at this point, well understood: We know its capacity to help users find one another, making it easier than ever for people to get involved in conspiracy networks; We also know how social media platforms prioritize inflammatory content and that as a result, ideas and information that make people angry travels farther and faster than ever before.
Problems
- People will always try to use their words to convince you to Trust them. Why do they do that? Because it works.
- Human language was created and is optimized for social interactions. It simple does not work well in highly structured situations where exact logical decision making is required. Philosopher that use natural language can never be precise in what they mean.
Uniquely Human
Language use is a complex cognitive phenomenon, and is one of the areas that distinguishes humans from animals. Humans learn words at rapid rates, learning about 45,000 words around the time the average person graduates high school (Radford, 2004). Cognitive psychology studies how people think, remember, create, and speak. Cognitive development theory is ever changing as more knowledge is gained and added to the catalogue of information already in existence. Compounding on this study is the field of psycholinguistics, founded by linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s ideas have set the standard for the way that language acquisition and development is viewed.[2] Given this view he is adamantly opposed to think that the ability of Large Language Model (Artificial Intelligence) in 2023 can be considered to be like the language processing in humans. In other words the AI has no mental symbol for cat, just a bunch of references to others talking about cats.
Examples
Natural language
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein taught us 70 years ago that words gain their meaning from how they are used. In other words, they do not have intrinsic meaning at all. Rather, they form a set of potential “moves” in a game he called a language game. That language game exists in order to facilitate human beings cooperating with one another to accomplish tasks.[3] Words in the dictionary, while appearing to have concrete definitions, are defined in terms of other words. We learn those words by observing human behavior and listening to them talk as they use them. Words and how they fit together (grammar) do not, in fact, have to be logical or represent anything “real”. Instead, they are tools that help human beings work together. Other theories are also proposed, see the section on Philosophy and Physiology below.
Wittgenstein wanted people to use language carefully so that the speaker and hearer could agree on the meaning, but there was no meaning in language beyond that. This creates a real concern that Natural Language is not sufficient to convey all of the meaning that is needed to express all true statements in our technology-driven world. That need has been addressed by invented languages like those that follow in this section.
Policy Language
The big question here is whether an unambiguous policy can be created that clearly expresses the intent of the administrator that a mechanistic authorization validation will be effective.
What has been suggested is that an AI could determine intent and apply it. The problem is that AIs are given instructions in a natural language so it is not clear that it is possible for the AI to do better than a human in rigorously applying policy.
Mathematics
Niels Bohr appreciated math as a language that allows us to talk about things that cannot be expressed in natural language. It allows us to think about things that are not accessible to natural language.
Metamathematics
the field of study that deals with the structure and formal properties of mathematics and similar formal systems.(a term originated by Hilbert)[4]
Philosophy and Physiology
There remains much disagreement about the basis for language and its acquisition by humans. Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky were both influential figures in the field of philosophy of language and linguistics.
- Wittgenstein's Later Work
- Wittgenstein's later work, especially as described in his book, Philosophical Investigations[3], focused on language and its use.
- He warned against mentalistic temptations and criticized his own earlier formal account of language in the *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*.
- Wittgenstein emphasized the importance of understanding language in terms of its practical use and context.
- Chomsky's Critique of Wittgenstein
- In 1969, Chomsky reviewed some of Wittgenstein's later work and scored it almost as severely as he had B.F. Skinner's behaviorist perspective a decade earlier.
- Chomsky criticized what he perceived as Wittgenstein's "empiricist speculation."
- He misread some passages in Wittgenstein's works, but his main criticisms were rooted in their fundamental differences regarding mentalism.
- *Mentalistic vs. Anti-Mentalistic Perspectives
- Chomsky's approach is mentalistic, emphasizing internal cognitive processes and innate structures (such as Universal Grammar).
- Wittgenstein, on the other hand, took an anti-mentalistic stance, focusing on language as a social practice and rejecting mentalistic explanations.
- Chomsky accused Wittgenstein of neglecting the mental essence of cognitive activities and failing to consider unconscious thought processes.
- Wittgenstein's Influence on Linguistics**:
- Despite their differences, Wittgenstein's work can be used to critique some of Chomsky's views.
- Wittgenstein's emphasis on practical language use aligns with modern sociolinguistics and pragmatics.
- His ideas continue to shape discussions about language behavior and meaning.
Chomsky's and Wittgenstein's interactions highlight the ongoing debate between mentalistic and anti-mentalistic approaches in understanding language¹².
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 5/25/2024
(1) Chomsky, Wittgenstein, and the Behaviorist Perspective on Language - JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27758883. (2) Möchte Chomsky erklären, was Wittgenstein beschreibt? - De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/witt-2019-0005/html. (3) Chomsky's Criticism of Kripke's Wittgenstein - Deusto. https://paginaspersonales.deusto.es/abaitua/konzeptu/nlp/kripke.htm. (4) Universal Grammar: Wittgenstein Versus Chomsky | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3136-6_38.
Does Language Constrain Thought
Our thoughts remain flexible, shaped by culture, experience, and upbringing. Habitual language use can influence our thinking patterns and actions, but it doesn’t rigidly confine our mental processes. Language may not constrain thought, but it does play a role in shaping how we perceive and express our experiences.[5]
Languages were designed to communicate only those ideas which were needed to be shared. The use of any language tends to limit thoughts to that which the language can carry.
Consider quantum mechanics, or general relativity. They were born into a world where the language was calculus. That was extended to include matrix, tensor and a few other geometric and set theories. Some how those ideas have limited quantum theories into ruts of thought that are inadequate to the job assigned.
References
- ↑ Charles W. Bryant How did language evolve? https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/language-evolve.htm
- ↑ Kevin C. Costley, Avram Noam Chomsky and His Cognitive Development Theory (2013-06-10) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543301.pdf#:~:text=Chomsky%E2%80%99s%20view%20adheres%20to%20a%20natavistic%20approach%20in,enable%20them%20to%20learn%20and%20acquire%20certain%20skills.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS Translated by G. E. M. ANSCOMBE First published 1953 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
- ↑ S. C. Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics 1950 ISBN 978-1258437961
- ↑ University of Central Florida, Language and Thinking https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/reading-language-and-thought/
