On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008 11:26 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Instead of the word 'primitive', I would use a word like 'pattern'
> > or 'schema', which is used to recognize sensory configurations and
> > to build mental models. But I believe that any such pattern could
> > be reanalyzed at a lower level or be replaced by a different pattern
> > that might be more useful. Therefore, it wouldn't really be a
> > 'primitive' in the sense of a fixed and frozen, unanalyzable unit.
> Calling it a "pattern" (less so a "schema") suits me better.
> Particularly if you believe they can be reanalyzed. But I doubt you
> will come with me in the thesis that these "patterns" can be
> reanalyzed as, or at least modeled by, the complexity of patterns you
> find among words. Take a text, look for patterns across it, and I
> think you get these same "cognitive" patterns.
> If words were never ambiguous the patterns would reduce to rules. But
> that would reduce the power of language to one or other logic, with
> all the drawbacks that entails. Making the words ambiguous (their
> associations unpredictable) liberates you to find more patterns and
> makes language more powerful/compact, "bigger than itself", even (but
> cognitively analyzable.) (01)
Cognitively _un_analyzable, even! I meant it is incapable of complete
analysis in terms of meanings. Hopefully the power of context made it
possible for you to reanalyze even this massive, meaning reversing,
typo, and get my intended meaning. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)