How does language influence reality?

[Arjen]

I mean to say that light has a frequency, just as sound and matter. If I were to "voice" the right frequency I could bend light. If I were to "voice" the right frequency I could "command" people to do my bidding (Telemarketeers often do so. People do not understand afterwards why they did what they did.). The thing of it is that we could even draw in Plato's logoi into this as being a certain frequency. Do you see what I mean?

[chandler]

Yes I see what you mean. It seems that you're using "language" as the "loud blast" on one hand and "language" as a type of speech that causes things in the natural world (causing people to act a certain way rather than another way because of words).

In that sense what you're saying, I think, is not at odds with what I (and goshisdead) said earlier but a separate point.

While I don't think anyone can use their voice to bend light (two different types of waves, right? maybe at some inhuman level a gigantic sound wave could change visual perception but it seems hard to imagine it actually occurring.

But still, all of your examples (the telemarketer) are about changing what happens in reality, which is something I agree with. but what you're saying is not actually related to what I said earlier, which is that language cannot change the reality as it is (as in language, while it does influence perception, cannot be said to influence reality in the way that just because i say one thing it doesn't mean that it is automatically the case even if people do believe it). In so far as my words lead people to action then it can lead to changes in reality, but as for what is already the case, what I actually say about it cannot lead to a change in the way it is.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by chandler

Yes I see what you mean. It seems that you're using "language" as the "loud blast" on one hand and "language" as a type of speech that causes things in the natural world (causing people to act a certain way rather than another way because of words).

I use language as the start of "voicing" in this case.

In that sense what you're saying, I think, is not at odds with what I (and goshisdead) said earlier but a separate point.

I know, but I am at odds with your statement that it does not have influence on reality.

While I don't think anyone can use their voice to bend light (two different types of waves, right? maybe at some inhuman level a gigantic sound wave could change visual perception but it seems hard to imagine it actually occurring.

Actually any wave influences any wave it comes across. Sometimes just a very little though so it is unnoticable.

But still, all of your examples (the telemarketer) are about changing what happens in reality, which is something I agree with. but what you're saying is not actually related to what I said earlier, which is that language cannot change the reality as it is (as in language, while it does influence perception, cannot be said to influence reality in the way that just because i say one thing it doesn't mean that it is automatically the case even if people do believe it).

It does not change things in actuality because that is a stable (a posteriori) situation. In reality something else is happening altogether. Both with speaking "truth" and speaking "untruth" this happens. So while the words we use have no influence on "reality", the frequencies we use do. That is why I said in a previous post that our language (choice of words; thereby the frequency) is indeed instrumental.

In so far as my words lead people to action then it can lead to changes in reality, but as for what is already the case, what I actually say about it cannot lead to a change in the way it is.

My point is that in this case it isn't the meaning of the words that are changing reality; but the effect of the frequencies used.

[chandler]

in the case of the telemarketer i can see how the actual language used can influence reality. but i think it highly unlikely that a telemarketer could influence people if he were just making vocal vibrations that had no relevance to the english language (or whatever language).

so it appears that you're just talking about the vibrations that we make when we speak (for that matter speaking could be equivalent to burping--maybe if we could control our burps we could use the vibrations to affect the world).

but i'm lost as to the utility of such a thing, the evidence for such a thing and...still...the relevance to this original thread. what i thought was under discussion when i joined the thread was what language (different types of symbols and their influence on reality) was, not on anything related to vibrations.

really we're talking about two different things when we say "language". at least i think that's where the problem arises.

[GoshisDead]

Language is not the voice. If cattle lowed at the right frequency the sun's rays wouldn't hit the earth, but it doesn't mean they are talking.

[Arjen]

Is the point that every particular sound has a particular vibration and therefore a particular influence on the things around us coming across? I am getting the idea it isn't because both Chandler and GoshisDead are not addresseing the point, but are addressing the meaning of the words...which is not of importance in this particular theory.

[Aedes]

I'm fairly convinced by some of Chomsky's assertions that language is biologically innate in humans, as demonstrated (in part) by the 100% uniformity of subject-verb structures in all human languages. This demonstrates that the idea of a noun is innate, the idea of a verb is innate, etc. So our structuring of reality may indeed be inseparable from an equally fundamental structuring of language.

[GoshisDead]

Ultrasonic and other sounds are not part of the human phonetic inventory, as far as anyone knows. Prosody itself, the realm in linguistic description where wave length etc... would fall, it completely dominated by meaning, if the features are not phonemic in and of themesleves, they retain meaning through pragmatic interaction, register switching, signaling emotion etc... there is no language function that has no meaning attached. If humans were able to emit a mind control frequency, it would most likely be used for the meaning of controlling minds. Either way it does not address reality, it still only influences a meta reality.

Prosody PHONETICS: The description of rhythm, loudness, pitch, and tempo. It is often used as a synonym for suprasegmentals, although its meaning is narrower: it only refers to the features mentioned above.

[de Silentio]

When we talk about language influencing reality, what really are we talking about? When I read the discussion between chandler and Arjen it sounds more along the lines of particular words influencing people to perform a particular action or think a particular thought.

When I think of the language-reality relationship, I think more along the lines of how does language effect the way I gain knowledge of and think about the objects in front of me.

I remember reading something relating to Kant along the lines of: if there were not other people to share experiences with, I would not know who I was or be able to judge my characteristic from the characteristics of anything else, because my learning takes place by interactions, which, even at the most basic level, are language communication.

Think of a baby whose basic needs are tended for but nothing else, furthermore, this is all done by a machine whose only movements are to tend to the basic needs. How far can this babies mind develop? Without the interaction, and thus language communication, with another human being, will it be able to develop the skills to coherently cognize what something is? They may see the same object that you and I do, but will they ever be able to 'know' what it is?

It seems that our initial language interactions instill in us, or awaken in us perhaps, the ability to think about the world.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

Ultrasonic and other sounds are not part of the human phonetic inventory, as far as anyone knows. Prosody itself, the realm in linguistic description where wave length etc... would fall, it completely dominated by meaning, if the features are not phonemic in and of themesleves, they retain meaning through pragmatic interaction, register switching, signaling emotion etc...

Couldn't this still be consistent with innate language, however? The constructs of language, like nouns and verbs and qualifications (like adjectives, articles, prepositions, and adverbs) can be cognitively innate even if the language proper (like sounds) are not.

This is why a Wernicke's aphasia, i.e. speech abnormality caused by damage to the Wernicke's area of the brain, will simultaneously affect written and spoken language -- i.e. written versus phonetic extensions of these concepts.