Heh. Something rub you in the wrong way Canute?
The shape of language
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Yes we certainly do know what rats are; any assertion about their ability to think being fully dependent on one's definition of "think" should be looked at as political correctness. Only my definition of thinking matters; and referencing is not thinking. 
Wesmorris, good question...I just saw it and haven't bothered to read ll the reponses so excuse me if I repeat someone elses "object"
A little poetry comes to mind ...I'm not sure of the author>>>
"And the words I spoke died upon leaving my mouth only to be reborn only to die again in the exhaling of my next breath"
or someting to that effect.
Your question remined me of that ole' cat in the tale of Alice in wonder land whom or who stated that the words mean only what I want them to mean and nothing more and nothing less. The cat failed to say that the words are only true to the time they are spoken or written and that once written or spoken their context is generally lost in time and space.
The cat should have said the words mean only what i want them to mean and when i mean them to mean nothing more and nothing less.
Basically the reason why languages can be somewhat difficult is that the words exist as true only for the briefest of moments after which perspective and context will and so often does shift as everything else changes around them.
I am not sure this is a point that is all that valid to the thread but it seemed so to me ( at the time) maybe later I will want to reject this post but by then it will be too late as my words die their inevitable and ultimate death.....ha
A little poetry comes to mind ...I'm not sure of the author>>>
"And the words I spoke died upon leaving my mouth only to be reborn only to die again in the exhaling of my next breath"
or someting to that effect.
Your question remined me of that ole' cat in the tale of Alice in wonder land whom or who stated that the words mean only what I want them to mean and nothing more and nothing less. The cat failed to say that the words are only true to the time they are spoken or written and that once written or spoken their context is generally lost in time and space.
The cat should have said the words mean only what i want them to mean and when i mean them to mean nothing more and nothing less.
Basically the reason why languages can be somewhat difficult is that the words exist as true only for the briefest of moments after which perspective and context will and so often does shift as everything else changes around them.
I am not sure this is a point that is all that valid to the thread but it seemed so to me ( at the time) maybe later I will want to reject this post but by then it will be too late as my words die their inevitable and ultimate death.....ha
Last edited:
fountainhed:
I agree with your alien example! A symbol may have a different or even totally unrelated meaning to the receiver than it does to the sender. This is what happens when you don't speak the same language as someone else... you both bark meaningless garbage at each other until you can descend to some context - a mutual language, grunting, gestures, arm-waving - that permits you to communicate. Give and take is a vital part of communication, but in the context of a single symbol set being given out by one thing, the communication of concepts is less than guaranteed - it depends upon the context that has already been established.
I mention the Chinese Room in this discussion not because I have any intent to make a point about consciousness, but to illustrate a symbol generator that is by definition not a conscious thing. It has no thought, but it still accepts symbols and responds with symbols. Of course, it theoretically doesn't change context, so it's not a perfect example, but you could say the same about animals. If you don't believe that animals think (or even if you just believe that their thoughts are very simple) then you would probably consider them to operate on an entirely flat context - one which has values, but that never changes.
I have assumed up until now that instinct does not play a big part in (unintentional) symbolic communication between people and animals, but rather that people generally learn to gauge the reactions of animals by looking at them... it takes a long time to learn the facial expressions of cats, for instance, because what they initially look like isn't really what they seem to mean. As such I have assumed for the sake of argument that instinct is not a factor in symbolic communication except between humans... I'm sorry for not saying this in advance.
However! What I've been trying to say (thanks for keeping me in line by the way) is that in the case of initial or atomic communication - communication where context is not agreed upon, or where the symbols are being given unintentionally - the symbols that are received are received in a way entirely related to the receiver and not the sender. Let me draw a minor example.
A person goes to the coffee shop to engage in coffee shop philosophy - this is their first time, and they are very excited. Wes is there, drinking a triple latte frappucino and talking about metaphysics. Our person, let's call her Fran, seats herself across from him and prepares to deliver her opening statement.
She says, "I liked that part of Star Wars where Obi Wan said 'It was true... from a certain point of view.' I think that line really helps express the subjective nature of truth."
Wes, being an old hand at this sort of thing, cannot suppress a slight smirk.
Let us go inside their heads.
Wes thinks: "That's good for a beginner... definitely heading in the right direction... man have I heard that a million times before. Lemme help you reinvent that wheel a little faster."
Fran thinks: "Shit, he's laughing at me. He thinks I'm wrong. But I know what I said has meaning for me! He's laughing at what I said and he thinks I'm stupid."
These two are addressing the SAME SYMBOL, Wes's expression. They both know what it means to them... but they missed out on what it means to the other person. If any more words pass between them, like:
Wes: "Yeah, Ol' Ben had some good lines in him... since you brought it up, let's talk about points of view, 'cause I have some ideas that you might like."
then the context has been adjusted slightly and the symbol can be reinterpreted by Fran to mean something less troubling, like that Wes recognizes her statement's connection to philosophy in the grand scale.
The point is that until context gets set, the symbols sent out are received incorrectly almost by definition; the more complex the symbols are, the more they will be misinterpreted. Feelings like hunger and happiness and loneliness represent a basic context that people inhabit all the time, and can express very simply through facial expressions that are simple for other people to interpret. Once you pass out of this simple context, more complex agreements have to be come to for you to be able to approximate your personal CONCEPT as a symbol that will be interpreted the way you want.
I always thought that, if I were given one wish, it might be: "I wish that I knew how to say things so that people hear them how I mean them, instead of how I say them."
Wes: Sorry to use you as an example, but your philosophy is so recognizable that you made a good cast for that part.
You seem to be a little puffed out... I'll wait patiently.
Gendanken: With respect to whether rats can think beyond the immediate... not sure. I basically think that they have a couple of related faculties, but can't say whether they amount to our sense of thinking ahead.
Faculty 1) They prioritize objects over the long term. A rat can adjust to you and appreciate you as "safe" as a single measure without needing to remember the nice things you did... all it needs is a "like/dislike" gauge in its little brain that goes up when you are nice, and down when you are nasty. Is this memory? Whether it is or not is a serious problem with my personal philosophy... I haven't yet managed to answer this. It might be interesting to see whether a "like" can be associated with an object memory - for example, if we could prove that rats always like blue boxes because they always have a snack inside. This is out of my field of expertise.
Faculty 2) They can remember arrangements of objects. A rat can remember a maze and travel through more quickly on the second run. Of course, so can some insects, so this kind of memory is hardly exclusive to rats. (For insect memory, there was a study that examined insect maze traversal time on repeated trials; the trial was done on larval beetles, and then again when they reached their adult instar. Insects actually appear to remember mazes through metamorphosis, which I think is really weird.)
Do these components form the sum of what is required for human-like memory? I'm not sure. It is difficult to determine whether the ability to form object-arrangement memories implies memory of individual objects, or only a one-object world-representation that is just molded to a shape resembling the arrangement in each case... the world is a terribly complex place, and even a tiny rat brain has endless possibilities. (But, this thread isn't about rats.)
Animals do show some ability to plan ahead, even if it is only some kind of stereotyped behaviour; building nests, or using tools like chimps and those cactus-spine birds... setting up chase relays like timber wolves do... it seems that certain animals do have an idea of the future as something to be interacted with in advance.
Does this imply a mindset conducive to symbolic communication? I think, at this point, that humans represent a more specialized symbolic communicator than wolves (for instance), because we have structures that are evolved to deal with complex symbolization, like human speech (which does represent an energy/survival cost and therefore appears to have a benefit even in rudimentary forms). Of course, this makes me wonder about dolphins, whales, elephants, and other creatures with evolved structures for complex symbolization. This is where I begin to wander into unknown territory...
(Ever hear what elephants sound like when they rumble at each other? There's a sped up tape of it I heard at school...)
So, at the last, I am unable to say whether rats seperate themselves from the immediate. I am pretty sure that they can recognize a present situation as being similar to a past one, and plot out a series of actions going forward... but I'm not sure if that's all that is needed.
BTW, I am unlikely to reply on weekends since I don't really have a net connection on those days... sorry.
I agree with your alien example! A symbol may have a different or even totally unrelated meaning to the receiver than it does to the sender. This is what happens when you don't speak the same language as someone else... you both bark meaningless garbage at each other until you can descend to some context - a mutual language, grunting, gestures, arm-waving - that permits you to communicate. Give and take is a vital part of communication, but in the context of a single symbol set being given out by one thing, the communication of concepts is less than guaranteed - it depends upon the context that has already been established.
I mention the Chinese Room in this discussion not because I have any intent to make a point about consciousness, but to illustrate a symbol generator that is by definition not a conscious thing. It has no thought, but it still accepts symbols and responds with symbols. Of course, it theoretically doesn't change context, so it's not a perfect example, but you could say the same about animals. If you don't believe that animals think (or even if you just believe that their thoughts are very simple) then you would probably consider them to operate on an entirely flat context - one which has values, but that never changes.
I have assumed up until now that instinct does not play a big part in (unintentional) symbolic communication between people and animals, but rather that people generally learn to gauge the reactions of animals by looking at them... it takes a long time to learn the facial expressions of cats, for instance, because what they initially look like isn't really what they seem to mean. As such I have assumed for the sake of argument that instinct is not a factor in symbolic communication except between humans... I'm sorry for not saying this in advance.
However! What I've been trying to say (thanks for keeping me in line by the way) is that in the case of initial or atomic communication - communication where context is not agreed upon, or where the symbols are being given unintentionally - the symbols that are received are received in a way entirely related to the receiver and not the sender. Let me draw a minor example.
A person goes to the coffee shop to engage in coffee shop philosophy - this is their first time, and they are very excited. Wes is there, drinking a triple latte frappucino and talking about metaphysics. Our person, let's call her Fran, seats herself across from him and prepares to deliver her opening statement.
She says, "I liked that part of Star Wars where Obi Wan said 'It was true... from a certain point of view.' I think that line really helps express the subjective nature of truth."
Wes, being an old hand at this sort of thing, cannot suppress a slight smirk.
Let us go inside their heads.
Wes thinks: "That's good for a beginner... definitely heading in the right direction... man have I heard that a million times before. Lemme help you reinvent that wheel a little faster."
Fran thinks: "Shit, he's laughing at me. He thinks I'm wrong. But I know what I said has meaning for me! He's laughing at what I said and he thinks I'm stupid."
These two are addressing the SAME SYMBOL, Wes's expression. They both know what it means to them... but they missed out on what it means to the other person. If any more words pass between them, like:
Wes: "Yeah, Ol' Ben had some good lines in him... since you brought it up, let's talk about points of view, 'cause I have some ideas that you might like."
then the context has been adjusted slightly and the symbol can be reinterpreted by Fran to mean something less troubling, like that Wes recognizes her statement's connection to philosophy in the grand scale.
The point is that until context gets set, the symbols sent out are received incorrectly almost by definition; the more complex the symbols are, the more they will be misinterpreted. Feelings like hunger and happiness and loneliness represent a basic context that people inhabit all the time, and can express very simply through facial expressions that are simple for other people to interpret. Once you pass out of this simple context, more complex agreements have to be come to for you to be able to approximate your personal CONCEPT as a symbol that will be interpreted the way you want.
I always thought that, if I were given one wish, it might be: "I wish that I knew how to say things so that people hear them how I mean them, instead of how I say them."
Wes: Sorry to use you as an example, but your philosophy is so recognizable that you made a good cast for that part.
You seem to be a little puffed out... I'll wait patiently.
Gendanken: With respect to whether rats can think beyond the immediate... not sure. I basically think that they have a couple of related faculties, but can't say whether they amount to our sense of thinking ahead.
Faculty 1) They prioritize objects over the long term. A rat can adjust to you and appreciate you as "safe" as a single measure without needing to remember the nice things you did... all it needs is a "like/dislike" gauge in its little brain that goes up when you are nice, and down when you are nasty. Is this memory? Whether it is or not is a serious problem with my personal philosophy... I haven't yet managed to answer this. It might be interesting to see whether a "like" can be associated with an object memory - for example, if we could prove that rats always like blue boxes because they always have a snack inside. This is out of my field of expertise.
Faculty 2) They can remember arrangements of objects. A rat can remember a maze and travel through more quickly on the second run. Of course, so can some insects, so this kind of memory is hardly exclusive to rats. (For insect memory, there was a study that examined insect maze traversal time on repeated trials; the trial was done on larval beetles, and then again when they reached their adult instar. Insects actually appear to remember mazes through metamorphosis, which I think is really weird.)
Do these components form the sum of what is required for human-like memory? I'm not sure. It is difficult to determine whether the ability to form object-arrangement memories implies memory of individual objects, or only a one-object world-representation that is just molded to a shape resembling the arrangement in each case... the world is a terribly complex place, and even a tiny rat brain has endless possibilities. (But, this thread isn't about rats.)
Animals do show some ability to plan ahead, even if it is only some kind of stereotyped behaviour; building nests, or using tools like chimps and those cactus-spine birds... setting up chase relays like timber wolves do... it seems that certain animals do have an idea of the future as something to be interacted with in advance.
Does this imply a mindset conducive to symbolic communication? I think, at this point, that humans represent a more specialized symbolic communicator than wolves (for instance), because we have structures that are evolved to deal with complex symbolization, like human speech (which does represent an energy/survival cost and therefore appears to have a benefit even in rudimentary forms). Of course, this makes me wonder about dolphins, whales, elephants, and other creatures with evolved structures for complex symbolization. This is where I begin to wander into unknown territory...
(Ever hear what elephants sound like when they rumble at each other? There's a sped up tape of it I heard at school...)
So, at the last, I am unable to say whether rats seperate themselves from the immediate. I am pretty sure that they can recognize a present situation as being similar to a past one, and plot out a series of actions going forward... but I'm not sure if that's all that is needed.
BTW, I am unlikely to reply on weekends since I don't really have a net connection on those days... sorry.
BTW, I do believe Doilphins, Chimps, etc.. the "higher" animals, those with lanaguage-- can think. I will respond to your post in time.
On the side however, I did a little experiment with ants-- a specific ant. I gave it sugar and watched it try to drag it back to its "home". After it carried it for a meter, I took the sugar away, gave it plastic, watched it examine it, then move away. I repeated the cycle for 5x times. After 3 tries, it merely examined the plastic for less than a second before moving away. After the 5th try, I put a plastic container over the ant and went away for two hours. When I came back and tried the experiment again,. it still "recognized" the plastic in less than a second. Interesting methinks.
Does the rat store the scent, "texture", etc of the plastic and recognize it is not food? I've always held that accessing memory is not thinking unless meaning is attached to what is accessed. For instance, after having first stepped in mud on a street, the normal human will subconsciuosly step over the mud after repeatedly encountering this mud. In essence, after a few repetitions, stepping over the mud becomes habit and the "decision" is not conscious.
Is the rat behaving in the same manner? If a rat can relegate decisions to the subconcious, it must have a conscious mind. If it does, I have to reexamine my beliefs on thoughts and consciousness as it applies to animals. As of now, I am awaiting a reply from a professor at my university... I wonder what he has to say.
On the side however, I did a little experiment with ants-- a specific ant. I gave it sugar and watched it try to drag it back to its "home". After it carried it for a meter, I took the sugar away, gave it plastic, watched it examine it, then move away. I repeated the cycle for 5x times. After 3 tries, it merely examined the plastic for less than a second before moving away. After the 5th try, I put a plastic container over the ant and went away for two hours. When I came back and tried the experiment again,. it still "recognized" the plastic in less than a second. Interesting methinks.
Does the rat store the scent, "texture", etc of the plastic and recognize it is not food? I've always held that accessing memory is not thinking unless meaning is attached to what is accessed. For instance, after having first stepped in mud on a street, the normal human will subconsciuosly step over the mud after repeatedly encountering this mud. In essence, after a few repetitions, stepping over the mud becomes habit and the "decision" is not conscious.
Is the rat behaving in the same manner? If a rat can relegate decisions to the subconcious, it must have a conscious mind. If it does, I have to reexamine my beliefs on thoughts and consciousness as it applies to animals. As of now, I am awaiting a reply from a professor at my university... I wonder what he has to say.
Not so Canute! I'm sure his professor will have an answer.
Without waiting for an answer, I can conclude with very high confidence that ants are conscious beings-- highly developed, conscious beings. Do they think conceptually, no. Their organization is such that, thinking as is used is impossible. Were an ant colony prevented from its normal functioning-- gathering food, esp. by a normal human-- in essence, if we were to keep a continuing supply of food to the ant colony, and limit its function to to the propagation of more colonies, what would happen to these colonies--- supposing we can follow the colonies and provide constant food, etc? Over time, I think ants could think, were this experiment continued. I suppose it would probably take hundreds if not thousands of colonies before we could see results.
HEd, why would creating a situation where the ants have no challenges lead to thinking? That is, if you believe that thinking requires intelligence. Taking out the challenges to life would just stagnate their need to "think" up new solutions.
Please post a supporting reference. I rather doubt that anyone has shown that ants don't think conceptually. In fact I know they haven't. It's possible that they don't, I suppose, but I rather think that they'd be unable function phsyically without a concept of themselves.
In your opinion.
Fafnir665: Without going into too many details, the origin of intelligence is not something that people have many solid answers about. Of particular difficulty is what kind of selective pressures will make a creature intelligent, since this idea basically divides into two main difficulties:
For a creature to be creative in an artistic sense (one of the measures that we have for intelligence like our own) it must have free time... hence, it would at least appear no form of selective pressure can select for an artist.
For a creature to become highly adaptable (which is thought to be the value of intelligence) it would have to experience many different and changing pressures, or else a simpler biological structure could probably be developed to deal with whatever unchanging pressures existed. For intelligence to arise from selective pressure, the pressure would have to be ever-changing so that it selected for adaptability and little else.
Sorry that this is off-topic...
For a creature to be creative in an artistic sense (one of the measures that we have for intelligence like our own) it must have free time... hence, it would at least appear no form of selective pressure can select for an artist.
For a creature to become highly adaptable (which is thought to be the value of intelligence) it would have to experience many different and changing pressures, or else a simpler biological structure could probably be developed to deal with whatever unchanging pressures existed. For intelligence to arise from selective pressure, the pressure would have to be ever-changing so that it selected for adaptability and little else.
Sorry that this is off-topic...
In as much as there is isn't "full" proof that ants think conceptually, there isn't one that they do.
Perhaps you'd like to know what I think conceptual thinking is?
If an animal can set a goal, work towards that goal, and then chnage goals or tactics were that goal to fail, this would indicate ocnsciousness. It would even be thinking as I have seen others use. Conceptual thinking however implies the ability to plan before pursuing the goal-- to decide or imagine possibilities in both failure and sucess, and their appropriate responses. A creature who can think in this manner can know how to react to future events without biological adapatations. Try to get an ant to not leave a scent when it finds food. In order words, try to train it. The individual ant cannot abandon a functioning for the colony.
The ant colony, and not the individual ant, at this point is closest to a so called "intelligent" creature.
My and many others. I refuse to also see the point in the statement.
The ant colony is designed in such a way that all the different castes have specific purposes.
Let's take the so called Dorilysis Nigricanis(spelling?) or the West African driver ant. Were you to eliminate the primary functioning of the worker-- foraging and retrieving food, you eliminate the usage of millions of ants-- relative to the colony. Over time, depending on the needs of the colony, you might get more soldier than worker ants. If you likewise eliminate the primary usage of the soldier ant outside protecting teh queen, you will get less. In any case, I think the ant is highly devloped and practical and that the elimination of said 'difficulties' will precipitate an adapatation/reorganization of ant society to somehow facilitate specialization that is more diverse than queen, male, soldier, worker...
--> And BTW, my professor transfered the question to someone whom he says would give me a "satisfying" answer. I'm not sure what to make of it. I can only assume that the physiological/biological nature that allows for said behaviour is not known?
Okay so Blue you're saying stuff that I would say except without the confusion of being in wes-speak. I'm pleased and befuddled. You brain stealing bastard. I want to talk about this more but I'm a bit stymied at the moment. It's just "I'll sit back and blue's got it covered". Hehe. Sweeeeeet - sort of.
Regardless, I really dig where you're coming from - as I suppose I've made obvious. Hmm. I'll try to drop some insight up in this beeyatch tonight if I can muster any.
Yiyah.
I want to talk about this more but I'm a bit stymied at the moment. It's just "I'll sit back and blue's got it covered". Hehe. Sweeeeeet - sort of. Regardless, I really dig where you're coming from - as I suppose I've made obvious. Hmm. I'll try to drop some insight up in this beeyatch tonight if I can muster any.
Yiyah.
Blue,
In adressing your earlier post, I still say that unless unless intended, an "expression", "chemical residue", etc cannot be thought of as symbols. It is true that the receiver gets the meaning; but that meaning is fully dependent upon the receiver's context and not the sender's. Therefore, there is no communicating. The meaning of the "symbol" becomes therefore what ever meaning the receiver wants to attach to it. The receiver is not using symbols for it is not communicating.
In adressing your earlier post, I still say that unless unless intended, an "expression", "chemical residue", etc cannot be thought of as symbols. It is true that the receiver gets the meaning; but that meaning is fully dependent upon the receiver's context and not the sender's. Therefore, there is no communicating. The meaning of the "symbol" becomes therefore what ever meaning the receiver wants to attach to it. The receiver is not using symbols for it is not communicating.
Okay fountainhed, I will agree upon this term:
Fountainhed's Precept #1: A signal must be consciously receivable by a receiver to qualify as a symbol for that receiver. If the signal cannot be sensed or it is sensed entirely unconsciously(that is, with no conscious component) by the receiver, then it is not a symbol for that receiver.
Hence, something like the dilated pupils of human arousal may be noticed consciously by some humans and not by others (depending on whether they know to look for this). For those who are able to consciously sense this signal it is a symbol. For those who do not notice it, it is not a symbol.
Agreed?
Fountainhed's Precept #1: A signal must be consciously receivable by a receiver to qualify as a symbol for that receiver. If the signal cannot be sensed or it is sensed entirely unconsciously(that is, with no conscious component) by the receiver, then it is not a symbol for that receiver.
Hence, something like the dilated pupils of human arousal may be noticed consciously by some humans and not by others (depending on whether they know to look for this). For those who are able to consciously sense this signal it is a symbol. For those who do not notice it, it is not a symbol.
Agreed?
To an extent.
For even those who notice the diluted pupils, it is not a symbol; maybe it could be a sign, but it is not a symbol.
For even those who notice the diluted pupils, it is not a symbol; maybe it could be a sign, but it is not a symbol.
Better late than never or; "half baked, part 1"
I'm starting to realize it sucks to agree with someone. LOL.
Repeating "yup", "right on", "i'm down with that" and "preach it brother" after every line sort of lacks substance. I'll try to avoid it.
/The symbols are "given life" (if you want to characterize meaning in this way) BY THE RECEIVER NOT THE TRANSMITTER.
Sure definately... as it must be. Throw in a lil feedback where you percieve your own symbols - though I don't think most people do that consciously, I still think they're doing it to some degree.
/I personally believe that rats think, but they don't need to in order to give out a symbol by way of their behaviour.
Yeah see I'm all squirly on the symbol thing. It made sense when I read it before but now it's slipped away and I'm trying to adapt out of my habitual context and I'm having a slightly hard time. I need to revisit. Okay I just tried to find it and didn't see it. Can you point me to it again if you remember where it is or paste it or do it again or something? I'm all disconboobulated. I don't have it set right in my head yet. How does it work? How does a symbol get generated and exactly what is the context of a symbol as you're using it? I kind of get it but I'm not comfy with it yet.
/The meaning of the symbols that you see belongs to YOU, not the symbols;
I read this to take symbols as I would a written word, something external to you that is a result of your mind's attempt to fashion a thought to share/give with/to someone. Depending on the medium the symbol has encoded within it several layers of communication? Of course you can only then communicate with that which you can relate to, which consists of someone who has the same context as you... or in my terms, a compatable inter-relationship of concepts. Okay this brings me to wrapping my brain around trying to reconcile our two sets of terms, at least to show the common ground. So when I say "conceptual inter-relationships" I'm pretty sure you konw what I mean. Actualy, you see this is where it starts to get messy... because concepts.. wait okay there must be stacked symbols or at least an extra layers since thought is in and of itself symbols the way you see it right? That would mean you have the "undisturbed" 'context' which is like the ever-changing boundary of your mind's space (which is oddly like th euniverse in that sense from the perspective that there are parts that have existed from the beginning and it's always expanding... okay I digress), then you have thought, which is the act of manipulation of the active subset of your experience (which is compartmentalized by concepts - and and number of other things I guess each of which is a concept of it's own like context, emotion, instinct, blah blah blah all of which of course are integrated) which results in the projection of self into the future from the now, and the sense of self provided by how the now has been shaped by the past. Then you have the social level of thought, where you introduce symbols (ah, what I was trying to say is that symbols are thought.. see 'subjective geometry' which are derived and constrained by context, concepts, emotions.. basicallly, your experience). Sorry I know some of this sounds weird I'm just trying to get it out I'm on auto pilot a bit. These symbols are in a weird way, one dimensional bridges as compared to the experience from which they are generated. Bah I'm all twisted around right now.
/when two creatures communicate they do so by a symbolic convention given them by physiology and practice, not by an inherent meaning of the symbols themselves.
Yeah you see I’m down with that. Which is why ants DO use symbols, as the symbol is shape that funnels one mind to another but has no life until perceived by either. One side with the advantage of known context, one side lacking. Of course on a related note I think of that context over time and it’s basically subject to entropy eh? At least that context from the past. You can save the symbols – as we do with sci… the context fades away as each player’s context adapts to their ever changing environment.
/This is why, when we want to communicate something that we don't readily have terms for, we spend hours with another person trying to beat our language into the shape we need to communicate it.
The common experience of those few hours (differing mostly in POV, as it is a direct mutual experience for the most part otherwise) provides that act of smithing your context eh… actually just from the line before: Your shared experience IS the context in this case and you adapt your thought to match it (if you’re motivated and able). You yank the other persons pre-existing context out of their mind and into yours in the way you relate to - and through - the symbols you exchange. Shit I just get dizzy with all of it. Too intense. Hard to splain.
/That's what we're doing here, right now, if you've noticed. Certain symbolic terms are obvious to us, like the basic words and grammar that we use.
Are we doing it any time we’re trying to communicate?
/Some terms, like your POV, are well known to you but require a little explanation for other people, because you use that symbol to mean something slightly more specific than the general meaning we usually associate with "point of view". (Hence fountainhed's recent question about same.)
I think awareness is a logical inevitability of a point of view. You can’t view something if there isn’t a point to do it from and if you aren’t aware… but yeah that’s probably more than most people would bother with as it’s so subtly obvious as to never occur to most I think. It's interesting that I'm pretty sure you can use see the pattern of my internal context displayed in my symbols well enough to pick up that I've added a lil sumthin to the term POV, and even figure out what that is, simply by exmaning the symbols, even when it wasn't put out directly as one. Ack, if you follow. I'm all over the map, pardon.
I'm starting to realize it sucks to agree with someone. LOL.
Repeating "yup", "right on", "i'm down with that" and "preach it brother" after every line sort of lacks substance. I'll try to avoid it.
/The symbols are "given life" (if you want to characterize meaning in this way) BY THE RECEIVER NOT THE TRANSMITTER.
Sure definately... as it must be. Throw in a lil feedback where you percieve your own symbols - though I don't think most people do that consciously, I still think they're doing it to some degree.
/I personally believe that rats think, but they don't need to in order to give out a symbol by way of their behaviour.
Yeah see I'm all squirly on the symbol thing. It made sense when I read it before but now it's slipped away and I'm trying to adapt out of my habitual context and I'm having a slightly hard time. I need to revisit. Okay I just tried to find it and didn't see it. Can you point me to it again if you remember where it is or paste it or do it again or something? I'm all disconboobulated. I don't have it set right in my head yet. How does it work? How does a symbol get generated and exactly what is the context of a symbol as you're using it? I kind of get it but I'm not comfy with it yet.
/The meaning of the symbols that you see belongs to YOU, not the symbols;
I read this to take symbols as I would a written word, something external to you that is a result of your mind's attempt to fashion a thought to share/give with/to someone. Depending on the medium the symbol has encoded within it several layers of communication? Of course you can only then communicate with that which you can relate to, which consists of someone who has the same context as you... or in my terms, a compatable inter-relationship of concepts. Okay this brings me to wrapping my brain around trying to reconcile our two sets of terms, at least to show the common ground. So when I say "conceptual inter-relationships" I'm pretty sure you konw what I mean. Actualy, you see this is where it starts to get messy... because concepts.. wait okay there must be stacked symbols or at least an extra layers since thought is in and of itself symbols the way you see it right? That would mean you have the "undisturbed" 'context' which is like the ever-changing boundary of your mind's space (which is oddly like th euniverse in that sense from the perspective that there are parts that have existed from the beginning and it's always expanding... okay I digress), then you have thought, which is the act of manipulation of the active subset of your experience (which is compartmentalized by concepts - and and number of other things I guess each of which is a concept of it's own like context, emotion, instinct, blah blah blah all of which of course are integrated) which results in the projection of self into the future from the now, and the sense of self provided by how the now has been shaped by the past. Then you have the social level of thought, where you introduce symbols (ah, what I was trying to say is that symbols are thought.. see 'subjective geometry' which are derived and constrained by context, concepts, emotions.. basicallly, your experience). Sorry I know some of this sounds weird I'm just trying to get it out I'm on auto pilot a bit. These symbols are in a weird way, one dimensional bridges as compared to the experience from which they are generated. Bah I'm all twisted around right now.
/when two creatures communicate they do so by a symbolic convention given them by physiology and practice, not by an inherent meaning of the symbols themselves.
Yeah you see I’m down with that. Which is why ants DO use symbols, as the symbol is shape that funnels one mind to another but has no life until perceived by either. One side with the advantage of known context, one side lacking. Of course on a related note I think of that context over time and it’s basically subject to entropy eh? At least that context from the past. You can save the symbols – as we do with sci… the context fades away as each player’s context adapts to their ever changing environment.
/This is why, when we want to communicate something that we don't readily have terms for, we spend hours with another person trying to beat our language into the shape we need to communicate it.
The common experience of those few hours (differing mostly in POV, as it is a direct mutual experience for the most part otherwise) provides that act of smithing your context eh… actually just from the line before: Your shared experience IS the context in this case and you adapt your thought to match it (if you’re motivated and able). You yank the other persons pre-existing context out of their mind and into yours in the way you relate to - and through - the symbols you exchange. Shit I just get dizzy with all of it. Too intense. Hard to splain.
/That's what we're doing here, right now, if you've noticed. Certain symbolic terms are obvious to us, like the basic words and grammar that we use.
Are we doing it any time we’re trying to communicate?
/Some terms, like your POV, are well known to you but require a little explanation for other people, because you use that symbol to mean something slightly more specific than the general meaning we usually associate with "point of view". (Hence fountainhed's recent question about same.)
I think awareness is a logical inevitability of a point of view. You can’t view something if there isn’t a point to do it from and if you aren’t aware… but yeah that’s probably more than most people would bother with as it’s so subtly obvious as to never occur to most I think. It's interesting that I'm pretty sure you can use see the pattern of my internal context displayed in my symbols well enough to pick up that I've added a lil sumthin to the term POV, and even figure out what that is, simply by exmaning the symbols, even when it wasn't put out directly as one. Ack, if you follow. I'm all over the map, pardon.