Wittgenstein famously said "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
Alan Watts suggests people like Wittgenstein should occasionally try to let go of this way of thinking. Apologies if it is sentimental but I hope you'll give him a chance, it's quite short: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=heksROdDgEk
In reflection of all of this, I think that the quote you're responding to only meant to say that experiencing the world through language means building an abstraction over its richness. (I somewhat agree with you, though, that the quote seems a little dramatic. Maybe that's just my taste.)
One more thought.
I think there's a reason why various forms of meditation teach us to stop thinking. Maybe they are telling us to sometimes stop dealing with our abstractions, powerful though they might be, and experience the real thing once in a while.
the way i read the quote it felt less like building an abstraction and more like destroying the richness.
but abstractions are mere shortcuts. but everything is an abstraction. to counter wittgenstein, language is not actually limited. we can describe everything to the finest detail. it's just not practical to do so every time.
physics, chemistry, we could describe a table as an amount of atoms arranged in a certain way. but then even atom is an abstraction over electrons, protons and neutrons. and those are abstractions over quarks. it's abstractions all the way down, or up.
language is abstractions. and that fits well with your meditation example. stop thinking -> remove the language -> remove the abstractions.
How can you know that we have language to describe everything in the finest detail? That suggests that we are omnipotent.
There's lots out there we don't know. And it seems to me that the further afield we go from the known, the more likely we are to enter territory where we simply do not have the words.
Can't speak to it personally, but I have heard from a number of people and read countless descriptions of psychedelic experiences being ineffable. Lol, actually, as I type, the mere fact that the word ineffable exists makes a very strong case for there being experience beyond words.
ok, fair point. what i am trying to say is that when we see/experience something that we can not describe we can create new words for it. we see something, we can name it. this directly contradicts the idea that language is the limit and that we can't talk about things that we don't have words for. that claim just doesn't make sense.
the problem then is that these new words don't make any sense to anyone who doesn't see/experience the same, so it only works for things that multiple people can see or experience. psychedelic experiences will probably never be shared, so they will remain undescribable. quite like dreams, which can also be be undescribable.
Agreed, we can and will always come up with new words that attempt to approximate the experience, but, imo, they will always come up short. The abstracting inevitably leaves fidelity on the floor.
It's necessary based on the way we're wired, struggle to think of a paradigm that would allow for the tribalism and connectedness that fostered human progress without shared verbal language initially, and written word later. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but, language will always abstract away part of the fidelity of the experience imo.
yes of course, language is by nature an abstraction, so by definition it will never describe the whole world perfectly, but it can describe it as well as we understand it. and the point that matters, once we have a shared experience we can name that experience, and between us it will then describe the full experience, whereas to bystanders it will be an abstraction.
language doesn't replace the actual experience. it isn't meant to. me living in china, and me telling you about my life in china are not the same thing, no matter how detailed my description. but that does not limit my experience. and if you lived in china too, then my description will refer your experience, and in that case the description will feel much more detailed.
the way i understand wittgensteins claim it not only suggests that language can't describe everything, which is only partly true, because it implies that language can not expand. it also means that i can not even experience what i can not describe, which makes even less sense. i can't feel cold because i have no word for it? huh?
(i feel like my argumentation jumps around or goes in circles, it doesn't feel well thought through. i hope it makes sense anyways. apologies for that.)
Na, your argument makes sense. Loving this discussion.
Ok, so I don't agree that it implies language cannot expand. I believe it's a bit more nuanced than that, I believe what he's trying to say is that it cannot expand sufficiently to truly capture the experience. We will inevitably dumb it down or lose fidelity or whatever. The 'unsayables' as he called them, I believe he felt he was trying to protect their integrity by saying we should not attempt to distill them down to words.
As for the I cannot experience what I cannot describe... I agree with this statement deeply. Well, I think it's a function of ego or whatever you want to call it. We go through life and are shaped by our experiences. As we continue to experience life, we have more and more beliefs bouncing around in our head as a function of more experience. Ahhh, this just happened, it's like when I did X, etc etc. As we get older we get more and more bogged down by these limiting beliefs until everything we experience is going through our personal interpretive filter rather than just being experienced for what it is.
It's the Buddhist idea of the finger pointing at the moon. Don't mistake the finger(thoughts, words, etc) for the moon (the direct experience).
Well, that's been my personal experience, until I started looking inside and poking around at my belief structure, I had noooo idea how much my interpretation of the world had been shaped by prior lived experience, personally, and societally.
In your cold example... If you had no word for it, I believe most people would end up using the closest approximation out of the words they do know effectively blinding themselves to the reality of this new/unique experience for them. How though, would someone know, ahh there is no word for this, lets expand the language.
Gotta embrace not knowing/the beginners mind, and in my personal experience this is a process of subtraction rather than addition.
I had noooo idea how much my interpretation of the world had been shaped by prior lived experience
this is an interesting point. it's very true of course. there is probably some philosophical or biological explanation for this, something about optimization, because interpreting every situation from first principles takes to much effort. living in a different culture is one way to teach you to look at things differently.
but i think it is an issue independent of language. the problem is not lack of ability to describe the experience, but mistakenly using an already familiar abstraction to describe a new experience. but that's not the end of it, because repeatedly making that experience eventually helps you realize that the description you used is wrong, and you adjust to create a better description.
actually a better example than cold is the word umami. in our languages we have terms for sweet, sour, salty and bitter. turns out our body has dedicated receptors for umami, but we were not aware of that, and we never named it. even today it still feels like a foreign concept, but we have evidence that it is a real biological experience and not just a cultural idea.
the thing, is we certainly experienced umami in some way, but we could not talk about it, we were not consciously aware of it. and we still are not. i can tell very sweet from somewhat sweet to not sweet at all, but what's very umami or not umami? how does that even work? there is a whole dimension of language that our culture is missing. but, it's a cultural problem, not a linguistic one. because now we do have a word for it. and still, at least i struggle with the concept.
interestingly i think this example shows how humans learn from context. our (western) culture is missing the context for umami. we need to build up that context to allow others to learn about it.
> That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
There is a long history of major world events like this being discussed on Hacker News and it is accepted as on topic. There is also a long history of people who haven't read the guidelines asking what they have to do with tech.
Mathematics is concerned with a lot more than arithmetic and computation. Beyond the most basic levels, a mathematician will profit greatly from being aware of this type of epistemological vocabulary and a strong sense of their underlying meaning. Whether reading or writing mathematics, we're constantly dealing with propositions, and correctly taxonomising those propositions can really help keep your mental workspace clean.
I do question the effectiveness (and accuracy) of this exercise, but its learning objectives I think are quite apt.
To be honest I do not think that these word games are helpful at all. Throughout all of my mathematical education what has always helped me to keep my "mental workspace clean", was to never abandon the model.
> and correctly taxonomising those propositions
The correct taxonomy for a proposition is true/false and proven/unproven.
I can not even fathom a mathematical model where distinguishing a "law" from a "fact" is meaningful.
And the idea of defining a "fact" as something empirically demonstrated is just ridiculous, I totally reject it.
I dislike the linked site. A lot. But counterpoint: Zermelo-Frankel with or without Axiom of Choice is a fair mathematical analogue to distinguishing laws and facts, in my opinion.
Put another way, decidability is a large area of mathematical research.
>Put another way, decidability is a large area of mathematical research.
What does ZF(C) have to do with decidability? Decidability is a question in any sufficiently complex system (Gödel's first theorem). And exactly this distinction is what I made for the taxonomy of propositions, you can group them into true and false and also into provable and unprovable. What would be a fact and what would be a law?
Regardless of that, in neither case the empiricism the site uses to define a fact would play any role.
I like the argument that every number in the row below is formed by summing two numbers from above. So each number above appears twice below. Hence the sum doubles.
Thicker walked ceramic mugs are definitely common in the UK, and probably more common now than anything else, but me and my gran both agree that a proper cup of tea needs serving in a thin-walled, fine-china cup, like this: https://fegghayespottery.co.uk/product/plain-270ml-bone-chin...
Fantastic. I used to set a competition in my school maths dept to compute as many digits of pi as possible in under one minute. Was always a highlight of the year, a kind of mathematical drag race.
Happy render customer right here.
We’ve got multiple rails apps running on render.
Renders tech support team have been very helpful wherever needed also.
Should also point out the recently released Rails 8, has as key features focussed on making rails much easier to deploy to anywhere that supports Docker.
This post was written by AI
reply