My essay
Mmmk, here is a draft for my essay for my phylosophy class. If you wanted to comment on it, proofread it, or just enjoy it, go ahead. It was kinda rushed so I'm sure it has issues, both grammatical and in composition. Any help would be awesome! :P
The Correlation of Thought and Language
Where does thought come from? This question and it's derivations are arguably one of the most discussed questions in the history of Philosophy. Wittgenstein has a strong view on thought, namely that it cannot exist without the presence of language. Language, Wittgenstein argues, is the key to thought. Wittgenstein's postulations and the question of thought has gained new appreciation with the onset of the digital computers. Starting with Alan Turing, many have wondered if it is possible for these computers to show human thought. Given Wittgenstein's argument, it would seem he would argue against the idea of anything other than a human showing capability of human thought - I will argue why Wittgenstein's argument is not a reason to discount the possibility of thought in digital computers.
In John L. Casti's book The Cambridge Quintet, Wittgenstein's views on thought and language were summarized in a fictitious argument with Alan Turing, long considered the father of Artificial Intelligence. Wittgenstein argues that "...some type of language is required for thought" (115). He backs up this argument by noting that thought, at least how it is defined in humans, is basically a series of judgments - everything is being judged. And, in order to make a judgment, language is a necessity. He furthers this point by saying "Human language is a rule-based activity" (115), and that those rules are determined by social interaction and being around other language speakers. This suggests that thought requires being in a social environment around other thinkers, communicating thoughts in the same way. This postulation is a blow to the world of strong Artificial Intelligence, for this suggests that machine would never be capable of human thought because it is not human - and therefore cannot surround itself with “human peers.” Wittgenstein would argue that because human language can never be recognized with digital computers, they can never think like a human.
One of Wittgenstein's mast gaping holes is how he fails to account for for individuals who do not think like what most would consider normal. Many people with extreme disabilities are incapable of communicating with others and do not understand much of the communication that is bestowed to them. Does this mean that these individuals do not think? It was thought at one time that those who cannot communicate are not thinking, and some actually considered these individuals sub-human (such as the famous case of Helen Keller). However, as with Helen Keller, it has been proven that many of these individuals incapable of communication or understanding social environments are very intelligent. How can Wittgenstein say that language in a social environment is crucial to the formation of thought when those without language are perfectly capable of thinking?
Another similar problem with Wittgenstein's argument is the case of most Autistic individuals. For many people with Autism, language does not come naturally. In fact, as explained by professor Temple Grendin who experiences Autism, “I do not think in words like everyone else does. I think in pictures, I see objects in my mind...I was surprised to find out that other people think much differently than myself.” This first-hand experience paints a very different picture than the one brushed my Wittgenstein. Grendin's evidence suggests that thought is not based in language at all, people are perfectly capable of thought without thinking in any particular language, and especially not thinking in the same way that people speak. Grendin goes on to say that some autistic children “may think the tone of the language is the communication, rather than the words. And then you gotta teach them that the words have meaning.” This again shows that there is thought without the presence of a social language.
There have also been strides in the Artificial Intelligence world of creating seemingly intelligent beings without modeling any kind of language. Rodney Brooks in his paper titled “Intelligence without Representation” describes his work on intelligent systems without giving them any kind of representative data like a model of the world or any kind of language. Brooks feels that “mobility, acute vision, and the ability to carry out survival related tasks in a dynamic environment provide a necessary basis for the development of true intelligence” (397). If I may abstract his meaning of intelligence to be simply a series of purposeful thoughts, then Brooks seems to be going against what Wittgenstein is saying. Even further, Brooks is proving his theory by actually creating “creatures” (as he calls them) which follow these basic rules. One could argue if his current creatures have any kind of thought, but his developments in Artificial Intelligence are stunning, to the point where it seems to be possible forthese creatures to, at some point, show the behaviors of human-like thought all without understand our language as we understand it.
All of this evidence points against Wittgenstein's argument for language the key for the creation of thought. However, it may be a bit misguided to think that there is no correlation between language and thought. It is possible that the development of language certainly attributes to the formation of thought to some degree, but as shown it is not cause the formulation of thought. I feel instead Wittgenstein may have placed a wrongful causation with regards to the impact of language on thought; it may be more correct to say that language is the result of thought, not the cause of thought. It is clear that throughout human evolution it was imperative that thoughts and ideas be transferred from person to person, and language was created out of that need. That is to say, thought came before language; language is nothing more than a result of thoughts.
[1006 Words]
Works Cited
Brooks, Rodney A. “Intelligence Without Representation.” 1991. Mind Design II. Ed. John Haugeland. Cambridge, MS: MIT, 1997. 395-420.
Casti, John L. The Cambridge Quintet: A Work of Scientific Speculation. Reading, MS: Persues, 1999
Grandin, Temple. “My Experience With Autism.” June, 2007
The Correlation of Thought and Language
Where does thought come from? This question and it's derivations are arguably one of the most discussed questions in the history of Philosophy. Wittgenstein has a strong view on thought, namely that it cannot exist without the presence of language. Language, Wittgenstein argues, is the key to thought. Wittgenstein's postulations and the question of thought has gained new appreciation with the onset of the digital computers. Starting with Alan Turing, many have wondered if it is possible for these computers to show human thought. Given Wittgenstein's argument, it would seem he would argue against the idea of anything other than a human showing capability of human thought - I will argue why Wittgenstein's argument is not a reason to discount the possibility of thought in digital computers.
In John L. Casti's book The Cambridge Quintet, Wittgenstein's views on thought and language were summarized in a fictitious argument with Alan Turing, long considered the father of Artificial Intelligence. Wittgenstein argues that "...some type of language is required for thought" (115). He backs up this argument by noting that thought, at least how it is defined in humans, is basically a series of judgments - everything is being judged. And, in order to make a judgment, language is a necessity. He furthers this point by saying "Human language is a rule-based activity" (115), and that those rules are determined by social interaction and being around other language speakers. This suggests that thought requires being in a social environment around other thinkers, communicating thoughts in the same way. This postulation is a blow to the world of strong Artificial Intelligence, for this suggests that machine would never be capable of human thought because it is not human - and therefore cannot surround itself with “human peers.” Wittgenstein would argue that because human language can never be recognized with digital computers, they can never think like a human.
One of Wittgenstein's mast gaping holes is how he fails to account for for individuals who do not think like what most would consider normal. Many people with extreme disabilities are incapable of communicating with others and do not understand much of the communication that is bestowed to them. Does this mean that these individuals do not think? It was thought at one time that those who cannot communicate are not thinking, and some actually considered these individuals sub-human (such as the famous case of Helen Keller). However, as with Helen Keller, it has been proven that many of these individuals incapable of communication or understanding social environments are very intelligent. How can Wittgenstein say that language in a social environment is crucial to the formation of thought when those without language are perfectly capable of thinking?
Another similar problem with Wittgenstein's argument is the case of most Autistic individuals. For many people with Autism, language does not come naturally. In fact, as explained by professor Temple Grendin who experiences Autism, “I do not think in words like everyone else does. I think in pictures, I see objects in my mind...I was surprised to find out that other people think much differently than myself.” This first-hand experience paints a very different picture than the one brushed my Wittgenstein. Grendin's evidence suggests that thought is not based in language at all, people are perfectly capable of thought without thinking in any particular language, and especially not thinking in the same way that people speak. Grendin goes on to say that some autistic children “may think the tone of the language is the communication, rather than the words. And then you gotta teach them that the words have meaning.” This again shows that there is thought without the presence of a social language.
There have also been strides in the Artificial Intelligence world of creating seemingly intelligent beings without modeling any kind of language. Rodney Brooks in his paper titled “Intelligence without Representation” describes his work on intelligent systems without giving them any kind of representative data like a model of the world or any kind of language. Brooks feels that “mobility, acute vision, and the ability to carry out survival related tasks in a dynamic environment provide a necessary basis for the development of true intelligence” (397). If I may abstract his meaning of intelligence to be simply a series of purposeful thoughts, then Brooks seems to be going against what Wittgenstein is saying. Even further, Brooks is proving his theory by actually creating “creatures” (as he calls them) which follow these basic rules. One could argue if his current creatures have any kind of thought, but his developments in Artificial Intelligence are stunning, to the point where it seems to be possible forthese creatures to, at some point, show the behaviors of human-like thought all without understand our language as we understand it.
All of this evidence points against Wittgenstein's argument for language the key for the creation of thought. However, it may be a bit misguided to think that there is no correlation between language and thought. It is possible that the development of language certainly attributes to the formation of thought to some degree, but as shown it is not cause the formulation of thought. I feel instead Wittgenstein may have placed a wrongful causation with regards to the impact of language on thought; it may be more correct to say that language is the result of thought, not the cause of thought. It is clear that throughout human evolution it was imperative that thoughts and ideas be transferred from person to person, and language was created out of that need. That is to say, thought came before language; language is nothing more than a result of thoughts.
[1006 Words]
Works Cited
Brooks, Rodney A. “Intelligence Without Representation.” 1991. Mind Design II. Ed. John Haugeland. Cambridge, MS: MIT, 1997. 395-420.
Casti, John L. The Cambridge Quintet: A Work of Scientific Speculation. Reading, MS: Persues, 1999
Grandin, Temple. “My Experience With Autism.” June, 2007