|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:30:43 +0000 (GMT)|
Plese note, that human language was probably invented to share experience and give an account of experience, real or otherwise. This is what the structure of human languages also documents, including grammar persons. What was available to share was the world perceived through the senses. What made sense became knowledge until the idea was proved wrong, not false, in particular wrong to apply.
If we want to use human language for something else in an understandable fashion at other scales, such as micro, nano or cosmo levels of reality, where objects and properties are of another construction, and not necessarily similar to what we already know through senses, not even at a metaphoric level, then the best is that we do not speak of the unspeakable – according to Wittgenstein.
For example, it is not possible for us to understand the particle and wave nature of radiation, like light, and it is also difficult to conceive maths beyond algebra, when we know that maths was invented for a similar real requirement, to give an account of livestock for instance.
Mental operations include abstraction, which is materialized by projection, our only tool to make something visible or mirrored. Projection becomes material when we write down or draw such abstractions. That way they become material, object like, two or three dimensional as verbal representation (i.e. nouns). Verbal representations are part of a language that we describe as having a structure, components, upper and lower levels, layers, horizontal and vertical dimensions, etc.
Note that concepts are nouns and the extension and intension of a concept are your knowledge verified by experience and not that of the object called concept. You need to define the menaing of a concept for others to follow you. Something is determined or defined when it is deemed to be familar from your previous knowledge. Nouns are called abstract (ideals) if they cannot be directly observed in reality, if they are not material or object like (real).
Abstraction is said to be a product derived from a process where you eliminate any properties of materials or objects that seem to be specific or individual, leaving only the ones that seem to be common with similar other objects. The assumption is that this is part of the scientific method of investigation, because it enables us to grasp the substance of an object.
But generic objects are not abstract objects, they are simply indefinite objects, because of the plurality of the objects identified in common nouns. Many of these are also metaphores, because we tend to use metaphores (simple lies) for objects that do not exist, or do not have a proper description. This includes relations between real things, or cause and effect that is extrapolated from our human experience that includes will. Relations expressed in laws of physics or geometry, etc. are not comprehensible in the sense that they do not have references in our experience, hence in our world. This is why these are called abstract concepts (a tautology) and the number of such abstractions is far too many.
Abstraction is required in order to be able to speak about a multitudes or all objects (categories, classes) or properties, not just one specific occurences. For this purpose besides quantors you have the definite article, which is in fact not definite, it is the end of a sequence of conclusions that involves a shift in focus and aspect. So when instead of saying what I mean, I say that it is the word, the subject of a sentence that means something, I perform a grammatical transformation.
I mean something. The word …. means > something.
This can be done after we have moved the focus to the word, when we changed the aspect (subject) of speaking about the world. Without this move a word would never have a meaning.
This is how a verb, an unvisible relation has become “materialised and will rest with us to the end of the world.” Meaning is now a noun, which we know is used to name or identify bodies, objects, etc. First it was a verb, because it was a predicate connected to the word due to the change in focus, and nothing would have been possible without that event.
“So in the beginning we had the verb, because that was the predicate, the message.
What do we have next?
The meaning of the word > is….. The word has a meaning. Another gramar transformation claiming what we have just seen, looking the same type of knowledge as the knowledge gathered through experience.
If it is true that a real object A has B, than B must exist. It is true that a really existing word has a meaning, then > meaning really exists: moreover, it exists as such.
Meaning was first relative (a relation, a verb), as associated with the word, an annotation or a part, but on the righ side it becomes absolute, the word is gone. Meaning as such is then to be described next. But you cannot do it on its own, you cannot consider a meaning as such, it is not tangible. So together with many others we write up long stories about: What is meaning?
Meaning is not something you can describe by purely observing using a method that you can check afterwards at any time, just as an object. Meaning is an empty set because it is created in the way described above. And it is not just meaning created that way, but all the other empty sets are generated in the fly in speech as a result of using various mental operations including perception, gramar rules, inferences, logical equivalences, etc.
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] new logic, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] resolving ambiguity in words, FERENC KOVACS|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] CFP - FOIS 2010 workshop on Ontology Education, Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] resolving ambiguity in words, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|