sometimes, we do know the private, subjective experience of others — Moliere

If I touch a radiator, sometimes I notice that I quickly pull my hand away, grimace, put my hand into cold water and experience a pain. If I see someone else touch the same radiator, quickly pull their hand away, grimace and put their hand into cold water, I can infer with great certainty that they have felt the same pain.

Although we cannot put our private subjective experiences into words, we can put them into actions. Accepting Thomist philosophical axiom 7.7 "The same causes in the same circumstances produce always the same effects", it follows that our identical actions had an identical cause. As the proverb says, “action speaks louder than words”.

Ineffable is defined as "too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words". It may be that a private subjective experience cannot be described in words, however, as it is said that "words are actions", it could also be said that "actions are words", in which case putting our private subjective experiences into actions is a form of language, and therefore not ineffable.

Continuations obviously aren't the whole story, nor even necessarily part of the story for there are problems, but they seem useful in conveying the open-ended, counterfactual and inferential semantics of terms as well as accommodating the differing perspectival semantics of individual speakers. — sime

I think we are saying the same thing.

Continuation
I know very little about the concept of "continuation" in computing, other than it gives a programming language the ability to save the execution state at any point and return to that point at a later point in the program, possibly multiple times.

I understand "continuation" as the ability to return to the same instruction or idea multiple times. Using an analogy, when hiking through a hot desert, I must continually refer to a note that says "drink water".

However, I don't understand its relevance to the situation of Bob experiencing the colour white when looking at his white socks.

Observer dependent and independent properties
Going back to the question as to whether the strong flavour of coffee is an observer dependent property or an observer independent property, I would suggest that the fact that coffee has a strong flavour is an observer independent property.

The light emitted by the socks has been labelled in the English-speaking world as "white". It could well have been that a different word had been chosen, for example "green", but in the event "white" was chosen.

However, when I see "white" light, I may in fact have the private subjective experience of the colour red, and you may have the private subjective experience of the colour green. We will never know, as it is impossible for me to put my private subjective experience into words, as it is impossible for anyone to put their private subjective experience into words.

Public communication
But our private subjective experiences are irrelevant as regards communication using language. Even if I experience the colour red, I can talk about the "white" socks. Even if you experience the colour green, you can also talk about the "white" socks.

We could have a sensible conversation about the "white" socks, even though our private experiences were different.

In this sense, the public label "white" is observer independent. As regards language, "the socks are white" is true regardless of anyone's private subjective experience.

The fact that private subjective experiences of public objects are ineffable doesn't prevent sensible conversations about these public objects.

What something ‘is’ defines a use — Joshs

I don't see that there is a necessary link between what something "is" and any use that something may have, in that something may exist and yet have no use.

A stone is defined as a "hard solid non-metallic mineral matter". Stone may be used as a building material, but even if it isn't, it still remains a stone.

Coffee may be drunk, but even if never drunk, it would still be coffee.

A person is something, and if it is true that "what something "is" defines a use", then people would have no value outside of what use they had.

So in your opinion, 'dark brown' and 'strong' are observer independent properties of coffee that everyone can point at? — sime

Definitions don't need to be observer independent. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines beauty as "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it"

I agree that one only knows that coffee has a strong flavour after drinking it, in that the drinker reacts to the taste of the coffee. But even so, is it still not the case that the coffee has a strong flavour, not that the coffee causes a strong flavour? The drinker of the coffee discovers a property of the coffee.

So if a person's reaction to a coffee-stimulus is of type (stimulus -> r), then the effect of coffee on that person is by definition implicitly included in the public definition of "coffee", in spite of the fact the public definition of coffee does not know about or explicitly include that person reaction — sime

Meaning is use
If people had no use for coffee, then there wouldn't be a word for coffee, and the word "coffee" wouldn't be used in language. However, as people do have a use for coffee, there is a word for coffee, and the word "coffee" is used in language.

Definitions
The fact that people have a use for coffee means that the presence of coffee causes things to happen. However, coffee is not defined by what it may cause to happen, coffee is defined by what it is, a dark brown powder with a strong flavour.

Causation
"Coffee" would still be coffee even if it didn't cause anything to happen. But if that were the case, "coffee" would not be a word in language. It is not the coffee that is causing the person to act, it is the person's desire to drink coffee that is causing the person to act, such as getting out a cafetière.

Meaning
"Coffee" means coffee, a dark brown powder with a strong flavour. "Coffee" doesn't mean that a person will act, the desire to drink coffee means that a person will act.

One puzzle is how can we talk about something that cannot be put into words. Another puzzle is how can we talk about something that can be put into words.

Words exist as physical objects in the world, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about them, ie "word objects".



We can talk about concrete things such as apples, tables, mountains, books, and we can talk about abstract things, such as beauty, wisdom, truth, sadness. Abstract things exist in the mind, not the world. But even concrete things exist more in the mind than the world. For example, my concept of an apple has evolved over a lifetime of particular experiences, and with new knowledge is constantly changing. The concept of a city-dweller will be different to that of a farmer. The concept of a South African will be different to that of an Icelander. Our concept of the same object may be similar, but it can never be the same.

Therefore, everything we talk about, all our concepts, whether abstract or concrete, are more private than public. My concept of an aesthetic may be different to yours, but then again your concept of apple is more than likely to be different to mine.

Because word objects such as "love" and "apple" exist in the world and are simple and unchanging, I can be certain that other observers of the same word object will experience the same private concept. This is not the case with objects such as love and apple, which are complex and changing, meaning that I can be certain that other observers of the same object will not experience the same private concept.

Language is powerful because the words it uses are public. The fact that members of a society share the same private concept of public word objects, even if they don't share the private concept of the meaning of these public words, allows communication within a social group.

A word object in the world is only given meaning when linked to another object in the world. The word object "maison" has no meaning until linked to the object house. Within society such linkages are undertaken by either common usage over a long period of time or performative christenings by those accepted as authorities by the society.

Once a linkage has been made in the world between a word object such as "maison" and an object such as house, even though different individuals may probably have different private concepts of the object house, they will probably have the same private concept of the public word object "maison". Communication is then not about different private concepts of public objects but is about the same private concepts of public word objects.

For example, five apples may be labelled "red". I may in fact have the private experience of a green colour when looking at them. You may have the private experience of a blue colour. If I am asked to pass over the "red" apples, I will pass over the same apples as you, even though we have different private experiences of the colour "red". Successful communication is possible even if our private concepts of an object are different as long as the object in the world has been given a public label, ie, society has formally linked an object in the world to a word object in the world.

I can put the form of something into words even though I may not be able to put its content into words

Private feelings cannot be expressed in words: pain, anger, the colour red, the sound of a screech, an aesthetic experience, etc.

It is true that I cannot observe someone and experience their private pain, their anger, their experience of the colour red, etc, but I can observe their public interaction with the world.

Every different private feeling results in a different public interaction with the world: fear causes flight, anger causes attack, pain causes flinching, awe causes stillness, etc. Although I cannot observe someone's private feelings, I can observe their public interaction with the world, and I can infer that different public interactions with the world have been caused by different private feelings.

I can observe a particular effect and can infer a particular cause. I can observe someone flinching, infer that something particular caused the flinching, and name the cause "pain". The word "pain" is a label attached to the inferred cause of a particular effect, not a description of "pain". I can talk about "pain" as the inferred cause of a particular effect, although I cannot talk about what caused the effect.

The content of "pain" cannot be put into words, as the private feelings of another person, but the form of "pain" can be put into words, as the inferred cause of an observable effect in the world. I can put into words the public form of something even though I cannot put its private content into words.

Expressible form and ineffable contents are not mutually exclusive.

Elvis — Athena

I'm more Clanadonia.

Clanadonia Drummers on Buchanan St.

Well now, suppose our three-dimensional, holographic reality is a boundary to a higher four-dimensional reality with an inherent logic that transcends spacetime! What does that do to Boolean Logic? Aha! The perplexing strangeness of quantum mechanics. — ucarr

Similarly, if we lived in a spatially 2D universe, we would observe things appear and disappear for no logical reason. Yet, because we live in a spatially 3D universe, such appearances and disappearances are logically explainable.

Would it follow that, although we believe we live in a spatially 3D universe (ignoring the ten dimensions of Superstring Theory), the fact that some things appear illogical is evidence that in fact we are living in a spatially 4D universe.

The following example, attributed to the 14th C French philosopher Jean Buridan, illustrates the limits of logic. Consider the proposition "Someone at this moment is thinking about a proposition and is unsure whether it is true or false". Is it true or false?

You can’t be sure it’s false, because someone in Australia might be thinking, for example, about the Riemann Hypothesis, establishing the truth of which is an unsolved mathematical problem. But if you are unsure, then the proposition in that case is true, so you have established it and you aren’t unsure. Therefore, the proposition must be true: and yet as far as any of us know you might be the only person in the world who is thinking about a proposition at this moment, and you are not unsure of the truth of that proposition, because you have just established that it is true.

As Tarski showed, language is semantically closed, so even logic is limited by a self-referentiality.

@ucarr @Athena

The battle between facts and feelings.

The relationship between facts and feelings
There are various combinations:
1) I feel something but have no facts to support it. I feel that the other political party is a threat to democracy but have no facts to back up my feelings.
2) I have the facts but have no feelings about them one way or another. I know that the elephant can eat as much as 200kg of plants in a single day, but such factual knowledge is of no importance to me.
3) I feel something and have the facts to back them up. I feel that Modernist art is more artistically important than Postmodernist art, and can present facts that justify my belief.
4) Sometimes facts and feelings are coexistent. My feeling of a pain is a fact, my emotion about an aesthetic is a fact and my conscious awareness of the colour red is a fact.

A logical language may express the illogical ideas.
Language is founded on grammar and grammar is intrinsically logical. A language that was not logical would be incomprehensible. However, language using a grammar that is intrinsically logical may be used to express ideas that are intrinsically illogical: "When the day becomes the night and the sky becomes the sea, When the clock strikes heavy and there's no time for tea. And in our darkest hour, before my final rhyme, she will come back home to Wonderland and turn back the hands of time." A word such as "Wonderland" may have a logical sense even though it may not refer to any logical fact in the world.

Education requires both facts and feelings
Education without both facts and feelings is doomed to failure. We may admire Monet's The Magpie 1868 for its aesthetic and representational brilliance, but the painting becomes more memorable when we know that in the same year he wrote “I must have undoubtedly been born under an unlucky star. I’ve just been turned out without even a shirt on my back from the inn in which I was staying. My family refused to help me any more. I don’t know where I’ll sleep. I was so upset yesterday that I was stupid enough to hurl myself into the water. Fortunately no harm was done.” Effective communication rests on an appropriate mix of facts and feelings. Ineffective communication happens when one or the other is ignored.

Deconstruction of text
It is unfortunately common today for mainstream media to put their audience into a certain emotional frame of mind using only those facts that support their point of view. Taking a specific example, if at a particular moment in time five facts supporting Brexit have been discovered and five against, it would not be unexpected for the BBC to publish one for and four against, and protest that they only publish the facts, which is true. Such is an example of Derrida's concept of presence and absence, where a text must be deconstructed in order to arrive at a correct interpretation.

Deconstruction of metaphysics
Similarly in the philosophical aspect of metaphysical dualistic oppositions, where an hierarchy is established that privileges one thing over another. Certain logic is built on the metaphysical claim that internal/external, absence/presence, is sharply and clearly defined, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. Here, both A and not A cannot be true. But this assumes A and not A are external to each other. But in reality, this is never possible. If A is a proposition, can A ever be free of the proposition not A. "I am in Paris" means that "I am not in Marseilles", "I am not dead", "Me not someone else", etc, but it must be the case that the meaning of "I am in Paris" includes the meanings "I am not in Marseilles",etc. The truth and meaning of of proposition A "I am in Paris" must include all those propositions not A.

Summary
Effective communication requires both feeling and facts and using a language that is fundamentally logical yet can express ideas that are far from logical.

@ucarr @Athena

Logic and grammar

There was no magical moment when non-human animals became human animals.
I cannot imagine a magical moment when one day animals communicated without language, had instinct without logic, were without conscious cognition of concepts, lacked any sense of morality and the next day were able to communicate with language, had reason with logic, had conscious cognition of concepts and thought about the moral implications of their actions. It seems more sensible to assume a gradual evolutionary change between animals with lower intellectual abilities to animals with a higher intellectual abilities, a process lasting millions of years.

Humans must have an innate ability to perceive what is logical
In order to perceive the colour red, I must have the a priori ability to perceive red. Humans cannot perceive the infra-red as they have no innate a priori ability to perceive infrared. Similarly, for a human to understand logic they must have a pre-existing innate ability, an ability already existing in non-human animals. It would be logically impossible for an animal to be able to perceive something of which they no innate a priori ability to perceive.

The definition of language
The Britannica defines language as "a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves" If language is defined as something used by humans, then I agree that animals don't have language. But as a cursory search on the internet brings up numerous example discussions of non-human animal language, then I cannot accept any definition of language that does not include both human and non-human animals. Of course, human language is far more complex than non-human language, but this is a difference in quantity not quality.

Grammar is logical
Traditional logic is based on grammar, such as all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal. The validity of an argument depends on the relationship between subject and predicate, meaning that if you don't know what a subject and predicate are, then you cannot determine the validity of the argument. Traditional logic depends on knowing the parts of speech. Parts of speech such as categoramatic words, nouns such as men, mortal and Socrates and syncategorematic words, such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Parts of speech such as quantity, such as how much, how many and quality, such as intelligent, honest. Parts of speech such as prepositions such as against, on top of and conjunctions, such as and, but, although. To learn grammar requires one to learn logic, to have the logical skill of analysis and synthesis, how to make distinctions and how to see resemblances.

The natural world is logical
Life has evolved in synergy with the natural world over 750 million years, not independently, but as a single unity. Life has been dependent on its survival because of its intimate relationship with the world in which it lives. Logic is intrinsic in the world and logic begins in the space-time of the world. For example, an object A is object A, object A is not object B, if object A is to the left of object B then object B is to the right of object A, if object B is added to object A then there are two objects, if there are three objects and one is removed then two objects remain. The logic humans use is founded on the logic they discover in the world. Onto this fundamental logic discovered in the natural world that is known instinctively, innately and a priori, a more complex logic may be developed within language, such as the study of arguments, inductive and deductive logic, syllogisms, propositional logic, first order logic etc.

How to discover the nature of reality using a semantically closed language
The question is how can language serve as a basis of a metaphysical philosophy that enquires about the nature of reality, of what is universal and necessary. As Tarski observed, language is semantically closed, yet the nature of reality is external to the language that is attempting to discover it. As Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus, "what can be shown, cannot be said". As David Hume showed our knowledge is not absolute but based on inference, where all we can say is that after observing the constant conjunction between two events A and B for a duration of time, we become convinced that A causes B.

Understanding using language can only be metaphorical
It seems that the best we can achieve in our understanding of the nature of reality is our use of language as metaphorical, in that all we can really say, as it were, is that There Are More Stars In The Universe Than There Are Grains Of Sand On Earth.

The argument (taken from Fred Bieser — KantDane21

It would be easier if you gave a link to the source, as premise one doesn't make any sense
and premise two is ungrammatical.

I think that Kant's use of "cognition" isn't that loose. — Moliere

:up:

Another route would be to note that Kant is apparently making a point about cognition — Srap Tasmaner

The OP proposes: "Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance"

I am unsure whether the intention is to put the above passage into first order logic as it stands independently of Kant or into first order logic such that it agrees with Kant's philosophy.

Because it seems that the above passage does not agree with Kant's philosophy, in that he wrote in Critique of Pure Reason: "we can have cognition of no object as a thing in itself, but only insofar as it is an object of sensible intuition, i.e. as an appearance."

Of course, as an exercise it can still be put into first order logic regardless of Kant's philosophy.

As an aside, even though Kant argued that there can be no cognition of noumena, there can still be cognition about noumena, as this thread attests.

Our disagreement seems to be about what logic has to do with thinking foolishly or logically. — Athena

Bird sounds and language are not the same thing. — Athena

There is language and Language

Lakna Panawala's article What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain makes sense to me.

She wrote:
1) The main difference between humans’ brain and animals’ brain is that humans’ brain has a remarkable cognitive capacity, which is a crowning achievement of evolution whereas animals’ brain shows comparatively less cognitive capacity.
2) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
3) Humans’ brain has the ability of complex processing such as conscious thought, language, and self-awareness due to the presence of a large neocortex while animals’ brain has a less ability of complex processing.

I find it hard to believe that there was a magical moment when one day there was no language and the next day there was language. Surely, language has developed over a long period of time.

Lakna wrote that humans have more ability of complex processing than non-human animals, not that non-human animals don't have any ability of complex processing. She wrote that complex processing includes conscious thought, language and self-awareness.

@ucarr used the division language-general of non-human animals and language-verbal of humans. Another terminological division could be between language of non-human animals and Language of humans, where language with a capital L is defined as language practised by humans. If this were the case, then I would agree that non-human animals don't have Language, although I would still argue that non-human animals do have language.

Every living thing communicates in some way. To be able to communicate requires a means of communication. Language is a means of communication.

Non-human animals communicate using non-verbal signals, bees dance, hummingbirds use visual displays, etc. Humans communicate using both non-verbal and verbal communication, smiling, crying, speaking, writing, etc.

The Britannica defines human language as a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves.

Wikipedia defines animal language as communication using a variety of signs, such as sounds and movement.

In summary, both non-human animals and humans communicate using language. Non-human animal language is non-verbal, human language is both non-verbal and verbal.

Out of interest who says crows don't have language? — Benj96

My response to @ucarr presented a hypothetical, not my belief that crows don't have language.

@ucarr had previously written: "Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you can’t practice cognition outside of language".

If it is true as I believe that the crow is using cognition, and if it is true as @ucarr wrote that it is not possible to cognize outside language, then it would follow that crows must have language.

(1) is valid — Srap Tasmaner

I cognize something x. Cognition is a higher level function of the brain. I can cognize about x both as an appearance and a noumenon.

As regards cognition, then why not A → (~B ˄ B) ?

This also follows the two-aspect interpretation of Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance" — KantDane21

As regards cognition, it is not a case of either-or, in that I can both cognize about appearance and cognize about noumena, such that P ˄ Q is possible.

Cognizing about an appearance and cognizing about something that caused the appearance are not mutually exclusive.

Although I can cognize about the concept of noumena, because, by the definition of noumena, I can never perceive noumena in the world, I can never cognize about particular noumena.

cognition — KantDane21

Perhaps "perception" would be a more suitable word than "cognition" in this situation. Cognition implies an active act of manipulating concepts. Perception implies a passive observation.

In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make? — ucarr

The article How human language could have evolved from birdsong differentiates between the expression part of language and the lexical part of language. For example, given the lexical components of subject "John", verb "to see" and object "bird", many different expressions may be created. Such as: "did John see the bird?", "John saw the bird", "you say that John saw the bird", etc. This is syntax and the semantics.

The article proposes that the foundations of the expression part of language and the lexical part of language were pre-existing in various non-human animals prior to human language.

Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language only began about 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Was there a magical spark that gave language to humans? It seems more sensible to believe that human language developed from something pre-existing in non-human animals.

Overall bird design, with its wings, weak legs, lack of arms and beak instead of mouth, suggests a life form engineered by evolution for life in the air. — ucarr

Birds being engineered by evolution sounds remarkably teleological. Were feathers engineered by evolution for flight, or did animals having feathers discover they could fly. As Aristotle said: “…Natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of spontaneity or chance is this true …it follows that they must be for an end…”

It has been suggested that feathers had originally functioned as thermal insulation, as it remains their function in the down feathers of infant birds today, prior to their eventual modification in birds into structures that support flight.

It is considered probable that many, if not all, non-avian dinosaur species also possessed feathers in some shape or form. For example, the coelurosaurs were a small, slender bipedal carnivorous dinosaur with long forelimbs, believed to be an evolutionary ancestor of birds. I cannot picture the Tyrannosauroidea, a member of the coelurosaur family, flying, even though it probably had feathers.

What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain — Lakna

I agree with the Lakna article, where she wrote:
1) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
2) Humans’ brain has the ability of complex processing such as conscious thought, language, and self-awareness due to the presence of a large neocortex while animals’ brain has a less ability of complex processing.
3) Humans’ brain produces a high cognitive capacity with complex processing including conscious thought, language, and self-awareness............animals show less cognitive capacities.
This agrees with what I previously wrote in that "It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality."

I agree with you when you wrote that i) reacting to the environment is not logical thinking, ii) imitating others is not a function of logic, iii) perception must not be confused with logic.

I agree with you when you wrote that believing a god gave us language is neither reasonable nor logical. Society needs reason and logic.

Though I disagree with you when you wrote that i) most of our thinking is learned, ii) logical thinking is not an inborn talent but something you learn.

Is thinking learnt
Cognition is a higher level function of the brain and manipulates concepts used in reasoning, logic and language. Cognition requires thinking, but thinking does not require cognition, ie, I can think about my observation of a fact in the world without of necessity cognizing about it. IE, as thinking doesn't require cognition, it is innate and does not need to be learnt.

Is logical thinking an inborn talent or learnt
The Lakna article makes the point that it is not that humans are intelligent and cognitive whereas non-human animals are neither intelligent nor cognitive, rather he makes the point that both humans and non-human animals have some degree of intelligence and cognitive ability. IE, as cognition is present in both humans and non-human animals, cognition and thereby logical reasoning is part of the evolutionary process rather than something solely learnt by humans - though of course humans can improve their innate logical reasoning through subsequent learning.

Reacting to our environment is not equal to logical thinking. — Athena

Where did human language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness come from if not from pre-existing non-human animal abilities ?

Humans are animals. Today, the human animal has a particular ability as regards language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness that non-human animals don't seem to have.

Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language, etc is relatively recent, possibly within the last 30,000 to 100,00 years.

I can understand human language, etc as a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that whilst feathers evolved for warmth, as a by-product could be used for flight. I can understand human language as combining two existing forms of communication, the expression layer, eg found in birds, and the lexical layer, eg found in bees.

However, if that is not the case, I cannot understand the mechanism that originated human language, etc totally independently from any pre-existing non-human animal ability.

My question is, what is the mechanism that enabled the origination of human language etc
totally independently of any pre-existing non-human animal ability.

An alligator will endure an electric shock once its teeth get hold of meat but if it does not have the taste of meat, it will pull away from the shock — Athena

Sounds very human to me.

Being able to reason through complex concepts is unique to humans — Athena

It depends on where the line is drawn between a complex concept and a simple concept

My belief is that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation. IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed (using the term animal to refer to non-human).

It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality. After all, if animals were not able to reason and conceptualise, then humans would have had nothing to build on.

There are many professionals who believe that animals can reason and conceptualise

For example, as regards reasoning:
Planning for the future by western scrub-jays
Animal cognition
Do animals have reflective minds

As regards conceptualising:
Many animals can think abstractly
Analogical reasoning in animals
Ability of animals to think abstract concepts

Such a conclusion would not be surprising, as humans are animals. I am sure that even the crow has a basic understanding of the concept "on top of" (what we call a preposition), in that the crow certainly perceives that the food is on top of the water. Though I am sure other articles may be found concluding the opposite.

Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning — Athena

The crow must be cognisant of the following concepts in order to gain the food:

Causation = putting a stone into the water will cause the water level to rise.
Negation = not putting a stone in the water will not cause the water to rise
Time = because putting a stone in the water in the past caused the water level to rise, putting a stone in the water in the future will cause the water level to rise
Space = the stone is spatially separated to the water
Logic = the water level will rise if a stone is put into the water. If the crow puts a stone into the water, then the water level will rise
Open-endedness = the stone the crow uses may be different in size and shape to the stone observed by the crow in the past
Concepts = the crow cognizes the glass beaker is not the stone
Relations = the crow must cognize that the food is on top of the water
Reasoning = the crow is observed to act in an ordered and rational way
Hypotheticals = the crow must reason that if a stone is put into the water, then the water level will rise.
Displacement (things not present) = the crow must cognize that the food will rise up the beaker if a stone is put into the water
Open response = the crow cannot predict how many stones are required to sufficiently raise the water level, but continues until it has reached its goal.
Questioning = the crow examines its environment in order to discover what tools are available for it to reach its goal.
Concrete nouns = the crow can distinguish between the beaker and the stone
Abstract nouns = the crow's hunger determines its course of action
Verbs = the crow cognizes that movement of the stone is required
Prepositions = the crow must cognize that the stone is outside the beaker.
Simile = the stone the crow uses may be different in size, colour and shape to the stone previously observed.
Conjunction = the glass beaker is not the stone, meaning that there is a glass beaker and a stone.
Adverb = the crow cognizes that the stone must be moved carefully and deliberately
Adjective = the crow cognizes that the colour of the stone is not relevant to its task.

IE, pre-language, the crow has the necessary concepts required for language.

Animals can communicate but that is not the same as conceptualizing and reasoning which are dependent on language — Athena

How human language could have evolved from birdsong

The article suggests that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that that human language combines two forms of communication already found in the animal kingdom. There is the expression layer, the changeable organisation of sentences, such as birdsong, where learning plays a role in song development as it does in language development. There is the the lexical layer, such as the communicative waggles of bees. At some point between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of communication.

IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed.

That's animal communication not language. Conveying information is not a high enough bar for language. — Baden

What is language for if not conveying information ?

I think he would agree that the perception of logical connection is essentially non-verbal, and language follows later as an attempt to communicate the logical connection to others — alan1000

I agree @ucarr did write i) "grammar, the inferential platform and medium of language, is synonymous with logic" ii) Grammar is logic iii) logic is almost the same word for human utterance iv) Logic, then, being an attribute of language, stands subordinate to language. However, I don't know whether @ucarr is saying that logic or language came first.

My belief is that language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation. This is the theory posed by linguist Noam Chomsky and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in that language evolved as a result of other evolutionary processes, essentially making it a by-product of evolution and not a specific adaptation. The idea that language was a spandrel, a term coined by Gould, flew in the face of natural selection. In fact, Gould and Chomsky pose the theory that many human behaviours are spandrels. These various spandrels came about because of a process Darwin called "pre-adaptation," which is now known as exaptation. This is the idea that a species uses an adaptation for a purpose other than what it was initially meant for. One example is the theory that bird feathers were an adaptation for keeping the bird warm, and were only later used for flying. Chomsky and Gould hypothesize that language may have evolved simply because the physical structure of the brain evolved, or because cognitive structures that were used for things like tool making or rule learning were also good for complex communication. This falls in line with the theory that as our brains became larger, our cognitive functions increased.

The sentence "come here" doesn't contain any preposition, yet signifies a spatio-temporal relation.

I infer you've concluded the video shows no practice of language by the crow. — ucarr

It depends what you mean by language.

Britannica defines language as "a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves." However, birds, as well as other animals do have language, in the sense that their calls, postures and other behaviours do convey information to other birds and animals, such as location of predators and sources of food.

The crow clearly cognizes that the food is on top of the water, and so is aware of the concept "on top of", which we call a preposition.

The crow has an awareness of logic. The crow knows that the water level will rise if an object is placed into the water. Therefore, the crow knows that if it places an object into the water, then the water level will rise.

Other crows learn that the water level will rise if an object is placed into it, not through verbal communication, but through behavioural communication, by observation of the behaviour of the crow attempting to reach the food.

There are two main theories as to how language evolved. Either i) as an evolutionary adaptation or ii) a by-product of evolution and not a specific adaptation. As feathers were an evolutionary adaptation helping to keep the birds warm, once evolved, they could be used for flight. Thereby, a by-product of evolution rather than a specific adaptation. Similarly for language, the development of language is relatively recent, between 30,000 and 1000,000 years ago. As the first animals emerged about 750 million years ago, this suggests that language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation.

I would propose that the human is not conscious of 99% of those events within the body necessary for the body to survive in the world, eg, heart rate, etc. I would also propose that 99% of what the human is conscious of at any moment in time is not linguistic, eg, when driving we don't have time to verbalise everything we are aware of within each constantly changing scene. I would conclude that at any moment in time, 99.99% (metaphorically speaking) of the actions taken by the body necessary to survive in the world it finds itself are not linguistic. IE, human interactions with the world are not fundamentally qualitatively different to that of a non-linguistic crow, although admittedly are quantitatively different.

Humans don't need language to survive in the world, but language enables the communication of thoughts between people. This creates a collective mind that is far more powerful than any individual mind making it up. Language thereby allows each individual a greater understanding of the world than would be possible without language. With such understanding, they have the possibility to significantly alter the environment they find themselves within.

Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you can’t practice cognition outside of language. — ucarr

Causal understanding of water displacement by a crow

It seems that the crow is using cognition. If the crow has no language, then it is using cognition outside of language.

It's like if the forms instead of being beautiful Platonic understanding, is just really a mining of complexities. — schopenhauer1

Do you mean something like the following ?

The graduate engineer was given the task of designing a bridge. The engineer went away and came back three weeks later with 100 sheets of computer printout, having laboriously checked each line and ensured that each piece of data was consistent with all other pieces of data, that there were no arithmetic errors and each part built up logically into a whole.

The senior engineer in charge, just approaching retirement, tore off a scrap of paper, took out their pencil, and after an hour, told the graduate engineer that their design was correct.

The graduate engineer had mined the complexities logically joining each part together to create a whole. The senior engineer started by looking at the whole, excluded that which was secondary, and only concentrated on that which was essential.

The graduate engineer lived in the cave looking at shadows. The senior engineer lived outside the cave looking at the beautiful Forms.

Pessimism is one of the consequences of not knowing what is important and not knowing what can be excluded, of knowing what doesn't need to be known. Optimism is one of the consequences of knowing what is important and knowing what can be excluded, of not knowing what doesn't need to be known.

We are estranged, but not everyone. — schopenhauer1

Alienation and technology

The technology that runs our lives is increasingly growing beyond the understanding of a single individual, with the disconnect increasing year by year.

A disconnect is of itself not a problem. As long as one can turn the lights on, potholes are filled in in the roads, the buses run on time and the citizen's life is angst-free, and where each citizen plays their part in the smooth running of the public services, then such a disconnect is not to be feared. As long as technology works to the benefit of the individual, the individual may pragmatically accept the benefits of a technology they may not understand. I don't need to know details of the crankcase to know that if I turn the key the car moves where I want it to move.

But as soon as the citizen begins to suffer at the hands of a technology that they are disconnected from, and are unable to either control or mitigate, then the situation becomes dire, and it is then we have become cogs in a blind machine with no real agency. A disconnect becomes problematic when technology no longer works for the benefit of the individual, and the individual is powerless to alter or control the technology they are suffering under. Typically, the increasing use of gaslighting being used by those who control the information that we depend on for our knowledge of a world that exists on the other side of our computer and phone screens.

Information technology, the electronic screen between us and the world, is turning us into Truman Burbanks. A world where information technology controls every aspect of our lives, where we live in a false reality, as an actor on a stage populated by other actors. We play a role, directed by unknown forces behind the images we see on the screens. We are perceiving a world that has already been interpreted by a media more concerned with advertising profits and its own financial benefits than the well-being of its consumers.

Information technology is leading us to a dystopian future where we are unknowingly trapped inside a simulated and virtual realist, a Matrix, where the individual is more a source of energy for the machine than a free person with independent hopes, desires and wishes.

Information technology, with its databases creating a synthetic world populated by all of us as electronic images is creating a world where we can all be be surveilled and regimented. As in Orwell's 1984, subjected to historical negationism and propaganda, facilitated by servants of the controllers in an omnipresent government, repressing and controlling the allowed behaviour of people in society.

Information technology works to minimise the power of the individual in order to gain more control. Individual European nation states are subsumed into a supranational political and economic European Union. Small countries of 5 million people intimately knowing their political leaders are bound into organisations run and controlled by unelected bureaucrats, responsible to a distant Commission rather than the population they are intended to serve. Where their oath of allegiance of the bureaucrats is to an amorphous group rather than their home country, where the individual becomes powerless and unrepresented amongst 400 million others, where the political leaders of the member countries are decided by the diktat of central bureaucrats and economists.

Alienation is not a new phenomenon. The masses have always been alienated. In the past it was powerlessness in the face of the forces of Mother Nature. Today, it is the increasing powerlessness in the face of the Big Brother computer algorithm.

I don't think this is true. If life was disconnected from what sustains it then it would not be sustained. Perhaps you mean that the discursive intellect cannot fully understand life and what sustains it? — Janus

I wrote "Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it"

Consider the OP "We are disconnected from that which sustains us"

The Merriam Webster dictionary illustrates the complexity of the words "life" and "sustain"

The word "life" as a noun may be used in a physical context, as in 1a "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 2a "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - children are the joy of our lives".

Similarly, the word "sustain" as a verb may be used in a physical context, as in 2 "to supply with sustenance : NOURISH, or may be used in an emotional and intellectual sense, as in 5 "to buoy up - sustained by hope".

The title of the thread is "Series in pessimism: We can never know what sustains us". The thread is about our being emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what sustains us, where what sustains us is technology. Pessimism is the emotional part. Knowing is the intellectual part.

There are four possible meanings to the statement "we are disconnected from that which sustains us":
1) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
2) We are physically disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectually sense.
3) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense.
4) We are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in an emotionally and intellectual sense.

I agree with you that item 1) can be removed as illogical. Items 2) and 4) can also be removed as illogical. This leaves item 3).

Meaning depends on context. Sentences cannot be taken out of context.

Therefore, in the context of the Thread - "we are disconnected from that which sustains us" can only mean "we are emotionally and intellectually disconnected from technology which sustains us in a physical sense."

However, although the misuse of technology may be one contributor to alienation within society, it is not the only cause, as alienation existed in societies pre-modern technology.

The workings of the universe to prehistoric humans would have been mysterious, but there would have been a reverence to the mystery as well..............The modern world is mysterious, but in a mundane and/or perplexing way................Is it any wonder that people are so miserable?. — _db

Prehistoric humans may well have understood their simple tools and lived in reverence to a mysterious world. Modern humans may well not understand their complex tools, their computers, their Social Media, and live perplexed and disconnected in a mysterious world

Yet these two conditions are not mutually exclusive

The prehistoric human may have suffered misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their physical suffering, in growing crops in time of famine. The modern human may suffer misery from tools inadequate to mitigate their mental suffering, in gaining what they think they deserve.

The prehistoric human's misery did not come from having unachievable expectations, their misery came from what they knew to expect from life. The prehistoric human knew that they would never be treated like Royalty, they knew they were and would remain a low part of the hierarchy. They knew they would never be part of the decision making process, their opinion would never be respected and they knew their income would only be sufficient for basic survival. Their misery came from an acceptance of a hard and brutal life

The modern human may be miserable because they have expectations that are unachievable
The modern human expects to be treated like Royalty, regardless of birth. They expect to be an integral part of the decision making process, even if they have insufficient knowledge. They expect their opinion to be respected regardless of whether it has sense or not. They expect to have an income even if they haven't earned it. Their misery comes from unwarranted expectations of what they are due from life.

Modern humans look back to a Golden Age, a mysterious world where lives were lived in reverence to the great unknown. A Golden Age where the greatest of tasks were accomplished. A time as described by the early Greek and Roman poets as better and more pure. Hesiod described the Golden Age as a time where all humans were created directly by the Olympian Gods, living lives in peace and harmony. Oblivious to death, and dying peacefully in their sleep unmarked by sickness and old age. Ovid described it as a time before man learned the art of navigation, and as a pre-agricultural society.

Today, people look back with nostalgia to the Noble Savage who has not been corrupted by modern civilization and symbolizes humanity's innate goodness. The idealized picture of a human at one with nature, living in harmony with nature in a romantic primitivism .
As John Dryden wrote in The Conquest of Granada 1672:
I am as free as nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran.

Is it true that misery is a modern phenomenon ? Consider The Great Famine of 1315–1317 and Black Death of 1347–1351 which reduced the population by more than a half. The Little Ice Age brought harsher winters with reduced harvest, resulting in malnutrition which increased susceptibility to infections due to a weakened immune system. The Great Famine struck much of North West Europe 1315 to 1317 reducing the population by more than 10%. Many of the larger countries were at war. England and France in the Hundred Years War, a time when when landowners and the Monarchy raised the rents of their tenants. In 1318, anthrax attacked the sheep and cattle of Europe, further reducing the food supply and income of the peasantry. As Europe moved into the Little Ice Age, floods disrupted harvests and caused mass famines. The Bovine Pestilence of 1319 to 1320 affected milk production, and as much of the peasant's protein was obtained from dairy resulted in nutritional deficiencies. Famine and pestilence, exacerbated with the prevalence of war during this time, led to the death of an estimated ten to fifteen percent of Europe's population. The Black Death was was fatal to an estimated thirty to sixty percent of the population where the disease was present. Before the 14th century, popular uprisings against overlords were common. During the 14th and 15th C there were mass movements and popular uprisings across Europe.

Hobbes described the state of nature as "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"

I don't think misery is a modern phenomenon.

We are disconnected from that which sustains us. — schopenhauer1

It has always been thus. Nothing has changed. I am sure that pre-technology the world was just as mysterious as it is today. Life has always been disconnected from what has sustained it.

And one could equally have written: "I’m particularly talking about the aspect of human existence where we cannot understand the forces of nature that we use and replicate. If anything, we can know and/or replicate a very very small portion of it."

In fact, we don't need to "know" what sustains us if our approach is Pragmatic. Pragmatism requires neither a pessimistic nor optimistic frame of mind. Pragmatism works equally well both pre and post-technology. Pragmatism avoids a descent into pessimism because of not "knowing" what sustains us.

I press the enter key. I don't "know" why what happens happens. I am just optimistic that what I intend will happen will happen.

There are different definitions of neo Luddite. However, the definition given in the OP is: "An individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons."

I am surprised that 36% of those Forum members who responded believe that the world-view of an individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons is dangerous.

I could understand 36% finding the world-view of an individual dangerous if the world-view was based on dogmatism, prejudice or fanaticism.

But what better reasons are there to have a position on a topic than ethical, moral or philosophical ?

Simon Fraser's article What is a Neo-Luddite expands on the topic.

Is the neo-Luddite worldview dangerous? — Bret Bernhoft

You define Neo Luddism as "An individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons", and ask "Is the neo-Luddite world-view dangerous?".

The Wikipedia article on Neo Luddism concludes "Neo-Luddism distinguishes itself from the philosophy originally associated with Luddism in that Luddism opposes all forms of technology, whereas neo-Luddism only opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society."

In what way is the view that opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society dangerous ?

Whether or not any given meta-language sentence is a translation of any given object-language sentence is a separate matter entirely. — Michael

Susan Haack Philosophy of Logics
"Tarski emphasises that the (T) schema is not a definition of truth – though in spite of his insistence he has been misunderstood on this point. It is a material adequacy condition: all instances of it must be entailed by any definition of truth which is to count as 'materially adequate'. The point of the (T) schema is that, if it is accepted, it fixes not the intension or meaning but the extension of the term 'true'".

Given the T-schema - "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white

From my reading, Tarski's T-schema doesn't give the meaning, ie intension, of "snow is white", but if "snow is white" is true, then the T-schema does give the extension of "snow is white", ie snow is white. The T-schema, in not giving an intension for "snow is white", is using the concept of "satisfaction" to allow for a recursive definition of truth.

As the T-schema doesn't give the intension of "snow is white", then it doesn't allow translation between "snow is white" and "schnee ist weiss".

Yes, whether "snow is white" is a translation of "schnee ist weiss" is a separate matter to Tarski's T-schema.

You seem to know a helluva lot about the history of language. — Agent Smith

I'm pretty confident that 100,000 years ago people weren't going around saying "snow is white".

Tarski mentioned no such pointless tautology. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I quite agree that Tarski never said ""snow" denotes snow because "snow" denotes snow".

But I imagine you are inferring that I said that Tarski made this tautological comment.

I have never said Tarski made this tautological comment.

I made the tautological comment to illustrate, as Umberto Eco and others have done, the complexity of meaning in the word "denote".

But Tarski doesn't need to give a comprehensive account of meaning to make his point. — Michael

But if we don't know what Tarski means by the words he uses, then how do we know what he means ?