Freetalk Friday 1

[Amsel_]

Imagine if instead of debating the merits of techno-dystopia versus communism, we just kept everyone employed, and paid them the same amount, but cut their work hours. Haha. That would be so crazy and weird.

This is what Marx predicted, that eventually automation would reach a point at which people wouldn't get paid less, but would work less for the same wages. He was writing in an age in which they still had an uber-optimistic view on human nature (influenced by the Enlightenment), so he thought people would simply have more time to engage in doing scientific research and artistic works. You know, all those things people did during the lockdown, when they spammed vidya gaems.

Time to change my point of view. People should work 80 hour work-weeks so that they don't waste any time.

-This post was also brought to you by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

[Amsel_]

[Jam]

Haikus are boring,
limmricks are dumb,
this poem is over in 3,2,1

[fightinfrenchman]

Bob Dylan once said in an interview that he didn't know how he wrote some of his greatest songs, and that he doesn't think he can do it anymore. Looking back at some of my old shitposts, I feel the same way

[evilcheadar]

Show hidden quotes

Once again time to rot brain with beer

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

and its that time again

And it’s that time again

and it's that time again

and it's that time again

and it's that time again

[fightinfrenchman]

Why did I get shingles at 21 years old? What the fuck was that about

[Amsel_]

I wonder if the very notion of "God" has changed over the millennia, particularly with the introduction of atheism. Any discussion of God or metaphysics in general seems to be persistently rooted in the question of whether or not the subject matter is real, a dichotomy of God existing or materialism. This naturally forces not only certain narratives within thoughts and discussions, but it changes the perspective with which one thinks of the concept of "God." Suppose "God" was some sort of psychological aspect that was essentially self-evident to pre-modern man, perhaps a necessary premise for many of our cognitive abilities. Then, our current dualistic conception of "God," one where both Christians and atheists argue over "sky daddy" being real, is a decline from this traditional approach to divinity; and even the religious among us can scarcely call themselves religious, as they typically approach the topic within the real-unreal dichotomy and have virtually the same perspective that atheists do. What if my idea of "God" is permanently tainted by what my environment has imprinted in me? What if there is something almost inconspicuous yet eternal that ancient men called "God," yet we have abandoned this and chased wild notions?

[Dolan]

I had a similar thought a few days ago. @Amsel_
I was wondering if those ancient writings that we today consider outdated, mythological and backwards didn't simply reflect a kind of direct awareness of being that has been lost.
The main culprit is probably Platonism and all kinds of ideal-isms that later have led to a backlash, leading minds in the opposite direction of materialism.
I think Heidegger was spot on with the idea of forgetfulness of being, but he was wrong to try to pin it down by describing it in philosophical terms. You can't own being just like you can't own power (or you can but it's always going to be a fleeting kind of ownership).

[Amsel_]

I had a similar thought a few days ago. @Amsel_
I was wondering if those ancient writings that we today consider outdated, mythological and backwards didn't simply reflect a kind of direct awareness of being that has been lost.
The main culprit is probably Platonism and all kinds of ideal-isms that later have led to a backlash, leading minds in the opposite direction of materialism.
I think Heidegger was spot on with the idea of forgetfulness of being, but he was wrong to try to pin it down by describing it in philosophical terms. You can't own being just like you can't own power (or you can but it's always going to be a fleeting kind of ownership).

I was thinking about something else and it started to fuse with some of the ideas from above. It was a thought before I went to bed, so I apologize if it's not concise enough. If we need language (I'm using the word language very loosely to describe a means of communication and reason, mathematics could be considered a "language" within this definition) to reason, our capacity for thought and knowledge is then restricted to whatever the capacity of that language is. This means that it's possible for there to be massive truisms that go completely ignored, because we're incapable of debating within the sphere that truth resides in. (metaphysics is an example of something we have little capacity to discuss) So, if there are metaphysics, or if there is a God, there must be some form of "linguistic" structure capable of expressing things on such a level. So what are some of the traits of syntax?

-It represents things. In this case it must be capable of representing these grand, higher truths.
-It can be greater than the sum of its parts. Since a sentence has its own unique meaning, and the creation of its meaning involves the individual words in it, a sentence is greater than the sum of its parts. This could then lead us to believe that a language is actually greater than whatever sphere it is meant to work in.
-It can express ideas. I'm unsure of how many ways to communicate there could be, so this doesn't spark any ideas.

The second trait, I think, is the most important, because it leaves us with a major issue: If we cannot ascertain higher truths, how can we possibly come to understand a language which could be even more distant than those truths? My idea to get around this is trait three. If the language can express things, it should be able to express things on a lower level as well. Consider, for instance, Morse code. Morse code is a series of dots and dashes which represent letters of the alphabet, and this is used to reconstruct the language of that country. However, we can at least imagine a person who is illiterate, yet, over time, comes to learn that a certain series of dots and dashes means a certain things, such as a train arriving at a certain time. I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it does a good job at conveying the notion that one means of communication can be subordinate to, or a limitation of, another one - a hierarchy of language. This then gives us at least the possibility that our language is itself a limitation of a higher language, and supposing a hierarchy of reality, I think it would be more likely than not that there is this sort of hierarchy of language.

I haven't thought about it more than this. The only other thing I can think of is whether or not a top-down or bottom-up approach should be taken. The top-down approach would be to see this ultimate language as a divine logos, something necessary for all reality. The other is whether or not we can work within our current "languages" to build up to a higher-level language, or if that is impossible. Do you have any thoughts on this?

[Dolan]

@Amsel_
That's a kind of argument that Plato (and other idealists) could have made, implying that if something exists in a deficient form (that could be improved on), then it must be the case that an ideal form of it must exist in some separate realm, from which all these inferior clones are issued or whose actual instances in the world are just poor approximations.

This argument rests on the assumption that a language is meant to provide a correspondence between word and thing. I don't subscribe to this school of thought, my own view is that language works to express messages about the world or the speaker, rather than to provide a representation of the world (though representing events from the world is one use case among many possible others). What is more, while language can help articulate and affix thought, it's not really necessary in order for cognition (thought) to take place. A languageless form of thought is perfectly imaginable. For example, you can remember a dream as a series of mental images that are strung together in a narrative sequence, even though it might not make any sense.

For these reasons that I wrote here, in short, I doubt that language has a limiting influence on how adequately we can think of something, though it could be argued that it might limit how we express what we think. You could imagine a shade of meaning between "precarious" and "inadequate" that is not fully captured by any words available in English. It happened to me many times to think of something for which there was no right word in English, but there was a right one in French (adopted by Romanian) with all the right connotations. So, I think language could be more of a limiting factor on expression, rather than on thought.

[evilcheadar]

Wth is this

[Dolan]

Mind wrestling

[evilcheadar]

I’m Too low IQ tbh

[Horsemen]

I’m Too low IQ tbh

same but for my penor

[Amsel_]

@Amsel_
That's a kind of argument that Plato (and other idealists) could have made, implying that if something exists in a deficient form (that could be improved on), then it must be the case that an ideal form of it must exist in some separate realm, from which all these inferior clones are issued or whose actual instances in the world are just poor approximations.

This argument rests on the assumption that a language is meant to provide a correspondence between word and thing. I don't subscribe to this school of thought, my own view is that language works to express messages about the world or the speaker, rather than to provide a representation of the world (though representing events from the world is one use case among many possible others). What is more, while language can help articulate and affix thought, it's not really necessary in order for cognition (thought) to take place. A languageless form of thought is perfectly imaginable. For example, you can remember a dream as a series of mental images that are strung together in a narrative sequence, even though it might not make any sense.

For these reasons that I wrote here, in short, I doubt that language has a limiting influence on how adequately we can think of something, though it could be argued that it might limit how we express what we think. You could imagine a shade of meaning between "precarious" and "inadequate" that is not fully captured by any words available in English. It happened to me many times to think of something for which there was no right word in English, but there was a right one in French (adopted by Romanian) with all the right connotations. So, I think language could be more of a limiting factor on expression, rather than on thought.

I guess there are two primary approaches to language: the first is that thoughts appear naturally in the human mind and words come about to simply express these thoughts that would still exist without the language. Another is that language is something that developed over time, primarily due to one's interactions with the external world. In the latter scenario, the limitations of language seem clear: the language can only be as advanced as the world. But the former scenario does offer room for thoughts that cannot yet be put into words. A concern with this would be that this doesn't prove the limitlessness of language, only that its limits expand as far as the psyche does. This would be interesting, because, the word language, in the context of this conversation, is a system which enables one to reason and communicate as well as represent some sort of sphere (primarily the physical world and mathematics). Should language be a derivative of the psyche, it would have to do a good job representing the psyche. But you have already mentioned how easy a languageless thought would be, so I'm inclined to see language as a representation of the physical and logical world.

If these shaky premises are true, a small logical maneuver could be done that would lead to a profound conclusion: If the scope of the psyche is greater than language, and language is a virtualization of the physical world and thus at a similar scope, the psyche, being greater, would be capable of grasping some sort of higher language. That ties in to some of the things I was talking about. But it also ties in to your concluding statement about language limiting expression rather than thought. With language being separate from the psyche, it makes sense that language would often fail to represent it perfectly, and thus fail to express many ideas. As to language not limiting thought, I suppose I would agree with you. If the psyche and language aren't in perfect sync, there will be wordless thoughts. I'm not sure if this reflects any of the arguments I made earlier, I'll have to re-read those posts. But I doubt it would poke any major holes, since language has been relevant to the conversation primarily because of it being representative of a sphere or reality.

[Dolan]

I guess there are two primary approaches to language: the first is that thoughts appear naturally in the human mind and words come about to simply express these thoughts that would still exist without the language. Another is that language is something that developed over time, primarily due to one's interactions with the external world.

You know, there's a bazillion theories on how language came to exist. I doubt it came about in a simple or sudden way, following a one-way dynamic (mind -> world or world ->mind). By doubting the idea that language is just a reflection of the world I wasn't trying to diminish the importance of the role played by the mind interacting with the world in the emergence of language. Obviously, no language could appear without the mind having any kind of interaction with a world. Even those niche cases of people from the deaf community who learn "home sign" still develop a form of cognition that is based on visual stimulation (or touch-based if they're both deaf and blind). They compensate for the lack of the ability to hear and learn how to speak with a form of inner cognition based on making logical connections between gestures and other events from the world.
So, no, I would not make such exclusive statements as:
- cognitions (thoughts) would still happen at the same level we're capable of right now even if we never developed language (this is demonstrably impossible)
- language is primarily the result of interactions with the world (other species also interact with the world, but they never developed articulated language, so there are definitely more factors at work here than just interaction with a world)

In the latter scenario, the limitations of language seem clear: the language can only be as advanced as the world. But the former scenario does offer room for thoughts that cannot yet be put into words. A concern with this would be that this doesn't prove the limitlessness of language, only that its limits expand as far as the psyche does.

Again, I don't see why one would exclude the other. I'm sure that both interaction with the world shaped language, just as inner psychological events left their mark on language development. In fact, I don't even think it's possible that language developed through only one of those two pathways. Considering that the psyche modulates how that experience of the world is impressed upon the mind, one cannot opt for a purely experiential development of language that is devoid of any psychological involvement. I stressed the word "impressed" because it's important to differentiate between these two ideas which are not equally valid:
- language simply mirroring the world (an almost mechanistic relation between world <-> language)
- language being the result of experiencing the world -- meaning, the mind's inner representation of the world is just an impression, an arbitrary form (depending on different contributions from different sensory inputs, previous experiences, cultural patterns that filter your experience, sensory deprivation, etc)

I'm labouring this point because an impression on the mind is not just a mirror representation of the world; the psyche can also reflect the world in exaggerated, blown out ways that are not necessarily just simple mirrors. It's like comparing a painting by van Gogh to a realistic picture taken by a DSLR camera. Language has been greatly shaped by how our psyche reacted to the world rather than just simply reflecting it. There's a really kewl example with the "bouba/kiki effect", which shows that almost universally people associate sharp shapes with the "kiki" word and rounded shapes with "bouba". You could read many things into this, but one of the things I see in this effect is that there's a clear involvement of the emotional brain in how objects get their names in language. A sharper object tends to get associated more with "kiki", while more rounded objects with "bouba". It indicates to me that language is a moldable substance to which the emotional brain reacts and shapes it to reflect the impression that the world leaves on the mind.

If the scope of the psyche is greater than language, and language is a virtualization of the physical world and thus at a similar scope, the psyche, being greater, would be capable of grasping some sort of higher language. That ties in to some of the things I was talking about. But it also ties in to your concluding statement about language limiting expression rather than thought. With language being separate from the psyche, it makes sense that language would often fail to represent it perfectly, and thus fail to express many ideas.

I don't really know what you mean by "higher language". Language is so complex and large, you could define your own subset that would be more expressive than the rest of the language you chose to ignore. Or you could use it in such ways that maximised expressivity in phonemic, syntactic and semantic ways.
You could fail to express ideas not just because of language, but also due to not having a very clear or clarified concept of what you're trying to explain. I've rarely felt that language was such an obstacle that there was no way I could get a certain idea across, even in a hazy form.

As to language not limiting thought, I suppose I would agree with you. If the psyche and language aren't in perfect sync, there will be wordless thoughts.

It's possible to separate cognitions from language, though, I think most human cognition tends to be shaped or propped by language, though not all of it.
Maths are actually not considered to be part of language, but they are considered part of abstract thought. You can't really "speak in maths" and pass any arbitrary message using math notation. Brain studies like this one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC552916/) indicate that damage to the left hemisphere (which manages language abilities) does not impair someone's ability to do maths. I expect it's the same case with visual imagery and thoughts that are based on them, audio imagery and so on. Language plays an oversized role in human cognition, but it's one modality among others.

[occamslightsaber]

Found an AR-15 cleaning kit at my workplace.

[Riotcoke]

Found an AR-15 cleaning kit at my workplace.

'Murica

[gibson]

riotcoke is a post twat

[fightinfrenchman]

Found an AR-15 cleaning kit at my workplace.

What kind of place do you work at?

[fedjahnson]

Pre-school?

[XeeleeFlower]

I'm awake too late for a weeknight. Fml, I'm going to hate tomorrow.

[XeeleeFlower]

Update: woke up at 7 AM. Feel like garbage. 5 hours of sleep is not enough!

[Amsel_]

Update: woke up at 7 AM. Feel like garbage. 5 hours of sleep is not enough!

How do you (And the rest of ESOC) handle getting less sleep? I'm wrapping up a four hours of sleep day (and starting another tomorrow!), so I'm curious to see what others' experiences have been.

[XeeleeFlower]

Nap or drink a lot of tea/coffee and am more of a bitch than normal.

Eat veggies with lean meat and drink fruit juice. You can do it!