While qualia are not directly communicable, even they are labelable. All that can be differentiated can be labeled, if only by reference to its differences from other things (or other relations to other things). And if something cannot be differentiated, then there’s no need to have a word/label for it.

We don’t have separate words for red-green and yellow because we perceive them the same way. If we ran into aliens that didn’t, then it’d be relevant to create a word for it, and I just did by calling it “red-green”

When we need a word for something new we create one. And sure sometimes it takes science a while to refine definitions, and yeah, in natural languages words have really blurry definitions which obscures communication, but that’s not a property of the universe or a fundamental flaw in all languages, just our limited experiences and non-formal languages.

Point is: all that is relevant to be communicated via language could be communicated via some language.

>Using words to undermine using words

The universe is eminently describable with language - thats the whole point of mathematics.

No, language is trying to sort the water.

Yuuup. And then we turn the words into numbers and run a few bajillion matrix multiplications on em to produce some sentences that bear a similarity to the sentences we make, and go “omg! It can navigate the nature of the universe the same way a human does!”

Also, MFs in the comments relitigating privacy of consciousness and Mary the color scientist lmao