| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Just Playing" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2005 07:39:18 AM |
| Object: |
Language as labeling |
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
.
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 10:19:28 AM |
|
|
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what you
mean then I suspect the answer is no. Take a word and try to identify the
elements. An apt word here would be "philosophy". I think there are no
dividing lines between the various shades of meaning that people use when
using the word "philosophy"; instead of a set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another. We talk of
things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves well
to tabular displays.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 02:30:12 PM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what you
mean then I suspect the answer is no.
I guess that is what I mean and I think or at least I hope that the
answer should be yes.
JP
Take a word and try to identify the elements. An apt word here would be "philosophy".
Your example is far too complex to base your negative answer on it. If
I may use chemistry as analogy, identifying the elements of philosophy
is like trying to find the formula for a very complex molecule before
you know anything about chemical elements.
JP
I think there are no dividing lines between the various shades of meaning that people use >when using the word "philosophy"; instead of a set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another.
If it really is imperceptibly there could not be any difference between
them, but if only one or a just a few elements change, as in a complex
formula, then we could have a perceptible change.
JP
We talk of things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves well
to tabular displays.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 01:59:17 PM |
|
|
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131481812.632903.161370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what
you
mean then I suspect the answer is no.
I guess that is what I mean and I think or at least I hope that the
answer should be yes.
JP
Take a word and try to identify the elements. An apt word here would be
"philosophy".
Your example is far too complex to base your negative answer on it. If
I may use chemistry as analogy, identifying the elements of philosophy
is like trying to find the formula for a very complex molecule before
you know anything about chemical elements.
JP
I think there are no dividing lines between the various shades of
meaning that people use >when using the word "philosophy"; instead of a
set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another.
If it really is imperceptibly there could not be any difference between
them, but if only one or a just a few elements change, as in a complex
formula, then we could have a perceptible change.
JP
Think of walking from the desert to the grasslands; there is a point where
you are clearly in the desert, after a long walk you are iin the grasslands,
what is imperceptable is the exact boundry between them, the precise line
that divides grassland from desert. When you are in the middle of either
the difference is quite clear but the boundry itself is "imperceptable.
Brazilians are taught the Portugeses word for "snow", Dwellers in the
Amazon can recognize the word. Is the atom of meaning that they attach to
it the same as the atom of meaning that the Andes dwellers attach to it? In
other words is the atom of meaning of a word independent of the speaker and
hearer of the word? If it is, then your scheme may be possible, if not then
I think it will prove elusive.
Ed
We talk of things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the
general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves
well
to tabular displays.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 04:39:50 PM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131481812.632903.161370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what
you
mean then I suspect the answer is no.
I guess that is what I mean and I think or at least I hope that the
answer should be yes.
JP
Take a word and try to identify the elements. An apt word here would be
"philosophy".
Your example is far too complex to base your negative answer on it. If
I may use chemistry as analogy, identifying the elements of philosophy
is like trying to find the formula for a very complex molecule before
you know anything about chemical elements.
JP
I think there are no dividing lines between the various shades of
meaning that people use >when using the word "philosophy"; instead of a
set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another.
If it really is imperceptibly there could not be any difference between
them, but if only one or a just a few elements change, as in a complex
formula, then we could have a perceptible change.
JP
Think of walking from the desert to the grasslands; there is a point where
you are clearly in the desert, after a long walk you are iin the grasslands,
what is imperceptable is the exact boundry between them, the precise line
that divides grassland from desert. When you are in the middle of either
the difference is quite clear but the boundry itself is "imperceptable.
Thank you for your response. You are one of the few that tried before
to read my posts as well as respond to them and I really appreciate
it.
As I understand it in your example you try to bring an exampe where
there is a change but we are not aware of it
IMO the mere fact that we have a hard time being aware of the change
it is not a reason to assume that our sensors have not processed it.
OTOH what I am trying to say is that we create a model of what is
perceived by our sensors and we label the different combinations of the
information according to some rules.
Sorry if I am not clear enough.
JP
Brazilians are taught the Portugeses word for "snow", Dwellers in the
Amazon can recognize the word.
The fact that they recognize "something" might signify that we use an
internal represention and we apply labels to parts of this internal
representation.
JP
Is the atom of meaning that they attach to it the same as the atom of meaning that the Andes dwellers attach to it?
It is not an atom but a combination of our sensors.
JP
:In other words is the atom of meaning of a word independent of the
speaker and
hearer of the word? If it is, then your scheme may be possible, if not then
I think it will prove elusive.
As long as our perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign the some meaning to our words.
JP
Ed
We talk of things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the
general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves
well
to tabular displays.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
10 Nov 2005 11:39:14 AM |
|
|
Think of walking from the desert to the grasslands; there is a point
where
you are clearly in the desert, after a long walk you are iin the
grasslands,
what is imperceptable is the exact boundry between them, the precise line
that divides grassland from desert. When you are in the middle of either
the difference is quite clear but the boundry itself is "imperceptable.
Thank you for your response. You are one of the few that tried before
to read my posts as well as respond to them and I really appreciate
it.
As I understand it in your example you try to bring an exampe where
there is a change but we are not aware of it
IMO the mere fact that we have a hard time being aware of the change
it is not a reason to assume that our sensors have not processed it.
OTOH what I am trying to say is that we create a model of what is
perceived by our sensors and we label the different combinations of the
information according to some rules.
Sorry if I am not clear enough.
JP
No. It's not that we are unaware of the change, it's that the actual
boundry is indistinct. In my example well-meaning people may disagree on
whether the grassland start on *this* side of the first clump of grass we
encounter in our journey or whether, since even deserts have some plants,
the grassland actually start over there where there are three clumps of
grass together. Yes our sensors all see the same thing, the question is
when is there just enough grass to be grasslands and not desert. We could
make up a totally arbitrary rule, "tob be grassland thare must be 3.6 clumps
of grass of a certain size in every square meter"; but even this doesn't
solve the problem because by reorienting the sqaure one can say one are is
or is not grassland. The boundry is indistinct even though when you are in
the middle of each area it's characteristics are clear to the senses.
<snip>.
As long as our perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign the some meaning to our words.
JP
It is just this that I have doubts about. I agree that "As long as our
perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign similar meanings to our words." which is not the same thing at
all. In fact, it is just these differences between how different people
assign meaning to words that is at the root of many disagreements and
arguments.
Not all words are inherently perception based. "Tree", and "rain" are
clearly perception based but "smart" or "kind" or "forgiving" are not. They
depend on the perception of behaviour but equally on interpretation of that
perception and the interpretation seem to actually outweigh the perception
in establishing the meaning. This is not a trivial set of words, it covers
more of what we tend to talk about then the purely observational words.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 02:32:55 PM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
Think of walking from the desert to the grasslands; there is a point
where
you are clearly in the desert, after a long walk you are iin the
grasslands,
what is imperceptable is the exact boundry between them, the precise line
that divides grassland from desert. When you are in the middle of either
the difference is quite clear but the boundry itself is "imperceptable.
Thank you for your response. You are one of the few that tried before
to read my posts as well as respond to them and I really appreciate
it.
As I understand it in your example you try to bring an exampe where
there is a change but we are not aware of it
IMO the mere fact that we have a hard time being aware of the change
it is not a reason to assume that our sensors have not processed it.
OTOH what I am trying to say is that we create a model of what is
perceived by our sensors and we label the different combinations of the
information according to some rules.
Sorry if I am not clear enough.
JP
No. It's not that we are unaware of the change, it's that the actual
boundry is indistinct.
I guess I am missing your point here. If there is change perceived we
have to label it, if not we don't.
JP
In my example well-meaning people may disagree on
whether the grassland start on *this* side of the first clump of grass we
encounter in our journey or whether, since even deserts have some plants,
the grassland actually start over there where there are three clumps of
grass together. Yes our sensors all see the same thing, the question is
when is there just enough grass to be grasslands and not desert. We could
make up a totally arbitrary rule, "tob be grassland thare must be 3.6 clumps
of grass of a certain size in every square meter"; but even this doesn't
solve the problem because by reorienting the sqaure one can say one are is
or is not grassland. The boundry is indistinct even though when you are in
the middle of each area it's characteristics are clear to the senses.
<snip>.
As long as our perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign the some meaning to our words.
JP
It is just this that I have doubts about. I agree that "As long as our
perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign similar meanings to our words." which is not the same thing at
all. In fact, it is just these differences between how different people
assign meaning to words that is at the root of many disagreements and
arguments.
Not all words are inherently perception based. "Tree", and "rain" are
clearly perception based but "smart" or "kind" or "forgiving" are not.
Actually IMO tree is an abstract concept too. The abstract terms are
basically derived from the perception based words, just that the
learning process obscures it.
JP
They depend on the perception of behaviour but equally on interpretation of that
perception and the interpretation seem to actually outweigh the perception
in establishing the meaning. This is not a trivial set of words, it covers
more of what we tend to talk about then the purely observational words.
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S2" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 07:38:16 PM |
|
|
In the 16th century there was an effort amoung the French Philosphes as
well as the English Royal Society to develop a "Natural Language".
This would be a language conforming to the tennents of the scientific
method. This lead to the creation of dictionaries and encyclopedias.
A number of them still kicking around today in revised form. A google
search of Diderot will lead to more on this information.
Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 07:52:53 PM |
|
|
S2 wrote:
In the 16th century there was an effort amoung the French Philosphes as
well as the English Royal Society to develop a "Natural Language".
This would be a language conforming to the tennents of the scientific
method. This lead to the creation of dictionaries and encyclopedias.
A number of them still kicking around today in revised form. A google
search of Diderot will lead to more on this information.
Stu
Thank you, but this is not what I am talking about. You gave me the
same reference a few months ago.
We can understand each other without dictionaries, it has to be
something that we all have in common. Some type of model that we
internalize (non verbally) and against which we compare whenever we
communicate verbally.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "S2" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
10 Nov 2005 06:03:10 PM |
|
|
Just Playing wrote:
S2 wrote:
In the 16th century there was an effort amoung the French Philosphes as
well as the English Royal Society to develop a "Natural Language".
This would be a language conforming to the tennents of the scientific
method. This lead to the creation of dictionaries and encyclopedias.
A number of them still kicking around today in revised form. A google
search of Diderot will lead to more on this information.
Stu
Thank you, but this is not what I am talking about. You gave me the
same reference a few months ago.
We can understand each other without dictionaries, it has to be
something that we all have in common. Some type of model that we
internalize (non verbally) and against which we compare whenever we
communicate verbally.
JP
There is a theory of thought that has Hindu origins. They use the
analogy of the mind being like an ocean. All thought comes from the
same internal source. Thoughts bubble up from this source. As they
rise in the mind they begin to get form and meaning. At their grossest
level they move from thought to speech. As a bubble rises to the
surface of the ocean.
This model suggests that every meme (unit of meaning) would correspond
to a word in the mind to a thought. A thought becomes an abstract
image/sound that carries specific meaning. This points to a thought as
an energy carrier that has connected with it a meaning.
The origin of this model is the explanation of mantras. These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration. As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing. No thought. Just
awareness in the here and now.
What you are proposing is the idea of an "element of speech" that
resides in the mind, pre linguistic. Perhaps resting in memory as
thought/image/sound.
The problem with working with this unit is that it by definition defies
our ability to communicate it. The minute we catagorize or label a
thought, it becomes speech.
Jacques, Is this closer to what you are thinking?
Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 05:02:59 AM |
|
|
S2 wrote:
...mantras. These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration. As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing. No thought. Just
awareness in the here and now.
We now have much easier way to turn thoughts off. Sleeping pills.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 03:28:05 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-11 03:02:59 -0800, said:
S2 wrote:
...mantras. These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration. As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing. No thought. Just
awareness in the here and now.
We now have much easier way to turn thoughts off. Sleeping pills.
There are very different physiological components to the sort of
consciousness I am discussing and sleep. The physiological markers are
also different than hypnosis. A person in meditation still maintains
awareness though thought is suspended. The result is the ability to
witness the pure state of awareness. This allows the subject to
effectively step out of the cognitive process and "see" the actual
construction of the self and how the self perceives reality. It is for
this reason that meditation has an important place in the discussion of
philosophy.
Meditation requires a disciplined repeatable approach. Experiences are
observed and compared with other community members. Meditation is a
form of science. It is a perfect adjunct to neurobiology.
The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5008565
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 03:58:59 PM |
|
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005111113280516807%Nospam@towelcom...
On 2005-11-11 03:02:59 -0800, said:
S2 wrote:
...mantras. These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration. As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing. No thought. Just
awareness in the here and now.
We now have much easier way to turn thoughts off. Sleeping pills.
There are very different physiological components to the sort of
consciousness I am discussing and sleep. The physiological markers are
also different than hypnosis. A person in meditation still maintains
awareness though thought is suspended. The result is the ability to
witness the pure state of awareness. This allows the subject to
effectively step out of the cognitive process and "see" the actual
construction of the self and how the self perceives reality. It is for
this reason that meditation has an important place in the discussion of
philosophy.
Meditation requires a disciplined repeatable approach. Experiences are
observed and compared with other community members. Meditation is a form
of science. It is a perfect adjunct to neurobiology.
The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5008565
--
~Stu
Whatever floats your boat..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 02:46:46 PM |
|
|
S2 wrote:
Just Playing wrote:
S2 wrote:
In the 16th century there was an effort amoung the French Philosphes as
well as the English Royal Society to develop a "Natural Language".
This would be a language conforming to the tennents of the scientific
method. This lead to the creation of dictionaries and encyclopedias.
A number of them still kicking around today in revised form. A google
search of Diderot will lead to more on this information.
Stu
Thank you, but this is not what I am talking about. You gave me the
same reference a few months ago.
We can understand each other without dictionaries, it has to be
something that we all have in common. Some type of model that we
internalize (non verbally) and against which we compare whenever we
communicate verbally.
JP
There is a theory of thought that has Hindu origins. They use the
analogy of the mind being like an ocean. All thought comes from the
same internal source. Thoughts bubble up from this source. As they
rise in the mind they begin to get form and meaning. At their grossest
level they move from thought to speech. As a bubble rises to the
surface of the ocean.
This model suggests that every meme (unit of meaning) would correspond
to a word in the mind to a thought. A thought becomes an abstract
image/sound that carries specific meaning. This points to a thought as
an energy carrier that has connected with it a meaning.
The origin of this model is the explanation of mantras. These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration. As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing. No thought. Just
awareness in the here and now.
What you are proposing is the idea of an "element of speech" that
resides in the mind, pre linguistic. Perhaps resting in memory as
thought/image/sound.
It resembles what I mean just that I am trying to make it as simple as
possible, but it seems that I fail to do it.
JP
The problem with working with this unit is that it by definition defies
our ability to communicate it. The minute we catagorize or label a
thought, it becomes speech.
Jacques, Is this closer to what you are thinking?
Stu
A little bit.
I will try to explain what I mean again.
We have senors that perceive information.
Each sensor perceives a different range of inputs..
If we could define and label all the information that is perceived by
each sensor, we could use these labels as building blocks for creating
words and concepts.
Nothing complex.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
11 Nov 2005 03:30:58 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-11 12:46:46 -0800, "Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> said:
What you are proposing is the idea of an "element of speech" that
resides in the mind, pre linguistic. Perhaps resting in memory as
thought/image/sound.
It resembles what I mean just that I am trying to make it as simple as
possible, but it seems that I fail to do it.
JP
The problem with working with this unit is that it by definition defies
our ability to communicate it. The minute we catagorize or label a
thought, it becomes speech.
Jacques, Is this closer to what you are thinking?
Stu
A little bit.
I will try to explain what I mean again.
We have senors that perceive information.
Each sensor perceives a different range of inputs..
If we could define and label all the information that is perceived by
each sensor, we could use these labels as building blocks for creating
words and concepts.
Nothing complex.
JP
Sounds to me you either need to go with current linguistic theories
that break down language into systems of memes. Or you need to wait
for neurobiology to evolve to a point were synapse firings can be
decoded into their specific semantic meanings.
Either way, this is out of the scope of alt.philosophy.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
12 Nov 2005 02:25:46 PM |
|
|
Stu wrote:
On 2005-11-11 12:46:46 -0800, "Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> said:
What you are proposing is the idea of an "element of speech" that
resides in the mind, pre linguistic. Perhaps resting in memory as
thought/image/sound.
It resembles what I mean just that I am trying to make it as simple as
possible, but it seems that I fail to do it.
JP
The problem with working with this unit is that it by definition defies
our ability to communicate it. The minute we catagorize or label a
thought, it becomes speech.
Jacques, Is this closer to what you are thinking?
Stu
A little bit.
I will try to explain what I mean again.
We have senors that perceive information.
Each sensor perceives a different range of inputs..
If we could define and label all the information that is perceived by
each sensor, we could use these labels as building blocks for creating
words and concepts.
Nothing complex.
JP
Sounds to me you either need to go with current linguistic theories
that break down language into systems of memes. Or you need to wait
for neurobiology to evolve to a point were synapse firings can be
decoded into their specific semantic meanings.
Either way, this is out of the scope of alt.philosophy.
--
~Stu
I have been busy for the last few days and I rushed my replies. I hope
you haven't lost interest in the subject meantime.
I reread your reply regarding memes and I feel that it sounds a lot
like what I am saying.
You mention the analogy of mind being like an ocean and thoughts being
bubbles, while I use digits of information for bubbles and continuum
for the ocean.
From there our models differ as I consider the bubbles or the digits of
information as the primary elements that will combine to create words
and not being thoughts themselves. (You may look at these digits as
different colors, shapes, sounds, smell, tastes, etc. perceived by our
sensors)
The main reason why I try to come with such a model is that it would
reduce the diversity of the language, it would show the common elements
of the words, their connections thru some combinatorial rules.
I generally see two problems in all the conversations, the first being
the number of variables people use in their presentation.
There are logical limitations in our understanding and using too many
variables in a message creates confusion as the variables can be
arranged differently by the beneficiary v. the messenger. BTW I see the
requests for simplification ("what is your point?") or the use of
analogies as methods to achieve this reduction.
The second issue is that most of us look at words as being irreducible
to something simpler, as not having common elements or using an analogy
with the prime numbers, that the words are prime numbers. BTW this is
IMO a consequence of how we learn the language.
Under these circumstances when we communicate we seem to use a lot of
words as independent variables and have a hard time combining them as
they seem by definition not to have a common ground. We reach rapidly a
point where the number of variables creates confusion and we start to
try to reduce them thru different techniques, analogies, creation of
new concepts and terms, etc.
What I suggest is that the digits of information or memes are the
equivalent of the prime numbers and their combinations create words.
This way the number of words that can be created is limited only by the
rules of combination but they are still reducible to a smaller number
of prime numbers.
Such a model could work as a frame of reference against which to map
all the words and concepts, could be a universal translator meta
language.
The creation of such a model shouldn't be too difficult but it is way
beyond my area of expertise. I am just a guy surfing the web for fun.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
23 Nov 2005 03:21:35 PM |
|
|
Just Playing wrote:-
What I suggest is that the digits of information or memes are the
equivalent of the prime numbers and their combinations create words.
This way the number of words that can be created is limited only by the
rules of combination but they are still reducible to a smaller number
of prime numbers.
Such a model could work as a frame of reference against which to map
all the words and concepts, could be a universal translator meta
language.
How you getting on with your rules of combination? Do you
have any ideas for an implicit foundational structure/model?
Going back to one of your previous posts that mentioned the
five senses, would such a framework include the 'processing'
(real time) of sensory imputs?
I think I found a suitable platform for processing (real time)
proximity and languages thats worth working on (for me). Its
very simple. It uses info from all senses. It came to me a couple
of years back, I looked everywhere for something similar, can't,
kept putting it to the back of my mind, just bugs me every so
often...you know?
Hope all's well,
:) N.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
26 Nov 2005 10:28:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Just Playing wrote:-
What I suggest is that the digits of information or memes are the
equivalent of the prime numbers and their combinations create words.
This way the number of words that can be created is limited only by the
rules of combination but they are still reducible to a smaller number
of prime numbers.
Such a model could work as a frame of reference against which to map
all the words and concepts, could be a universal translator meta
language.
How you getting on with your rules of combination? Do you
have any ideas for an implicit foundational structure/model?
Not really. I tried to present something before in a different thread
"some thoughts about language" but that is all I can do on my own.
JP
Going back to one of your previous posts that mentioned the
five senses, would such a framework include the 'processing'
(real time) of sensory imputs?
IMO time is essential to the model. The number of senses is not as
important as the number of signals per time interval.
JP
I think I found a suitable platform for processing (real time)
proximity and languages thats worth working on (for me). Its
very simple. It uses info from all senses. It came to me a couple
of years back, I looked everywhere for something similar, can't,
kept putting it to the back of my mind, just bugs me every so
often...you know?
If you want me to try to challenge your ideas please post them. I will
try my best.
JP
Hope all's well,
:) N
Everything is OK, thank you. I have just been busy for a few days.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
27 Nov 2005 11:13:32 AM |
|
|
JP wrote:-
How you getting on with your rules of combination? Do you
have any ideas for an implicit foundational structure/model?
Not really. I tried to present something before in a different thread
"some thoughts about language" but that is all I can do on my own.
JP
I'll give it some attention - .I read about something called
'ERC' recently, might be interesting to you.
Going back to one of your previous posts that mentioned the
five senses, would such a framework include the 'processing'
(real time) of sensory imputs?
IMO time is essential to the model. The number of senses is not as
important as the number of signals per time interval.
JP
I think I found a suitable platform for processing <snip blah,blah>
If you want me to try to challenge your ideas please post them. I will
try my best.
JP
Thanks!..I've a very important exam coming up..so I'm gonna be busy
for a while...it'll all come out-eventually I suppose, I'm just
looking into methods and modalities.
:)
N.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 12:31:10 PM |
|
|
Might you be referring to ideograms? Oriental languages, like Chinese
and Japanese, utilize said notation.
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 01:12:34 PM |
|
|
Wordsmith wrote:
Might you be referring to ideograms? Oriental languages, like Chinese
and Japanese, utilize said notation.
W : )
I am sure that it is my fault for not being able to make myself
understood and that is why I will try to use again the analogy to the
periodic table of elements.
If you know the chemical formula of a molecule that interacts with
another molecule you will know what will be the resulting molecule
based on this knowledge.
The same way if you could decipher the "formula" of words and concepts
you would know what the ending result of their interaction will be.
Basically it is similar to how we arrive at a conclusion when we read
or hear something. We may not be aware of the whole process, of the
interaction of the concepts, mostly because we take shortcuts, but the
process is similar to what I described with chemical formulas.
If we could find the "formulas" we could replace the words with these
formulas and a lot of discussions would become unnecessary.
BTW I appreciate everybody's input and I learn something from all of
you.
Thank you,
JP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wolf Kirchmeir" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 10:40:06 AM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what you
mean then I suspect the answer is no. Take a word and try to identify the
elements. An apt word here would be "philosophy". I think there are no
dividing lines between the various shades of meaning that people use when
using the word "philosophy"; instead of a set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another. We talk of
things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves well
to tabular displays.
Ed
Morphology does some of the things JP wants. I think if you take a good
course in mdoern linguistics, you'll both understand JP's question a bit
better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 02:57:40 PM |
|
|
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
Sure! In English the elementary components of words are letters. In the
ideographic languages like Chinese the elements are brush strokes.
Perhaps you mean the elements of the *meaning* of words. If that's what you
mean then I suspect the answer is no. Take a word and try to identify the
elements. An apt word here would be "philosophy". I think there are no
dividing lines between the various shades of meaning that people use when
using the word "philosophy"; instead of a set of elements there is a shaded,
blurry map where one meaning blends imperceptably into another. We talk of
things like "the main thrust" or "the general gist" or "the general idea" of
the various things that could be called "philosophy"
There are ways to define "fuzzy" areas but they do no lend themselves well
to tabular displays.
Ed
Morphology does some of the things JP wants. I think if you take a good
course in mdoern linguistics, you'll both understand JP's question a bit
better.
I am not talking at all about morphology.
I will use a simple example to try to clarify what I am asking.
The chemical formula for water is H2O and we can translate the word
water in all the languages without changing the formula.
OTOH we had a word for water a long time before we knew its chemical
formula and its translation in any language was very clear.
IMO the common elements of the meaning of water are related to its
perception by our sensors and not to its chemical formula.
IOW the elements that give meaning to a word might be related to our
perception, to our sensors and not to its morphology.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 08:38:16 AM |
|
|
Definitely logical atomism. Presumeably the elements you're talking
about would be things like 'colour', 'extension', that kind of thing?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 05:01:27 PM |
|
|
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
This already exists. It is known as numerology.
The equivalent is that of written music as it relates to the actual music.
Having said that, even with music , the beauty (written or actual )is in the
eye(ear)of the beholder, so , as usual, reality is not what you hear, read
or have interpreted, but what you make of it at any given time.
You have, of course, to be a trained musician to "hear the music"-befor it
is played, as with any discipline, and even the very advanced may hear
'almost' the same but be affected differently.
The whole essence here, is that as individuals develop a more advanced sense
of self, they often attempt to develop an "uncommon" communication level
with those who are not on the same wavelength.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Playing" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
08 Nov 2005 07:59:34 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
This already exists. It is known as numerology.
I am not talking about numerology but about meaning.
I look at words as "formulas" or "tri dimensional figures", and
these formulas or figures are the equivalent of what we call meaning.
I am trying to find how we create these "formulas" or "tri
dimensional figures", to find what they are made of, their elements
or building blocks.
JP
The equivalent is that of written music as it relates to the actual music.
Having said that, even with music , the beauty (written or actual )is in the
eye(ear)of the beholder, so , as usual, reality is not what you hear, read
or have interpreted, but what you make of it at any given time.
You have, of course, to be a trained musician to "hear the music"-befor it
is played, as with any discipline, and even the very advanced may hear
'almost' the same but be affected differently.
The whole essence here, is that as individuals develop a more advanced sense
of self, they often attempt to develop an "uncommon" communication level
with those who are not on the same wavelength.
BOfL
Interesting stuff but it is not the same as what I am asking.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 09:09:13 AM |
|
|
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131501574.196728.300480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131457158.778267.276740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to create a system, maybe similar to the periodic table
of elements in chemistry, which would allow us to break words into
elementary components?
IMO such a system would allow to label all the possible combinations of
these elements into words, concepts, etc. and create a kind of meta
language.
?
JP
This already exists. It is known as numerology.
I am not talking about numerology but about meaning.
I look at words as "formulas" or "tri dimensional figures", and
these formulas or figures are the equivalent of what we call meaning.
I am trying to find how we create these "formulas" or "tri
dimensional figures", to find what they are made of, their elements
or building blocks.
USA "means" an arena to practice freedom, also the "dream" of discovering
solid foundation, and the appearance of supporting individuality.
America, "means" solid foundation, having the appearance 'and' supporting
the dream of discovering spiritual reality.
Your own name 'code' is similar to your dna code, in the sense that both
cases illustrate the individual is greater than the sum of its parts, but
clearly identifying specific aspects.
Until one recognises and applies the qualitative (human) reality of the
symbols of the alpha numerical system , we are like fish swimming around,
looking for the ocean.
In synch with the ng, this is what Pythagoras was "all about". I also humbly
suggest this is what you are "really" looking for.
BOfL
JP
The equivalent is that of written music as it relates to the actual
music.
Having said that, even with music , the beauty (written or actual )is in
the
eye(ear)of the beholder, so , as usual, reality is not what you hear,
read
or have interpreted, but what you make of it at any given time.
You have, of course, to be a trained musician to "hear the music"-befor
it
is played, as with any discipline, and even the very advanced may hear
'almost' the same but be affected differently.
The whole essence here, is that as individuals develop a more advanced
sense
of self, they often attempt to develop an "uncommon" communication level
with those who are not on the same wavelength.
BOfL
Interesting stuff but it is not the same as what I am asking.
JP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 06:23:27 AM |
|
|
I've tried reading through the various replies so as to understand
your question and am still not sure what you are asking.
Do you mean something like Roger Shank;s Conceptual Dependency theory
as highlighted at:http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/AI2/node69.html
or something else?
I haven't checked into Cyc lately. It appears it's open source now:
http://www.opencyc.org/
Immortalist gave some pretty good information. You're going to have
some problems with prefixes such as "in" as in "inflammable",
"infamous",
and "inedible".
Most words have several meanings and each person has a slightly
different
conotations. I've recently had a discussion about wheather "A
contradicts B"
should be translated into FOPL as A -> ~B or A <-> ~B. I have yet to
track
down a authoritative source on the matter. The Law of
Non-Contradiction as
I understand Aristotle expressing it is ~(A & ~A) and yet this doesn't
answer
the question since LNC is about a single thing being and not being
rather than
about two things where it could be the case that both may not be. I've
given
this discussion a rest because I might just be using a non-standard
interpretation.
There are also binding problems. Consider these sentences:
Mary gave Jim her book.
Mary gave Jim his book.
The dog gave the cat its bone.
The dog gave the cat its scar.
In the last case it's clear what "its" binds to but not so in the prior
sentence.
Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 03:14:34 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1131539007.890565.92020
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Most words have several meanings and each person has a slightly
different conotations. I've recently had a discussion about wheather "A
contradicts B" should be translated into FOPL as A -> ~B or A <-> ~B. I
have yet to track down a authoritative source on the matter. The Law of
Non-Contradiction as I understand Aristotle expressing it is ~(A & ~A)
and yet this doesn't answer the question since LNC is about a single
thing being and not being rather than about two things where it could be
the case that both may not be. I've given this discussion a rest because
I might just be using a non-standard interpretation.
Your interpretation of "contradicts" is not "non-standard," but it is not
the meaning understood in logic.
"Contradict," like most other words, has several meanings in ordinary
language. Saying "A contradicts B" could just mean that A is incompatible
with B, for various reasons, not all of which are strictly logical. E.g.,
"The weatherman just contradicted himself. A minute ago he said it was 70
degrees, now he says it is snowing."
If it is 70 degrees it can't be snowing, but if it is not snowing, it may
or may not be 70 degrees.
If "A contradicts B" is meant as a logical contradiction, then one must be
able to derive the Aristotelian form. E.g., derive C from A and ~C from B.
There are also binding problems. Consider these sentences:
Mary gave Jim her book.
Mary gave Jim his book.
The dog gave the cat its bone.
The dog gave the cat its scar.
In the last case it's clear what "its" binds to but not so in the prior
sentence.
Why is that?
It is because the referents of pronouns are not fixed by grammar (word
order), but by context. Hence writers must make sure such ambiguities can
be resolved from context.
In the case of the scar, the sentence provides context enough, since scars
are not readily transferable. Bones are transferable, so more context is
needed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 07:15:52 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I've recently had a discussion about wheather "A
contradicts B"
should be translated into FOPL as A -> ~B or A <-> ~B. I have yet to
track
down a authoritative source on the matter. The Law of
Non-Contradiction as
I understand Aristotle expressing it is ~(A & ~A) and yet this doesn't
answer
the question since LNC is about a single thing being and not being
rather than
about two things where it could be the case that both may not be. I've
given
this discussion a rest because I might just be using a non-standard
interpretation.
I think it's valid to say that if A contradicts B, it means that A and
B cannot be both true at the same time:
NOT(A AND B) = 1
or:
(NOT A) OR (NOT B) = 1
or a number of other ways.
btw, how is that related to a question at hand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Language as labeling |
09 Nov 2005 03:18:19 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1131542152.930169.4870
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I think it's valid to say that if A contradicts B, it means that A and
B cannot be both true at the same time:
That is the "common sense" understanding. But per the logical
understanding, for A to contradict B, A must specifically deny what B
asserts. Not being true simultaneously is not enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
