Yes, we can make science more clear and powerful with new language, but we can't neglect English because English currently plainly settled as the principle language of universal logical correspondence, specialists keep on distributing their work in different dialects than English too.We encourage mainstream researchers to attempt to handle this issue and propose potential methodologies both for incorporating non-English scientific knowledge viably and for upgrading the multilingualism of new and existing information accessible just in English for the clients of such learning.

It is a good idea! It seems that create a common language to surmount all natural national languages by UN.

Yes, we can make science more clear and powerful with new language, but we can't neglect English because English currently plainly settled as the principle language of universal logical correspondence, specialists keep on distributing their work in different dialects than English too.We encourage mainstream researchers to attempt to handle this issue and propose potential methodologies both for incorporating non-English scientific knowledge viably and for upgrading the multilingualism of new and existing information accessible just in English for the clients of such learning.

As i observe philosophy of science continues to build unified theory and reduce everything to physics. But i mean language of logic faces this challenge always better

Yes. I have been working in this direction for decades. See my web site users.rcn.com/eslowry especially

users.rcn.com/eslowry/banish.pdf . Translating electromagnetic theory into a computer style language led to a new image of the classical em field in space-time. Pressing limits of simplification can greatly improve generality and readability of language for technical literacy.

Not sure if this answers your question, but it allows you to build understanding.

From my PhD, I have developed a language engine, Enguage (see enguage.org/) which is based on speech-act theory, rather than the structural approach of syntax/semantics. The use of a defined meaning through a grammar forces you into system which is limited by that grammar. Grammars work for context-free programming languages; however, in voice systems (such as Amazon's Alexa) this leads to imperative-style language: buy this, play that, tell that to open. My argument is that a system with arbitrary meaning is more flexible and arrives at richer language (Enguage currently supports 40-50 concepts - including reasoning through "because" and "why"- and has over 300 test cases).

Further, speech precedes writing, both historically and developmentally, and we learn by rote: we don't need an understanding of ZFC set theory to count! I'm looking for people who speak non-English languages to add to this project.

To create new languages, especially if you're looking to interact with machinery, you need an arbitrary approach.

Dear Anatoly,

You wrote: "Artificial intelligence mashines creates even their own language."

Not really. Artificial intelligence is driven by programs written with programming languages developed by humans, and they cannot solve any problem not previously solved by a human being, including creating their own language.

There is no need to invent any new language to better describe physical reality. All that is required is better mastery of the already existing articulated languages, and better use of the collectively understandable mathematical language.

For the latest on the mathematical language, see section 27 (starting page 394) of this recently published synthesis:

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2019022016190620.pdf

Best Regards, André

This discussion reminds me of a question that might not be relevant but it might still be a fun question. When I think through a logical argument I do it by mentally (usually silently but not always) talking to myself. I use English because that is the only language I know. I could not think, at least not in the usual way, if I had never learned a language. I could react to the environment but could not get through a logical argument. Suppose a human being had never been taught any language. Could that person think?

L.D. Edmonds - you CAN build logical arguments in (natural) language. It is just that we're taught logic in algebraic terms which feeds into 'Turing's offspring' that programming computers looks like a mathematics lesson. This is why there is such a gap, full of bear traps, between requirements specifications and source code. Natural language is self-descriptive, in Turing's terms: computable.

Dear Martin,

Logical arguments can be built in any language, either articulated or mathematical. The only limit is the degree of mastery of either that an individual has developed. This is what past research demonstrates. We actually "think" with them as L.D. only tentatively suspects.

This is explained in these papers with full references to the sources:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/intelligence-and-early-mastery-of-the-reading-skill-2155-6180-1000327.pdf

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear L.D.,

Actually, you are right on the dot, and it is not a fun question as you so tentatively formulate, and if this fact was better understood in the educational community most children would be taught all aspects of their mother tongue to full mastery before 7 year of age, age at which a major change in the verbal areas makes it difficult to finish the job for those who have not minimally learned to read fluently.

This is revealed by correlating 3 discoveries made in the past.

In the 1920, Paul Flechsig discovered that the myelination of the verbal areas of the neocortex is genetically delayed until the age of 7, which seems to directly correlate with Paul Chauchard’s observation in the 1950's that the density of the interconnected network being built in the verbal areas during articulated language acquisition is much denser in those of children who complete this learning before the age of 7 than in those of children who did not complete this learning earlier, which also seems to be directly related to the observation made by Dolores Durkin that all children who had learned to read before the age of 7 dominated markedly in all learning tasks over the entire period of their primary schooling in California with none of the children who had learned to read past this age being able to catch up with them.

This correlation, that should therefore be studied further is made in the paper I first mentioned previously:

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2019022016190620.pdf

Unfortunately, Flechsig's research is available to this day only in German, Chauchard's research is available only in French and the Durkin study is only fleetingly mentioned only in one book, this one available in many languages:

Flechsig, P., (1920) Anatomie des Menschlichen Gehirns und Rückenmarks auf Myelogenetischen Grundlage, Leipzig, Thienne, Germany.

Chauchard, Paul., (1960) Le cerveau et la conscience, Les éditions du Seuil, France.

Dodson, Fitzhugh, (1971) How to Parent. USA

From my analysis, this is the actual cause of the functional illiteracy rate in excess of 50% and still increasing in the adult population in the Province of Quebec Canada, where I live. I found no way to raise any interest in our local educational community nor with the authorities to this obvious cause of the problem, since proper tutoring has not been provided to all children in time in my province since the end of the 1960's. This is the reason why I have studied this issue so deeply.

Best Regards, André

André - Thank you for the papers, I will read these later although this is not my background. I am not from the biological, nor cognitive sciences - I am a computer scientist. I have built a processing mechanism which does not resort to parsing sentences into words and constructing meaning from the patterns they make. It deals with utterances as a whole, and their contextual relationship to others. It is based on my (limited!) understanding of Semiotics and speech act theory. It is not therefore dependent on a given language (tied to a culturally defined syntax), but it builds language itself - making languages both inter-changeable (including the use of emojis), and computable (self-describing).

Best regards, Martin.

It may sound heretical, but in the pragmatic tradition it "just works". Examples on enguage.org/, or You Tube e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8T-mg86M0 showing how the machine (an Android phone in this case) can be programmed by voice.

Best regards, Martin.

Dear Martin,

I also am from a computer sciences background, which is how I got acquainted with Donald Hebb's discoveries regarding the inner workings of multilayer neural networks.

I have no direct knowledge of your specific domain of programming applications for sentences meaning recognition, but I am aware at the general level of this leading edge domain. A quite interesting development.

I know another researcher, Martha O'kennon, who I have been in contact with and who developed quite advanced algorithms to translate many languages into other languages. Here is one of her papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279550065_Web-based_Translation_for_Less_Commonly_Taught_Languages

She is quite knowledgeable in this field, so you might find interesting information in her work.

I will also have a look at your material to beef up on your domain. All aspects of languages are of interest to me.

Best Regards, André

may be the nanolinguistics, I read one paper about that.

I now see that this is a topic that has had a great deal of serious study. My awareness of the topic is simply that I go through a logical deduction by talking to myself. But another kind of thinking is also interesting. This is intuition, or getting an idea. That seems to come from nowhere. After the idea happens, I talk to myself to understand it. But the idea seems to have come by magic without me having to talk to myself. Is there any correlation between language and intuition? I am guessing "yes" but that is an uneducated guess.

Dear L.D.,

You wrote: "My awareness of the topic is simply that I go through a logical deduction by talking to myself."

Yes. actually, "talking to oneself" simply is the definition of "coherently thinking".

You wrote: "But another kind of thinking is also interesting. This is intuition, or getting an idea. That seems to come from nowhere."

Intuitions are simply automatic correlation processes that have been initiated previously by questions that we asked ourselves in the past about issues that we are intrigued about but then found no answer to. Once such correlation processes have been triggered in the neocortex, they do not disappear if we stop actively thinking about them, but remain active in the background.

It seems that any number of such automatic correlation processes can be initiated by as many clearly formulated questions and that they will remain active at the subconscious level in wait for missing elements to correlate. They may remain dormant for long periods in wait of missing elements, the perception of which may depend on the outcome other unresolved correlations or on the acquisition of knowledge not yet collected by the individual, or failing such perception or acquisition, may never be resolved.

Quote from Section "Taking Control of the Resubmission Process" (page 13) of this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf

" This automatic feature is at the origin of our intuitions, which we perceive as unexpected sudden flashes of "understanding" on issues that we had been wondering about at some point in the past. The triggering question may have started the process long before the actual resulting correlation is provided at the conscious level, which can occur only after the set of progressively assembled pertaining elements becomes sufficient for a related correlation to be automatically perceived by the neural network, resulting in this sudden "understanding event".

Actually, the only difference between intuition and reasoning is that a conclusion arrived at by intuition is the end result of an automatic subconscious correlation sequence while a conclusion arrived at by reasoning is the end result of a voluntarily guided correlation sequence. In both cases, however, subsequent confirmation of validity of the correlated elements is required to insure the value of the conclusion. "

When you write " After the idea happens, I talk to myself to understand it." You simply are verifying and confirming the validity of the subconsciously correlated elements by voluntarily re-correlating the automatically correlated set.

You wrote: " Is there any correlation between language and intuition?"

Absolutely. Since the questions that you asked yourself previously were verbal, the resulting correlations processes that then became subconscious also were in wait for verbal information to correlate.

Best Regards, André