/If you pick up a dictionary and you find multiple definitions for a word, that deviating def. is based on a fundamental. awash in a sea of grey, you'll find me. hmm.. what is the fundamental to things that don't have physical basis? /light as a phyiscal entity is a fundamental. as you likely know better than I (bein all 'lectrical and whatnot) light is part of a spectrum. see where that goes? it just melts eventually. BUT, it's fair to take a stand on something and move on from there, as you're doing. I only object because it doesn't mesh with my view, but I'm trying to understand it anyway to have a conversation on it. /Light as "pure" is based on the fundamental of light. I don't understand what you mean "light as 'pure'". /Notions that need delineation and do not exist in the physical sense but must be explained through other symbols are not fundamental. i think that's find as a set of assumptions, but that it breaks down on further scrutiny. if you want to stick a fork in it and discuss from there, that's smooth. as you mentioned I that level of scrutiny might be counterproductive. i only note it because it as I can't help but look at it, it tends to work its way out through my words.
Re: Canute OK Well, if guns are illegal then of course only criminals have guns. Why not? You said that nukes and rocket launchers don't kill anyone, people do. Let's all have lots of them. Sorry, wildly off topic.
Wildly off topic... Ain'it though, but the shape of language was about communicating. I have a saying. "The first admendment of this coutry is (freedom of speech) the second admendment (freedom to bear arms) it goes whith out saying if you carry a gun, you can prety much say anything you want, enforcing your freedom of speech. LOL.. Well nukes and rocket launchers are wmd, the present government trust no one with these weapons, though technically the second admendment could be intrepreted in the way that we could own those weapons, thoug this would cause much chaos, without order, we need some tipe of order. Therefore we elect individuals to maintain this order. However when our elected officials have taken over this coutry, and the militia cannot defend our civil liberties, and constitution, then we are headed for civil war. This seems to be the state of our cituation, now. However many people are been thrown in jail, in secretsy, our ritghts are been violated, our constitution is been mutilated, and the media is not reporting any injustice. We could go on another thread!. Look for post "guns" and the second admendment. comming soon to scifi-near you!!. Godless.
Yes maybe this thread is dead eh? Okay. What in particular shall we discuss? I've been pondering value, and why people think just because they value something, or because a lot of people value something, that means the thing has intrinsic value. Hmm. I've also been pondering the nature of conflict. I think it inherent to a system comprised of non-singular values, especially with independent agents grouping in multiple modes to gain things of value for the group and themselves. I've also been thinking about the third eye thing, and am somewhat embarassed to admit that I had in intense and weird experience while doing so. The value thing really relates to this thread quite a bit. Hmmm. I dunno. What are you thinking about? Give us a link if nothing else eh?
Look at this bigblue, what'd I tell you: You speak his language and MILAGROS- he's licking your sack. Told you so. Kidding. So I see my attempts to show what language is really doing to us is falling on deaf ears......or blind eyes...so I'll give it up. This thread has gone on some odd segueways. How about this: ever think that language is limiting just so that we can understand the world and not get overwhelmed by it? As in grammas or lovers dying.....if you talk about them, you feel the usual small pangs of loss but a second or two later its over. But if you really think about them, feel them with your human capacities to remember...then you break down, stop eating and start crying. Alot of you say ( like Mephura) that language limits our thinking and fasciliates that mass mentality that makes the common man a fat, unimaginative couch potato. How about thinking that this limiting function is an evoltionary blessing- giving you and you the clinical detachment that it takes to understand the universe? absurdity? and btw bigblue- I still don't think you see my point with the rat. i don't think a rat, no matter how brilliant and special ever thinks of his cageparter or himself in terms of other rats. We're the only mammals insisting on 'individuality' and it starts as soon as we think in language.
To the muse /Look at this bigblue, what'd I tell you: /You speak his language and MILAGROS- he's licking your sack. Told you so. /Kidding. Hey you bring a thirsty man water, well, IMO a good man is a thankful for it. *shrug*. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! my lawyer said I stopped short of gushing. /So I see my attempts to show what language is really doing to us is falling on deaf ears......or blind eyes...so I'll give it up. maybe you forgot you were a mute? hehe. /How about this: ever think that language is limiting just so that we can understand the world and not get overwhelmed by it? That seems familiar but shit I don't know I cannot remember everything I've thought damnit. Though stuff that I've thought I think seems familiar. Shit i dunno sorry. Oh wait, yeah man regardless I think that's a great way to see it and think I agree with the equation you set up, but have mild problems with the variables so to speak. Wait here's the question: Would you think that if language were even more efficient at relaying experiences, they would get selected out because the emotional element would be too overbearing? I'd put it more like that given the current physical limitations to the faculty of language, language has hit a brick wall of either low demand or and effieciency barrier if you look at it from the angle of capacity to relay experience. Think if you could think to other people simply by thinking it; how thought itself would have to adapt to the mode. /But if you really think about them, feel them with your human capacities to remember...then you break down, stop eating and start crying. that is a good point but I'm not sure that so many are as empathetic. i know some are. maybe that's jaded. hmmm. yeah I think selection would take care of that. in other words, if language's efficiency (in the scale I keep describing) continues to increase, people will become more emotionally capable or die, kill each other off, blah blah. I think language is going to change fundamentally sometihng within the next two centuries, probably starting within 50 years. actually in a lot of ways, it's alreay started. look around. it's that we are communicating in ways never before possible that is shaking us to our core as a species. The multimedia generation is close to a turning point in changingwhat it means to be human, because our capacity to deliver detailed information to one another is starting to spike. I suppose it started with whom? The pony express? Morse? Bell? Marconi? Yes, I think we're onto something. And hell we haven't even interfaced directly with the brain yet. Oh there's interesting times head. Interesting times indeed. /Alot of you say ( like Mephura) that language limits our thinking language shapes part of our thinking. it is encoded within it as a dynamic operational (as in, sets a mode and the program for setting the mode is changing on the fly) function (like a math function) for communication. if you change the shape of the language... like for instance, add the ability to mentally project images onto a screen for your audience and vice versa, the very basis of the geometry of your thoughts (how your concepts relate to one another) changes as a result. as such the term limit is superfluous, as "is fundamental to the structure of our mind" seems more correct. /and fasciliates that mass mentality that makes the common man a fat, unimaginative couch potato. (agreeing with you) How can language take the blame for that one? /How about thinking that this limiting function is an evoltionary blessing- giving you and you the clinical detachment that it takes to understand the universe? absurdity? Not at all. That's a thought that stirred me and I see it exactly the same way in a sense. I'm simply not sure though, if you have to have a clinical detachment to really understand the universe. I think you simply have to be honest... really... truly honest. Can you see it? To me, if you're really truly honest your emotions won't betray you. I suppose that's not always true. Further I think that if one had the proper tools language could be much more powerful and I think there are pleny of phsyches that could bear the strain and likely be strengthened for the effort eh? /and btw bigblue- I still don't think you see my point with the rat. i don't think a rat, no matter how brilliant and special ever thinks of his cageparter or himself in terms of other rats. We're the only mammals insisting on 'individuality' and it starts as soon as we think in language. what about this: rats not self-aware by human standards. clause: the concept of self-awareness is known to be of wholly uncertain means, therefore we should leave room that it might be a sliding scale or something that we can't fathom due to it's anthro-foreign or unknown nature. is that somewhat agreeable?
just a test we have two Identically worded statements but they boith mean different things 1. You're an idiot 2. You're an idiot Which one made you angry and which one made you laugh?
What's weird is really it was neither. BOTH of simply made me reflect the statement back at the sender. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ha "if in doubt ........return to sender!" Uhmmmm.......I'm not sure I remember now which was which and in either case none was genuine in their intent or motivation except to demonstrate a point about the contextual value of words. Ahhh thats right I had determined that the first "your an idiot" was to inspire offence and the second to inspire comradery or fun. I wrote a thread awhile ago which I'll post here about the infinte nature of words: I didn’t have a lot to do last night so I thought I’d explore the concept of the infinite nature of words. ( reference source: Oxford Reference English Dictionary 1995) As you will see from what follows the word “Love” is given a meaning and then I find the meaning of the meaning and if I was really stupid I would then go on to find the meaning of the meaning of the meaning. Most of you know very well that the meaning of each word could encompass an encyclopaedia of thousands of years of human endeavour and philosophy. The word “Love” in itself has inspired an infinite amount of words both written and spoken. The art of communication requires that all parties share a similar context and perspective so that understandings can be reached. It is amazing that we can communicate at all when you consider the room for error in interpretation and context. The art of semantics, playing with words, can sometimes get in the way of worthwhile endeavour. The infinite meaning of words. “Love” an intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or thing, a great liking. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intense: (Feelings) Existing in a high degree: extreme, forceful. Feeling or apt to feel strong emotion. Expressing strong emotion. Feel: Examine or search by touch. Perceive or ascertain by touch. Feelings: The capacity to feel: a sense of touch. A physical sensation. An emotional reaction, an atmosphere, Emotional susceptibilities or sympathies. Deep: Extending far down from the top, extending far in from the surface or edge. Affection: Good will: fond of kindly feeling. A diseased condition. A mental state or condition. Fondness: Having affection or a liking for. Loving doting. Person: An individual human being The living body of a human being. Thing: A material or non-material entity, idea or action etc. that is or may be thought about or perceived. An inanimate material object. An unspecified object.....etc etc. Great: Of a size, amount, extent, or intensity considerably above the normal and average; big. Liking: Find agreeable or enjoyable or satisfactory. Be fond of a person or thing. From what I found Love could simply be described as a “Thing” I just thought I’d post this because.....well.....hmmmmm.....I “thing” I can. I think the important point is that if we assume wordds as absolute in meaning (literally) then we will fail to communicate, words afterall are just a subjective description of a description.
I think we can all agree that the dictionary gives a highly circular/recursive view of the English language... but, it's not a complete description even of written language and idiom, let alone the more complex spoken language; a dictionary is doomed to be self-referential even more than natural language is.
Exactly as much as natural language I'd say. I think one argument (from Russell) is that dictionaries and language are ultmately based on 'ostensive' definitions. In effect these are shared experiences. I see something red, and say to you 'that is red'. We then agree, based on experience, a non-self-referential meaning of 'red'. However as we didn't have the same experience it is moot whether we have the same definition of the word. We'll never know. "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." Martin Heidegger- "Building Dwelling Thinking lecture, 5 August 1951 (published in Poetry, Language, Thought, 1971)
Natural language can still rely on indexical components - point to a cow and you'll see what I mean. The dictionary can't point except with words, so all of its definitions are circular. The hope is that, when you read the dictionary, you already have a working knowledge of some language so that the supplemental value of the dictionary is enough to meet your needs without help.
Wes: You've sent a message and I can't answer it because somebody around here's decided sciforums needed its diaper changed. I'm putting some time into getting used to the joint today (you used to it yet?) and will reply on the morrow. For what its worth, heed the mantra : THIS PLACE SUCKS ASS. Sevi?
I fixed it, though yeah that's annoying eh? Someone's giving us a message about the value of hard drive space I guess.
You gotta admit though- ^ that right there's some pretty funny shit. *gigglechucklesmirk*. MERCI. Canute: Try saying what you just wrote with your mouth and your tounge would bleed. Keep it simple, mon cheri. What the h-e-l-l are you saying and why? Notice the simplicity in your target's (bigblue) explanantion- "point to a cow and you'll see what I mean" to clarify the 'indexical' modules in language. In a sense you've just proved why language is annoyingly circular, Canute. I've always pictured Webster eating himself. Now!- on to the good stuff. And I'll do it Wes-style: //Hey you bring a thirsty man water, well, IMO a good man is a thankful for it. *shrug*. my lawyer said I stopped short of gushing. Corny bastard. But true- this bluecabeza guy certainly has a neat little way of explaining things. Am I jealous? hmmm........ Gendanken:So I see my attempts to show what language is really doing to us is falling on deaf ears......or blind eyes...so I'll give it up. Wes: maybe you forgot you were a mute? hehe. And maybe you forgot the cold shoulders and dollops of 'bullshit' my theories get here and there when I post, Wes. You can't really call a girl with your hand over her mouth a mute could you? Who's fault is it? //Wait here's the question: Would you think that if language were even more efficient at relaying experiences, they would get selected out because the emotional element would be too overbearing? I'd put it more like that given the current physical limitations to the faculty of language, language has hit a brick wall of either low demand or and effieciency barrier if you look at it from the angle of capacity to relay experience. Think if you could think to other people simply by thinking it; how thought itself would have to adapt to the mode. You ask: would natural selection boot some out like a centrifuge if their lanaguage were any more emphatic? My answer: yes and no. Really, its not up to me to say that the Neanderthrals mysteriously disappear from our record becuase they were whiny, compassionaate little bitches that cried to death. It'd be stupid to think so and stupider considering women still plague this planet. However, you bring to mind the incredible hold that philosophers,the really good ones mind you, the hold they have on language. Because their habit is to look on every aspect of life with the the tragic repose language gives them, you can almost picture one romantically giving up on life over roadkill. There's incredible pain in the world it seems and a good philosopher- Nietzche being one - come closer to drowning in it the better his language can feel it for him. See? You could say this is some form of natural selection- which neatly ties into that other thread where I'm calling philosophers parasites. The planet has no need for them. Progression doesn't either- we would have never topped the foodchain with philosophers. Damnit I like my style better. Back to quoting, says I: There's this comedian who's name escapes me, incredibly ugly but that's besides the point. He talked about the lazy transmutations in language these past years in the use of 'What's up?": Early to mind 20th century - "Good morning. How are you?" The 50's early 60's - a tip of the hat and " 'mornin" 70's and 80's- 'What's up" and as the world gained more mass and technology got better: 'what up' then 'sup' till one day when everything's run by computers people will be going around going "*p*" Get it? (snort) If its changing, and in fact it is, its indirectly proportional to how fast technology is getting. The faster and more of it, the easier it is to forgo *that* much more time on what's being said. And this lazyness goes waaaaay back, years before Marconi or the Pony Express to that small group of humans that thought to replace a feeling or quiet thought with letters. Ain't no doubt. Tossed salad, wessy. I get it- that's the whole point of this thread. A dynamic sponge is what that brain of ours is and it reflects the mechanism that most uses it- language. Some alien being out on Casseopia with ubercapacities would not thinik as small as we do. If you ask me, the means we use to tell each other that we love, hate, or envy are fucking clunky but I don't buy into any of us being able to bypass the machinery. You do- you're into that transcendental hogwash. I do however believe that on some other planet evolving beings may have expanded further into possibilites our own evolution has denied us. This is it Wes- nothing more. Telekinesis my ass. Hogwash. What we've made for ourselves here are congitive shortcuts that sacrifice accuracy. Really, can you picture communicating via anything other than the written, spoken, sung or digitalized word? Language changes and corrupts itself over years but still remains that clunky appliance based on ordered components moved around and put together to mean something once you learn them. Either way, truth can never really be capture by them. Last but not least, you say this: How much would it take for you to see that I take those lab rats to be furry little Hellen Kellers before she was taught language?
Like I said, I can't post on the weekend... Also, nice to see you back, gendy! Or should I say... Welcome to Sciforums! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now, for the rat issue. I'm not entirely able to express my ideas on the minds of animals, since I don't really know how to describe thought processes as we experience them and whether the mental life of a little creature could be, for instance, similar but of smaller magnitude, or something like that... crooked words, I know. I'll try to hone my terms a little here. First, let us consider the noble cockroach. Without getting too complicated, the cockroach has a pair of cerci that stick out of the hind end of its abdomen. They are covered with hairs that are sensitive to air pressure changes. They have sets of giant interneurons (thick nerve bundles that have a faster response than regular nerves) that go directly to their legs. If there is a sudden air current near the cerci, the cockroach will begin running immediately - an autonomic reaction that does not involve the head-brain in any way. Presumably, once they start running the head-brain realizes its new condition and steps in to begin directing again, but for the first moment the legs are doing their own work. Now, consider that even the head-brain of a cockroach is pretty small, although it's been shown that they (probably) have some forms of long-term memory. (I addressed memory before as being difficult to quantify; if anyone wants to revisit this we can, but suffice to say that an apparently sophisticated priority memory would only actually require a fairly simple graph that relates "good/bad" ratings to sets of sensations.) Now, consider the nerve volume in a part of your own body, like your finger. When you say to the cockroach, "I have more brain in my little finger than you do in your whole body," this may actually be true. (Cockroach: "We'll see how smart you talk after the nukular war! Revolution baby!") Well, we can be pretty sure that we have access to the "experiences" of our body parts, although whether it is complete access I'm not sure. But the fact remains that the wonderfully complex cockroach may only be about as smart as, say, your foot. But! This doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have experiences like our own... this is where I start to have trouble. Let's go.
Okay. I got the feeling from your response that you think I'm a new aged flake. The advances I speak of regarding communication will come via tech. It's already on the way. It's quite inevitable. Actually, I'm surprised that it isn't already done - and would not be surprised if it had been and has been squelched. I'd guess one's internal dialog is somewhat readily available for reading. Not necessarily their "thoughts" as that is much more involved that the internal dialog, but internal dialog should be somewhat "easy" to decode, given the resources. I'm not quite sure that brain signal reading thingys are quite up to snuff for it, but I'd guess the advances of the last few years have provided the proper tools.
