|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:03:39 -0500|
I am very glad that someone else said this, but I would go further and say that this is not just Leo's *personal* opinion, but the result of more than a century of work in linguistics, psychology, logic, and the philosophy of language, and even (Kantian) ontology. |
As Leo says, if we created our own "languages" from perception, we would all have private languages, and would be unable to discuss together, for instance, whether we were posting things we shouldn't. Maybe, "don't post" means "shout".
Ever since Bill Clinton said "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is," and every since I saw a big system that could not be retired get retired to huge rewards simply by changing its name in all the documentation, I have thought our new century was in trouble, and so I am always hypersensitive to things that sound as if science is on the way out.
But of course, the content of a communication is not in the physics of the external event; it must be intermediated by our minds, which must use ***shared** understandings of contexts, experiences, etc., to "create" the knowledge that you said 'way' and not 'wait', when I thought I heard "wait to go!"
That is to say, there *is* no "what we actually see" versus what we expect. There is only the pure meaningless phenomina we experience, interpreted by what we believe about the world. Babies can't see not because they can't experience visual stimuli, but because they can't *interpret* them. There is only the shared ways in which sane people more or less map their experiences to the same mental constructs. In fact, the examples Rich sends are well known, and many date back to the 1930s.
The examples of the "languages" with "noise": did surprise me, in that there was no noise. A very very simple repeated code in which, for example, "3" meant "E". and "7" meant "T"
So, this is what I thought Rich was perhaps referring to, not the fallacy that we all have private languages.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Proof that we construct language from our perceptions, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Proof that we construct language from our perceptions, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Proof that we construct language from our perceptions, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Proof that we construct language from our perceptions, Adrian Walker|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|