The only legitimate purpose of words having definitions in the first place is to let two people communicate—the purpose of attaching certain syllables to certain concepts is to help transport meanings from one mind to another.
Not quite, I think. I frequently use words in my own thinking, and have much reason to think I’m not alone in this, and if you really think that’s illegitimate then I’d be interested to know why. (I bet you don’t.) And it sure seems like I make use of the fact that (some) words have definitions when I do that.
Even when talking to yourself, the rest of his point holds- there is nothing magical about the label “rationality” that you’re gonna find in the territory- it’s just part of how you mark up your map.
That said, I don’t actually seem to think in English (or any other interhuman language) all that much unless I’m planning out what to say (or what I want to say). This is something that I’ve only noticed fairly recently, and it seems to be something that most people don’t realize.
Talking to yourself when planning what to say certainly counts as “for communication between two people”.
Yes, the rest of Eliezer’s point holds; that would be why I didn’t criticize the rest of Eliezer’s point.
Different people think in words to different extents. (And for some of what seems like thinking in words, perhaps the word-generation is more or less epiphenomenal—though I’d expect it always has some value, e.g. in helping the short-term memory along.) I find that I use words in the same sort of way as I use diagrams or mathematical symbols: as a way to avoid losing track of what I’m thinking, and to enable some degree of rigour when it’s needed.
Yes, there are situations when talking to yourself can usefully be considered “communication between two people”, but those aren’t the situations I had in mind.
There are only two ways for the mind to consciously process information—language or images. There are some people who can apparently think clearly and precisely in images—Nikola Tesla and Temple Grandin spring immediately to mind. Language is the only way other than visual images to think consciously and precisely. For this purpose mathematics is a language.
You mean composers can’t think consciously and precisely about sound? Chefs about taste? Perfumers (sp?) about smell? Gymnasts about the feel of their moves?
They generally don’t—at least, not in ways that they can communicate to others, and if they can’t do that, why would we describe their thoughts as ‘conscious’ and ‘precise’?
I don’t see how “communicate to others” and “conscious/precise” are related. If something is unconscious, it can still be communicated unconsciously (e.g. body language). If something is imprecise, that doesn’t stop it from being communicated. Conversely, just because something is conscious or precise doesn’t mean it can be communicated, if there are no points of reference on the receiving end. If a chef or a gymnast tried to communicate with me about such matters, they would probably fail, but that doesn’t mean the failure was on their end of the conversation -- and would have nothing to do with the consciousness or precision of the thoughts involved.
The definitions you specify for a word don’t actually define it, they merely name a concept on your map. The concept is far richer than the “definition” by which you found it, and the lever of the word that you attached to it allows to patch into the deeper machinery of your mind. You can make use the levers yourself, to craft new structures with your own machinery.
None of which makes it any less true that words-with-definitions are sometimes useful in private thought as well as in communication. For instance, technical terms in mathematics such as “transitive” or “uncountable” can be used robustly in lengthy chains of reasoning largely because they have precise definitions. The fact that when I use such a word (privately or publicly) I have plenty of mental machinery linked with it besides the bare definition doesn’t stop it being a definition. (Perhaps you’re using “define” in what seems to me to be an eccentric way, such that in fact essentially no words have actual definitions. Feel free, but I don’t find that helpful.)
I think we agree, I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to show in this comment. Consider chess: what is the definition of knight’s moves? There are rules of the game that the actions of the player must follow, the distilled form of conclusions, and there is overarching machinery of thought. The rules make sure that you stay within the game after however many moves you need, and the thought allows to find the winning moves.
You seemed to be disagreeing with me, but declined to say just what your disagreement was. So I had to guess, and I tried to respond to the criticism I thought you were making. Now it appears that we are in agreement. Fair enough; what then was your point?
(My point, in case it wasn’t obvious, was that I think Eliezer erred when he wrote that the only legitimate use of definitions is to ease communication; I think they are sometimes helpful in private thought too.)
A definition is not merely a name on your map, it’s the location in the greater scheme of the map, the longitude and latitude. A definition fixes a notion with respect to some other notions, all of which together form your machinery, your belief network, your map. This machinery may bear no relation to reality, but then, to me, the point of definitions is to be clear, not accurate.
Not quite, I think. I frequently use words in my own thinking, and have much reason to think I’m not alone in this, and if you really think that’s illegitimate then I’d be interested to know why. (I bet you don’t.) And it sure seems like I make use of the fact that (some) words have definitions when I do that.
Wording changed.
Even when talking to yourself, the rest of his point holds- there is nothing magical about the label “rationality” that you’re gonna find in the territory- it’s just part of how you mark up your map.
That said, I don’t actually seem to think in English (or any other interhuman language) all that much unless I’m planning out what to say (or what I want to say). This is something that I’ve only noticed fairly recently, and it seems to be something that most people don’t realize.
Talking to yourself when planning what to say certainly counts as “for communication between two people”.
Yes, the rest of Eliezer’s point holds; that would be why I didn’t criticize the rest of Eliezer’s point.
Different people think in words to different extents. (And for some of what seems like thinking in words, perhaps the word-generation is more or less epiphenomenal—though I’d expect it always has some value, e.g. in helping the short-term memory along.) I find that I use words in the same sort of way as I use diagrams or mathematical symbols: as a way to avoid losing track of what I’m thinking, and to enable some degree of rigour when it’s needed.
Yes, there are situations when talking to yourself can usefully be considered “communication between two people”, but those aren’t the situations I had in mind.
There are only two ways for the mind to consciously process information—language or images. There are some people who can apparently think clearly and precisely in images—Nikola Tesla and Temple Grandin spring immediately to mind. Language is the only way other than visual images to think consciously and precisely. For this purpose mathematics is a language.
You mean composers can’t think consciously and precisely about sound? Chefs about taste? Perfumers (sp?) about smell? Gymnasts about the feel of their moves?
They generally don’t—at least, not in ways that they can communicate to others, and if they can’t do that, why would we describe their thoughts as ‘conscious’ and ‘precise’?
I don’t see how “communicate to others” and “conscious/precise” are related. If something is unconscious, it can still be communicated unconsciously (e.g. body language). If something is imprecise, that doesn’t stop it from being communicated. Conversely, just because something is conscious or precise doesn’t mean it can be communicated, if there are no points of reference on the receiving end. If a chef or a gymnast tried to communicate with me about such matters, they would probably fail, but that doesn’t mean the failure was on their end of the conversation -- and would have nothing to do with the consciousness or precision of the thoughts involved.
The definitions you specify for a word don’t actually define it, they merely name a concept on your map. The concept is far richer than the “definition” by which you found it, and the lever of the word that you attached to it allows to patch into the deeper machinery of your mind. You can make use the levers yourself, to craft new structures with your own machinery.
None of which makes it any less true that words-with-definitions are sometimes useful in private thought as well as in communication. For instance, technical terms in mathematics such as “transitive” or “uncountable” can be used robustly in lengthy chains of reasoning largely because they have precise definitions. The fact that when I use such a word (privately or publicly) I have plenty of mental machinery linked with it besides the bare definition doesn’t stop it being a definition. (Perhaps you’re using “define” in what seems to me to be an eccentric way, such that in fact essentially no words have actual definitions. Feel free, but I don’t find that helpful.)
I think we agree, I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to show in this comment. Consider chess: what is the definition of knight’s moves? There are rules of the game that the actions of the player must follow, the distilled form of conclusions, and there is overarching machinery of thought. The rules make sure that you stay within the game after however many moves you need, and the thought allows to find the winning moves.
You seemed to be disagreeing with me, but declined to say just what your disagreement was. So I had to guess, and I tried to respond to the criticism I thought you were making. Now it appears that we are in agreement. Fair enough; what then was your point?
(My point, in case it wasn’t obvious, was that I think Eliezer erred when he wrote that the only legitimate use of definitions is to ease communication; I think they are sometimes helpful in private thought too.)
“I think they are sometimes helpful in private thought too.”
Here I think you’re erring: definitions are absolutely necessary in conscious thought. Without them, you don’t have conscious processing.
A definition is not merely a name on your map, it’s the location in the greater scheme of the map, the longitude and latitude. A definition fixes a notion with respect to some other notions, all of which together form your machinery, your belief network, your map. This machinery may bear no relation to reality, but then, to me, the point of definitions is to be clear, not accurate.