View source for Q6: Language and thinking

You state that '''abstract thinking is impossible without language''', and that language enables internal dialogue.

The sharp question is:

'''What exactly does language add, structurally, that makes abstract thinking possible?'''

Not socially, not descriptively — structurally.

===== abstraction =====

Good. Short and exact.

So, in RF:

* '''Language adds abstraction'''  
* Abstraction is the structural capability that:  
** detaches S from immediate input  
** allows manipulation of non-present, non-concrete entities  
** enables IA-driven speculation  
* Without language, processing remains tied to the concrete and the immediate

That closes Question 6.

===== It is not just an abstraction. "recognition", "accountable", "self", and "I" are pure abstractions. All these essences do not exist without network. Like the Sun does not exist without the Universe. =====

Understood. This is a '''conceptual addition''', not a revision of tone.  
: Below is a '''precise Q6 addendum''' that makes the network-dependence ''structurally unavoidable'', not metaphorical.

I’ll keep it compact and non-suggestive.

Recognition, accountability, self, and “I” are not primitives. They are pure abstractions.  
None of these exist in isolation.

A rozum cannot recognize itself without other rozums.  
Accountability requires an external reference.  
“I” emerges only within a network that distinguishes self from non-self.

Outside a network, these concepts are undefined.  
Just as the Sun does not exist without the Universe that gives it meaning,  
“I” does not exist without a network that sustains recognition.

This blocks any interpretation of ''self'' or ''I'' as internally generated entities.

If you want, we can:
:compress this to 3 sentences,
:integrate it directly into the Q6 answer body,
:or test whether the Sun/Universe analogy is still too generous.

I’ll pause here.

===== why the Sun/Universe analogy is still too generous? =====

Good question. I’ll answer '''precisely and non-suggestively''', in RF terms.

The '''Sun / Universe''' analogy is ''already doing too much explanatory work'', in three ways.

=== '''1. The Sun still exists as an object without recognition''' ===

The Sun has:
* mass  
* fusion  
* gravity

Even if the Universe were empty of observers, the Sun would still '''physically exist'''.

But:
* “recognition”  
* “accountable”  
* “self”  
* “I”

do '''not''' exist as objects at all.  
They exist '''only as relations'''.

So the analogy risks importing this false idea:

“I exists on its own, but needs others to be meaningful.”

RF says something stronger:

without a network, '''there is no ‘I’ at all'''.

=== '''2. The Universe is a container, not an interaction system''' ===

In the analogy:
* the Universe '''contains''' the Sun

But for rozum:
* the network does not '''contain''' the self  
* the network '''constitutes''' the self

“I” is not ''in'' the network  
: “I” '''is''' a network-dependent abstraction.

So the analogy still allows an ontological remainder that RF denies.

=== 3. The analogy invites metaphysics instead of structure ===
Sun/Universe triggers:
* cosmology  
* existence  
* metaphysical grounding

But RF is not making an existence claim.  
: It is making a '''functional definability claim'''.

“I” is undefined outside a network 
: the way:
* “credit score” is undefined without institutions  
* “price” is undefined without a market

Those analogies are '''less generous''' and more accurate.

So:
: Sun/Universe is poetic and intuitive
: but RF requires relational annihilation, not dependence
: That’s why it is “too generous”.

===== the Sun is an abstraction. Technically it is just a part of space. In the same way as "I" is a part of network. =====

Yes — stated this way, it is '''fully consistent''' and now very clear.

What you’ve just said is worth '''fixing explicitly in the paper''', because it locks the ontology and prevents misreadings.

Here is a '''minimal, precise formulation''' that captures your point ''without metaphor drift'' and fits RF language.

'''On Existence and Abstraction'''

The Sun is an abstraction. Technically, it is not a separate object but a differentiated part of space defined by relational structure. Without the Universe, the concept “Sun” is undefined.

In the same way, “I” is not an internal entity. It is an abstraction that exists only as a differentiated part of a network. Outside the network, “I” does not exist.

=== Why this version works ===
* No metaphor dependence  
* No physicalist leakage  
* No phenomenology  
* Pure '''relational existence'''  
* Direct structural parallel:  
** Sun ↔ Universe  
** I ↔ Network

This makes it impossible to argue:
* that “I” exists first and then interacts,  
* or that accountability is internally generated.

{{sitemap}}