Earworms

First prize for best title of an OP.

Quoting Baden

First prize for best title of an OP.

What do I win?

Reply to frank

Me staying out of the conversation? :lol:

Reply to Baden
Yay! :sparkle:

The problem inherent in the private-language scenario is (I think I gather from Witty) the lack of criteria for identifying and classifying internal entities (sensations, qualia, images), should these be (as folk-psychology often leads them to be) conceived as the sole and sufficient basis for their own classification. Where, on the other hand, such criteria are available, because the entities are conceived instead as part of a larger, pre-existing game (e.g. there is meaningful comparison with blood pressure, or actual train times), no immediate critique is offered.

So I don't think that your returning

Quoting frank

back to the same starting frequency

is a problem for Witty, because you are judging the pitch-identity (vs. difference) of the earlier and later 'internals' according to a pre-existing system that (if it recognises them as internal) maps them to externals that are identified or distinguished according to frequency. So he wouldn't see that judgement as a problem. He would doubt that the imagery-talk is true literally, but he wouldn't be sceptical about the viability of pitch comparisons among internal images...

Quoting frank

I found I had to practice to even duplicate it with my voice,

...nor between images and actual sounds. And neither would I. So I'm still curious as to the nature of the difficulty you describe.

Quoting bongo fury

So I don't think that your returning

back to the same starting frequency — frank


is a problem for Witty, because you are judging the pitch-identity (vs. difference) of the earlier and later 'internals' according to a pre-existing system that (if it recognises them as internal) maps them to externals that are identified or distinguished according to frequency.

How do you know the early and later internals are the same?

Quoting frank

How do you know the early and later internals are the same?

The resolution to this is issue is to realize that they are not ever "the same", but they are the same type. Unless one has absolute pitch it's just a tone (same type), and even with absolute pitch the two tones are not the same tone, but still the same type with a more precise definition or criteria for that type. The private language argument misleads us into thinking that we must recognize two things as being the same thing in order for such a recognition to be useful. But this is not the case, because we only need to recognize similarities, and hence types.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover
I meant the same frequency.

It occurs to me that we use a song by the Bee Gees to achieve the right timing of chest compressions for CPR. Nobody sings it out loud though. It's an internal sound-image that translates to correct timing.

No logical argument defeats that.

Quoting frank

How do you know the early and later internals are the same [pitch]?

In the kind of imagery talk that I think the PLA isn't designed to attack: by comparing them for pitch just like a pair of externals, or like an internal and a corresponding external.

Internals and externals are all part of the same game or classification system.

The internals might (if you like) be memory traces, like computer records. They don't literally match in frequency, but they match in pitch exactly as do all and only (or mostly) sounds that also match in frequency. So they are like a mental image of a time-table that can be tested for correctness. (cf PI 264)

Does Witty elsewhere critique this notion of a public sensation language? (Grateful for leads.) But it clearly isn't the private one.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The private language argument misleads us into thinking that we must recognize two things as being the same thing in order for such a recognition to be useful. But this is not the case, because we only need to recognize similarities, and hence types.

I don't see that. I think it attacks the British empiricist psychology of ideas and impressions: the narrative of a private construction of mind from sense-data. His argument seems to be that identity and similarity of the internals has no basis when asserted in private. I don't see any conflating of numerical identity with similarity.

Quoting frank

It occurs to me that we use a song by the Bee Gees to achieve the right timing of chest compressions for CPR.

Come on - tell us the song. "I'm going back to Massachusetts, something's telling me I must go back" (patient dies).

Quoting frank

a song by the Bee Gees

I use Queen, "Another one bites the dust".

Reply to Banno Irony at its best. :rofl:

Quoting bongo fury

Internals and externals are all part of the same game or classification system.

It's not a cultural or social class though. It appears to be biological. There's a genetic anomonly that's associated with perfect pitch. On the other hand, some people are tone deaf.

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves?

Quoting frank

There's a genetic anomaly that's associated with perfect pitch.

Interesting theory.

Quoting frank

On the other hand, some people are tone deaf.

Likewise. (But a rather antiquated theory.)

Quoting frank

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves?

Each other.

The social divide is between those who can and those who can't reliably compare tones (whether internal or external) that are in entirely separate musical contexts, so that there is no feasible chain of local and easier intermediate comparisons reaching between them.

Obviously there is huge variation in the skill of relative pitch: of maintaining a chain.

Quoting bongo fury

The can't beat them so might as well join them [the absolute pitchers] comes partly from knowing (or failing to remedy) my limitations. Which are, mainly, losing track around modulations, some more than others obviously.

Quoting bongo fury

There's a genetic anomaly that's associated with perfect pitch. — frank


Interesting theory.

? Turners syndrome. I'm not saying everyone with perfect pitch has a genetic abnormality, just that there is a known case of association indicating a biological basis (at least in some cases).

Quoting bongo fury

Likewise. (But a rather antiquated theory.)

Not sure what you mean. What's the state of the art view on tone deafness?

Quoting bongo fury

So if there is a classification system in play, we each learn it from whom? Ourselves? — frank


Each other.

So when you repeat aloud an internal tone, you learned to do this from someone else? How?

BTW, with a little practice I can do it just fine.

Quoting T Clark

Come on - tell us the song. "I'm going back to Massachusetts, something's telling me I must go back" (patient dies).

They're usually better off dead. :up:

Uncanny...

Quoting frank

Silently hum a note in your mind. Now duplicate that same frequency aloud. I think some readings of the Private Language argument would say this activity is nonsense because there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind..

Like colors, sounds only exist in the mind. The sound you hear when you hum and the "sound" you "hear silently humming" in your mind is a memory are the same. Just as the password stored in the computer's memory is the same as the stokes on the keyboard you type, or else you won't be able to get access to your data.

Quoting frank

I meant the same frequency.

The problem is that it's not really "the same". Tones of the same frequency from two different instruments are not the same tone, for example, there are overtones and all sorts of other interference patterns. If you have a sound in your mind, from an instrument, and you try to match the pitch of that sound with your mouth, you are selecting a part of the sound, (the principal pitch) and trying to replicate it. If your goal is to produce that pitch you are not necessarily trying to replicate the sound exactly.

Quoting bongo fury

I don't see that. I think it attacks the British empiricist psychology of ideas and impressions: the narrative of a private construction of mind from sense-data. His argument seems to be that identity and similarity of the internals has no basis when asserted in private. I don't see any conflating of numerical identity with similarity.

The premise of the argument, is that one would take a sensation signify it as "S", and every time the same sensation occurs it is noted as "S". The problem is that reoccurring sensations are not the same sensation, each time it occurs, it is a new instance of a similar sensation, therefore it is distinct and in some sense different. To create the private language argument it is necessary to assume that the symbol "S" is supposed to denote the very same object each time it is employed. Then the issue is on what criteria is the use of the symbol validated. How does the user know that it is the very same object? But when we recognize that the symbol "S" is simply employed to signified a similar sensation, not the very same thing, and the criteria is completely subjective, and this is consistent with language use in general, then the so-called private language argument cannot be constructed.

So the issue pointed to by Wittgenstein is the judgement of similarity, it is not the issue of judgement of identity or sameness. He creates ambiguity by using the word "same" to refer to similar things, in the common way of usage known as qualitative identity, and allows the reader to create a private language argument through the assumption that "same" is being used in the sense of numerical identity. The latter would be a faulty interpretation. Then the question which follows ought to be, on what criteria do we judge similarity. If the judgement is base on private principles and there is no requirement for public input, then a private language is possible.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Like colors, sounds only exist in the mind. The sound you hear when you hum and the "sound" you "hear silently humming" in your mind is a memory are the same.

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Just as the password stored in the computer's memory is the same as the stokes on the keyboard you type

I could access the computer's registers and light up a display of LEDs to show me the binary code for the password. I can't do that with an internal image of a password.

Maybe we just don't have the technology for that yet. Maybe one day.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that it's not really "the same". Tones of the same frequency from two different instruments are not the same tone, for example, there are overtones and all sorts of other interference patterns. If you have a sound in your mind, from an instrument, and you try to match the pitch of that sound with your mouth, you are selecting a part of the sound, (the principal pitch) and trying to replicate it. If your goal is to produce that pitch you are not necessarily trying to replicate the sound exactly.

True. I agree with Bongo that there's a little fuzz to duplicating sounds. I find myself wanting to hum a harmonic frequency. The point I'm driving toward isn't diminished by that, I don't think.

It's qualia.

Quoting frank

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.

What does it mean to know the sound of internal humming when you can't check its frequency? If you need to know the frequency to know the sound and you can't check the frequency of the sound in your mind then how can you say that you know the sound in your mind?

Quoting frank

I could access the computer's registers and light up a display of LEDs to show me the binary code for the password. I can't do that with an internal image of a password.

Maybe we just don't have the technology for that yet. Maybe one day.

There are programs that can display a stored passwords. When you tell someone your password you convert memory to sound and another hears it an coverts the sound to their memory. They are then able to access your data. How did they get the correct password if the internal sound of your password is different than what is heard?

Reply to frank

So reconsider what you said in the op now:

Quoting frank

Silently hum a note in your mind. Now duplicate that same frequency aloud. I think some readings of the Private Language argument would say this activity is nonsense because there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind..

Let's start with the assumption that "there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind". Ask yourself is it necessary that the note you hum be the very same (numerical identity) as the note in your mind, in order for your humming to be significant, have meaning, or be a sensible activity. If the answer is no, as it clearly is, then the so-called private language argument has no bearing.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Let's start with the assumption that "there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind". Ask yourself is it necessary that the note you hum be the very same (numerical identity) as the note in your mind, i

Numerical identity? The note I hum makes pressure gradiated waves in the air. The frequency of those waves impacts objects such as ear cilia or microphone carbon, it whatever else is in the environment.

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. All I know is that I do it, then hum the same tone outloud. Bongo can do it too, so I'm not alone.

So we'll drop the PLA. Maybe you guys are right that it's irrelevant.

Quoting frank

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. All I know is that I do it, then hum the same tone outloud. Bongo can do it too, so I'm not alone.

I seem to have this uncanny ability to sing in my head too.

Another thing I can do is dream, when I am asleep.

And these things I dream of, they sometimes seem to have meaning. As if I were talking to myself in some secret language.

Reply to Olivier5 :up:

Quoting frank

I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.

But of course you probably wouldn't ever check the frequency of an external sound, as such. You would check that it matched in pitch with another sound, such as that of a tuning fork. Likewise you can check the pitch of an internal humming against another image or an external sound or both.

The physics is a kind of back-story. Indeed, if we are partisan internalists, we might even aspire to "divide through and cancel it out", leaving only the internals (the images both perceptual and merely imagined or recalled); just as Witty suggests we might in certain conditions eliminate the internals, and their questionable solipsistic back-story (the private language).


Quoting frank

Numerical identity?

Quoting Collins

the relation that holds between two relata when they are the selfsame entity, that is, when the terms designating them have the same reference

As opposed to identity in a particular (known or unknown) respect.


Quoting frank

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming.

Is it different to qualia in general?

Quoting bongo fury

But of course you probably wouldn't ever check the frequency of an external sound, as such.

I could though. There's probably an app that does it.

I guess it's metaphysically possible to check my qualia as in The Minority Report, but as it stands I don't know how to get a third party verification, the first two parties being me silently humming and me listening to it.

Quoting bongo fury

The physics is a kind of back-story. Indeed, if we are partisan internalists, we might even aspire to "divide through and cancel it out", leaving only the internals (images both perceptual and merely imagined or recalled); just as Witty suggests we might in certain conditions eliminate the internals, and their questionable solipsistic back-story (the private language).

Did you know Berkeley was trying to solve the epistemic problem of indirect realism when he came up with subjective idealism? You need some sort of world soul for that, though.

Quoting bongo fury

As opposed to identity in a particular (known or unknown) respect.

Yes. I understand what numerical identity is. I don't understand why MU would think I was suggesting that internal and external tones are identical in that way.

Quoting bongo fury

I really don't understand the nature of an internal humming. — frank


Is it different to qualia in general?

I don't know understand the nature of qualia in general. What's happening? How does it work?

Quoting frank

I could though. There's probably an app that does it.

Keuwlsoft Audio Frequency Counter on google play.

I tried to do the same note several times. It was 252 Hz three times. Then it was 248 Hz. Then back to 252.

Quoting frank

I don't know how to get a third party verification, the first two parties being me silently humming and me listening to it.

You are authorised to verify the match between the two internal images, one perceptual and one not, by your proven competence in verifying the match between two perceptual images, such that your judgement agreed with others'. I.e. by singing together. (Not using an app! :vomit: )

It's not a private language of private sensations, it's a public language of private sensations and/or their corresponding public stimuli.

Quoting frank

Yes. I understand what numerical identity is.

My bad.

Quoting frank

I don't understand the nature of qualia in general. What's happening? How does it work?

Yeah, me too. Or, at any rate, how does the myth work. :lol:

Quoting bongo fury

You are authorised to verify the match between the two internal images, one perceptual and one not, by your proven competence in verifying the match between two perceptual images, such that your judgement agreed with others'. I.e. by singing together. (

I don't generate any internal humming when I sing with others, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quoting bongo fury

Yeah, me too. Or, at any rate, how does the myth work. :lol:

:up:

Quoting frank

I don't generate any internal humming when I sing with others, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Fine...

You are authorised to verify the match between your internal image of you humming and a similar real sound event, by your proven competence in verifying the match between two sound events, such that your judgement agreed with others'. I.e. by singing together.

Quoting Olivier5

I seem to have this uncanny ability to sing in my head too.

If you had the ability to get a song out of your head I might be inclined to call that uncanny.

Quoting bongo fury

You are authorised to verify the match between your internal image of you humming and a similar real sound event, by your proven competence in verifying the match between two sound events, such that your judgement agreed with others'. I.e. by singing together.

I'm kind of befuddled that you don't see the problem with this. Oh well. Cool discussion, thanks!

Quoting Harry Hindu

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.
— frank
What does it mean to know the sound of internal humming when you can't check its frequency? If you need to know the frequency to know the sound and you can't check the frequency of the sound in your mind then how can you say that you know the sound in your mind?

You're not good to address this?

You can't tell the frequency of the sound in your mind because frequencies have to do with wavelenghts. If the sound in your head doesn't have a frequency, it doesn't have a wavelength, so it comes down to how to distinguish between external wavelengths of vibrating air molecules and the mental representation of those frequencies and wavelengths as sound in the mind.

Quoting Olivier5

I seem to have this uncanny ability to sing in my head too.

Another thing I can do is dream, when I am asleep.

And these things I dream of, they sometimes seem to have meaning. As if I were talking to myself in some secret language.

Then why are there so many books written that claim to be able to interpret your dreams for you, and many people claim that those books have provided insight into their dreams and lives?

What is this secret language? Can it be translated into English, or is already in English because that is your native language?

Quoting Harry Hindu

There's one big difference though. I can check the frequency I'm humming. Only I know the sound of internal humming.
— frank
What does it mean to know the sound of internal humming when you can't check its frequency? If you need to know the frequency to know the sound and you can't check the frequency of the sound in your mind then how can you say that you know the sound in your mind? — Harry Hindu


You're not good to address this?

Sorry, I missed your post. I'm not sure what it means to know my own musical imagery beyond the phenomenon.

There's a little bit of research on the biological basis of it, but what does it really tell me if my motor cortex is active when I'm silently humming? Shrug.

I have awareness of a sound, but I know it's in my mind and not out loud. I don't know the frequency.

Quoting frank

There's a little bit of research on the biological basis of it, but what does it really tell me if my motor cortex is active when I'm silently humming? Shrug.

That maybe they are one and the same phenomena, just from different perspectives - one from the process of observing yourself outside of your body (like in a mirror or MRI scan), while the other is the process of being your body. Think about how different a grandfather clock looks from outside of it vs inside of it. You're looking at the same thing, just from different perspectives, so you get different information from different perspectives, and it appears as if you are looking at two distinctly different things, but that is because the information is different. Think about how your pet cat/dog appears to your different senses. Your senses provide different information about the same thing, so hearing your dog bark is different than seeing your dog bark, but it provides information about the same thing.

Reply to Harry Hindu
Could be. If you have access to pubmed you can look up "musical imagery".

There's reason to believe that the left side of your brain is "communicating" with itself when you experience musical imagery, and as Bongo suggested, this process may be involved in the broader perception of music.

IOW, with musical perception, your motor cortex is in charge. That's a hypothesis that fits what we know so far. This is contrary to an externalist account that wants to see something social or cultural as the starting point.

In short, the idea is that we communicate because of common biological structure, not because we share a society where language facilitates group activities.

See what I mean?

Quoting frank

In short, the idea is that we communicate because of common biological structure, not because we share a society where language facilitates group activities.

See what I mean?

If what you are saying is that we mentally represent the world in similar ways thanks to our similar biological functions, then sure, that seems obvious and is similar to what I have argued with people like Banno about before. But then you have to account for how the brain shapes itself when learning a language. Brains physically change when they learn. Once you learn one language some sounds become difficult to make in another language because of how your brain and tongue and lips have become accustomed to communicating in certain ways. For instance, many Hebrew speakers have trouble with the English R. It's not that they aren't hearing it like English speakers can, it's more to do with training your brain, tongue and lips to make the sound.

Personally, I think that this argument of nature vs nurture is absurd. It's really both working together, not just one or the other.

[quote="Harry Hindu;5157]Personally, I think that this argument of nature vs nurture is absurd. It's really both working together, not just one or the other.[/quote]

I agree. When we think about evolution, we sometimes forget that life alters its own environments, sometimes drastically. The nurturing being is embedded in nature, part of it.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then why are there so many books written that claim to be able to interpret your dreams for you, and many people claim that those books have provided insight into their dreams and lives?

That proves very little. There are many books written about aliens from another planet too, or about ghosts. It doesn't mean these books are right in everything they say.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What is this secret language? Can it be translated into English, or is already in English because that is your native language?

My native language is French. I can try to describe my dreams, irrespective of the language used for that. I can even try to decipher them, or somebody else's. But it's not easy.

Quoting Olivier5

That proves very little. There are many books written about aliens from another planet too, or about ghosts. It doesn't mean these books are right in everything they say.

LOL. How do you know what they're saying if it's about a private experience? If others claim that a book on dreams does give them insight into their dreams, who are you to say that it didn't? Either way you lose the private language argument.

Quoting Olivier5

My native language is French. I can try to describe my dreams, irrespective of the language used for that. I can even try to decipher them, or somebody else's. But it's not easy.

Why not, if it's YOUR OWN PRIVATE LANGUAGE? If you're having trouble interpreting the private language in your head, then maybe it's YOUR private language.

BTW, what forms do the symbols of your private language take? A public language takes the form of visual shapes and colors, and sounds. How do you know you have a private language? What form does it take for you to be aware of it?

Quoting Harry Hindu

If others claim that a book on dreams does give them insight into their dreams, who are you to say that it didn't?

I never said that it didn't.

Quoting Harry Hindu

If you're having trouble interpreting the private language in your head, then maybe it's YOUR private language.

Well yes, I guess that's the point.

Quoting Olivier5

If you're having trouble interpreting the private language in your head, then maybe it's YOUR private language.
— Harry Hindu

Well yes, I guess that's the point.

I mistyped. I meant to say it's NOT your private language if you're having trouble understanding it.


Quoting Harry Hindu

If others claim that a book on dreams does give them insight into their dreams, who are you to say that it didn't?

Quoting Olivier5

I never said that it didn't.

Yes you did:
Quoting Olivier5

That proves very little. There are many books written about aliens from another planet too, or about ghosts. It doesn't mean these books are right in everything they say.

If a book helps a person gain insight into their dream then how is that not proof that the book was right in what it said?

Quoting Harry Hindu

If I a book helps a person gain insight into their dream then how is that not proof that the book was right in what it saud?

Because reading a book involves a certain amount of self projection, of interpretation. Some people get their insight from reading the bible, others from reading the stars. I have nothing against it, I myself draw insights from books, including on dreams. The part I disagree with is when you say that "some book can interpret your dreams for you". This is having it vice versa: the reader interprets the book, and uses the book as a source of clues to try and interpret his dreams.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I meant to say it's NOT your private language if you're having trouble understanding it.

According to Freud it's the subconscious part of me speaking in metaphors. Doesn't that count as a private language?

Quoting frank

I agree. When we think about evolution, we sometimes forget that life alters its own environments, sometimes drastically. The nurturing being is embedded in nature, part of it.

Yes, or another way of looking at it is that we are all social individuals. We are individuals that find happiness in being social. It's why we can agree on many ethical standards except when it comes to choosing the group over the individual and vice versa (collectivism vs individualism).

Quoting Olivier5

Because reading a book involves a certain amount of self projection, of interpretation. Some people get their insight from reading the bible, others from reading the stars. I have nothing against it, I myself draw insights from books, including on dreams. The part I disagree with is when you say that "some book can interpret your dreams for you". This is having it vice versa: the reader interprets the book, and uses the book as a source of clues to try and interpret his dreams.

But the book is in a public language, written by someone else with their own private language, so how did author else come to understand the readers private language?

Quoting Olivier5

According to Freud it's the subconscious part of me speaking in metaphors. Does that count as a private language?

Speaking in metaphors means that you are using the native public language that you learned. So you're saying that your private language is your publuc native language?

Quoting Harry Hindu

so how did author else come to understand the readers private language?

He did not, not any more that some biblical prophet understood your particular predicament when you happen to read his verses and find them useful. The reader is only using the book as clues to understand himself.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Speaking in metaphors means that you are using the native public language that you learned.

That is only one of the many possible meanings of "speaking in metaphors", and not the one I intended. I meant the Freudian interpretation of dreams as expressing ideas (desires, fears usually) via a sort of confused theatrical play, often with composite characters.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Yes, or another way of looking at it is that we are all social individuals. We are individuals that find happiness in being social. It's why we can agree on many ethical standards except when it comes to choosing the group over the individual and vice versa (collectivism vs individualism).

Yep. I've actually been thinking a lot about that very issue lately, collective vs individual. All trails lead back to what we are: social creatures with a strong sense of indivuality.

Quoting Olivier5

He did not, not any more that some biblical prophet understood your particular predicament when you happen to read his verses and find them useful. The reader is only using the book as clues to understand himself.

So when you read people's posts on this forum you're not trying to understand what the writer meant when they authored those posts? If you're only projecting your own interpretation, then you're basically putting your own words in the writer's mouth. What would be the point of communicating with you?

Quoting Olivier5

That is only one of the many possible meanings of "speaking in metaphors", and not the one I intended. I meant the Freudian interpretation of dreams as expressing ideas (desires, fears usually) via a sort of confused theatrical play, often with composite characters.

So you just mean the language of shapes, colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings - the language of nature that "selected" the vocabulary we all understand and use to be informed of the state of the world, and that was passed down to subsequent generations through heredity?

Reply to Harry Hindu I am referring to this brilliant book by Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams. The idea is that one can interpret dreams through a specific procedure based on word association. I have tried the method many times, on myself and others, generally with success.

In this view of dreams, they are messages or concerns from our subconscious self. But for some reason, these messages are represented, acted out in scenes with characters.

I believe this comes close to a private language. But it's not one that uses standard words and grammar, it's more like some constantly invented, improvised theatrical art.