[OFF-TOPIC] Language, logic, and such

[Ben Scott]

On 9/25/06, Fred <puissante at lrc.puissante.com> wrote:
> While I find it laudable that someone has gone through the trouble of
> creating an unambiguous language, we humans by nature are creatures of
> ambiguity. If such a language were to be actually used by those other than
> us geekoids, ambiguities would be deliberately introduced!

  I raised that same question when the topic was announced.  The
answer I was given was, in effect: There is a difference between an
ambiguous subject and an ambiguous language.  The language can be
precise, even if the people using it, and/or the topic of
conversation, are not.

  There's probably an analogy with the precise nature of computer
programming languages and the fact that we still manage to screw that
up with depressing regularity.

> Personally, I don't think that language defines how we think ...

  It's an old and fundamental question.  I do believe language can
influence our thinking heavily.  I don't claim to know how much "we"
are capable of escaping that influence, or how much it varies from
person to person.

  Web searches for "Sapir Whorf", "linguistic relativity",
"Psycholinguistics", and such find a wealth of knowledge and opinion
on the subject.

  Perhaps you should come to the SLUG meeting.  ;-)

> So, an open question I would put forward among us "geek" types is whether or
> not we tend to think more visually than the normal population? Or just how
> does the "normal" population think anyway?

  I find I lack the vocabulary, and perhaps quality of introspection,
needed to describe my own thought processes very well.  I also don't
find much of the terminology of the world I know seems to apply, which
means I don't know where to begin building a vocabulary.  How does a
deaf man describe color to a blind man?

-- Ben