General

Re: Individuals and Language (Crrawmeh Zhoukomo)

Esuric — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:25:55 GMT

WILLARD VAN ORMAN QUINE

Re: Individuals and Language (Crrawmeh Zhoukomo)

AJ — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:22:54 GMT

This is an important insight. At bottom, it's really another way of saying that words are not thoughts. They are merely expressions of thoughts.

Matching up words with their intended meanings is an empirical process each person engages in as they go through life. Then again, words are very discrete, isolated units of meaning. So even if they were exactly the same for everyone, there would still be all the communicational ambiguity of senses, nuances, frames, category assumptions, hidden intentions, connotations, unstated delimiting of intended applicability, etc.

The revolution in language is coming. When technology gets good enough we won't need to rely so much on words. We could instead place what we see in our mind's eye on a screen. We could transmit what we hear in our mind's ear to speakers. Movies on the fly, straight from your imagination - any time or all the time. After a generation or two, a large portion of our word memes as we know them (all of language is memes*) would probably be largely supplanted by image memes, animation memes, sound memes, and combinations of the same. They would be far more efficient. You could almost imagine literally conveying pure logic through diagrams and animations produced on the fly, that were standardized by much the same process through which English has been standardized and maintained.

*I don't mean to support the theory of memetics, but just to employ this useful shorthand

Re: Individuals and Language (Crrawmeh Zhoukomo)

TelfordUS — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:07:34 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

TelfordUS:

However, a word like state may hold 2 different meanings between the both of us (assuming I'm talking to a statist or something). I see the state as a System of Action of thievery and control, while This excommunication is why debates tend to yield small intellectual progress.

I get the gist of what you are saying, it does happen, but mostly it is wishful thinking causing one person to prefer to old a particular view.

D'oh. I made a pretty bad error in that quote, what I meant to say was:

I see the state as a System of Action of thievery and control, while they see the state as the only option for society to act humanely. This excommunication is why debates tend to yield small intellectual progress.

Sorry :p

Re: Individuals and Language (Crrawmeh Zhoukomo)

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:57:49 GMT

TelfordUS:

However, a word like state may hold 2 different meanings between the both of us (assuming I'm talking to a statist or something). I see the state as a System of Action of thievery and control, while This excommunication is why debates tend to yield small intellectual progress.

I get the gist of what you are saying, it does happen, but mostly it is wishful thinking causing one person to prefer to old a particular view.

Individuals and Language (Crrawmeh Zhoukomo)

TelfordUS — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:51:15 GMT

Can languages really be called such?

I think, rather, all humans develop their own language through adapting sounds from Fixed Languages (English, Mandarin, etc) and putting their own meaning upon each one.

The word horse holds an almost identical meaning between you and I (probably). Since both of us would associate this word with a large four-legged mammal, excommunication with this word would be unlikely. However, a word like state may hold 2 different meanings between the both of us (assuming I'm talking to a statist or something). I see the state as a System of Action of thievery and control, while This excommunication is why debates tend to yield small intellectual progress.

Crrawmeh Zhoukomo.