One of the main intellectual challenges I’ve faced when dealing with the concept of an ‘universal language of thought’ is… what comes first?
The mental image, or is the word itself what gives meaning and definition to a mental image, especially when dealing with abstractions and emotions?
English, in my opinion, is better suited than Spanish to define certain emotions. You feel them in Spanish, but in English you have ‘akward’ or ‘dream away’ which don’t really translate well in Spanish but the emotions themselves become clearer when you define them with a particular world… and that’s when they become universal.
Great question, and this is THE question. Following Aristotle, the "flow chart" is:
object → contact with senses → phantasm (mental image) → concept (inner word) → word in a language (outer word)
So words do not create or form meaning/concepts. The concept comes from the mental image generated from sensorial input. Words express and communicate mental concepts; they do not create them.
However, words do evoke and stimulate the images associated with the concepts they represent. When an English-speaker hears "manzana" used to refer to an apple, a new image/concept is not suddenly re-rendered. Rather, an association between the outer word ("manzana") and the inner word (the mental concept) is established. The concept (inner word) is universal, not the word of a specific language (outer word).
When comparing languages, we find that sometimes one language has a word that represents a mental concept more precisely. For example, Latin has two words that both translate to "but" in English—"sed" and "at."
"At" is specifically used for strong contrast or rebuttal: "You're stupid!" "At ego sapientior sum!" ("But I'm wiser than you!")
Because Latin has a word that refers to a mental concept more precisely, it is more satisfying and clear. Same with your examples about English words that represent emotions more precisely than Spanish.
An important note: Emotions are mental concepts that can form even without being represented by a visible, sensible object. Still, words don't create these emotions; they represent and activate them. And even emotions originate from some contact with sensible experience—we learn "awkwardness" from experiencing awkward situations, then abstract the universal concept.
I feel there is one step missing in the creation of concepts.
That is understanding.
When we encounter an apple, sure we can sense it and create an abstract approximation of it. However the quality of the resulting phantasm depends on how deeply we understand what we are sensing.
Furthermore the most important of concepts we develop throughout our lives, for me at least have a visual representation which is not from an object of the real world, are directly linked to realisation and the following understanding.
In a sense these concepts represent not specific objects in the world but the workings of their interactions.
Here's the best example:
Newton's three laws of motion.
As well as all that,
was a great read and it feels refreshing not being the only person to ecer put the words concepts and inner worlds in their mouth.
Understanding that we carry around abstracted representations of the eorld in us is so invaluable.
Ha! It’s refreshing on my end as well. To be precise, following Aristotle/Aquinas, the act of understanding is not the sensing, or even the phantasm in the imagination per se (though it cannot understand without those)—it is the rational soul’s abstraction of the universal form from the phantasm that is the act of understanding.
You are correct, however, that the more experiences we have in sensing an object, the more the phantasm develops in quality. This, I think, explains why LLMs—which I suppose geometrically represent phantasms—improve significantly with training.
Now, technically, the phantasm isn’t an imaginative copy of a real thing—otherwise how could we have certainty that this phantasmic copy is in fact a true copy of the real thing? Rather, the phantasm is the re-presentation of the real thing. (literally the real thing is really made present by another mode).
Interesting article, Mike.
One of the main intellectual challenges I’ve faced when dealing with the concept of an ‘universal language of thought’ is… what comes first?
The mental image, or is the word itself what gives meaning and definition to a mental image, especially when dealing with abstractions and emotions?
English, in my opinion, is better suited than Spanish to define certain emotions. You feel them in Spanish, but in English you have ‘akward’ or ‘dream away’ which don’t really translate well in Spanish but the emotions themselves become clearer when you define them with a particular world… and that’s when they become universal.
Great question, and this is THE question. Following Aristotle, the "flow chart" is:
object → contact with senses → phantasm (mental image) → concept (inner word) → word in a language (outer word)
So words do not create or form meaning/concepts. The concept comes from the mental image generated from sensorial input. Words express and communicate mental concepts; they do not create them.
However, words do evoke and stimulate the images associated with the concepts they represent. When an English-speaker hears "manzana" used to refer to an apple, a new image/concept is not suddenly re-rendered. Rather, an association between the outer word ("manzana") and the inner word (the mental concept) is established. The concept (inner word) is universal, not the word of a specific language (outer word).
When comparing languages, we find that sometimes one language has a word that represents a mental concept more precisely. For example, Latin has two words that both translate to "but" in English—"sed" and "at."
"At" is specifically used for strong contrast or rebuttal: "You're stupid!" "At ego sapientior sum!" ("But I'm wiser than you!")
Because Latin has a word that refers to a mental concept more precisely, it is more satisfying and clear. Same with your examples about English words that represent emotions more precisely than Spanish.
An important note: Emotions are mental concepts that can form even without being represented by a visible, sensible object. Still, words don't create these emotions; they represent and activate them. And even emotions originate from some contact with sensible experience—we learn "awkwardness" from experiencing awkward situations, then abstract the universal concept.
Amazing reply.
I’m glad you started your Substack.
Post 2-3 notes every day.
Hang around with some friends.
Some accounts I recommend you subscribing to and interacting with:
@Dino | 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 🇺🇸
@𝕮𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖊𝖔𝖚𝖘 𝕮𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖘
@Culture Explorer
@Dealmaker
@Ryan Stax
@Chris Antonelli
And for an amazing kick of nostalgia: @RC | The Sentimental Architect
Thank you, Yorch! Subscribed. Looking forward to making friends and having fun.
Let’s go! Substack is by far the best platform I have been on. Grew to connect with you
Thanks Yorch, I second this list and now found RCs cool account.
RCs account is… amazing.
He recently started a YouTube channel too.
Yes! Thank you YORCH!
Make friends, encourage others, build a business ecosystem, have fun!
I feel there is one step missing in the creation of concepts.
That is understanding.
When we encounter an apple, sure we can sense it and create an abstract approximation of it. However the quality of the resulting phantasm depends on how deeply we understand what we are sensing.
Furthermore the most important of concepts we develop throughout our lives, for me at least have a visual representation which is not from an object of the real world, are directly linked to realisation and the following understanding.
In a sense these concepts represent not specific objects in the world but the workings of their interactions.
Here's the best example:
Newton's three laws of motion.
As well as all that,
was a great read and it feels refreshing not being the only person to ecer put the words concepts and inner worlds in their mouth.
Understanding that we carry around abstracted representations of the eorld in us is so invaluable.
Ha! It’s refreshing on my end as well. To be precise, following Aristotle/Aquinas, the act of understanding is not the sensing, or even the phantasm in the imagination per se (though it cannot understand without those)—it is the rational soul’s abstraction of the universal form from the phantasm that is the act of understanding.
You are correct, however, that the more experiences we have in sensing an object, the more the phantasm develops in quality. This, I think, explains why LLMs—which I suppose geometrically represent phantasms—improve significantly with training.
Now, technically, the phantasm isn’t an imaginative copy of a real thing—otherwise how could we have certainty that this phantasmic copy is in fact a true copy of the real thing? Rather, the phantasm is the re-presentation of the real thing. (literally the real thing is really made present by another mode).