Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aetzbar on 23/09/2017 02:40:38
-
The trap of human language
A word is a combination of letters.
Each letter has its unique sound and unique shape.
Therefore, each word has its unique sound and unique form.
Conclusion 1: A word can only be "the name of something"
Conclusion 2: The only question for a word is " name of what?"
Conclusion 3: You can not answer the question with words, because every word is just the name of something.
How do we get out of the trap of human language?
-
Human language is a language of names.
Man knows how to create a language of names.
Man has natural knowledge
An ancient man saw a creature flying in the sky, and he gave it a name composed of 4 letters. (Bird)
An ancient man approached the fire, and a natural knowledge came to him
For this natural knowledge he gave a name composed of 3 letters. (hot)
There are many letter combinations, and any combination can only be used as a name.
A combination of 4 letters (cold) is the name of a natural knowledge that comes to the person touching the snow.
-
Conclusion 1: A word can only be "the name of something"
How do we get out of the trap of human language?
You (object) could (not an object) start (not an object) by (not an object) not (not an object) writing (not an object) rubbish (object).
-
name of what ?
the combination of letters .....object
-
Say we assembled one person to represent each language spoken on earth. That means will have about 6900 people assembled. On the stage of the assembly hall, I place a black cat. Although everyone can see the black cat and then pick it out from photographs, not everyone will agree on what to call the black cat, using spoken and/or written language. There will be all types of different noises and scribbles made, most of which others have never heard or seen.
There is a universal language based on sight, while spoken and written language is subjective and arbitrary in terms of any universal standard. The way out of the subjective trap of cultural language is to use the universal visual language where we are all on the same page of reality.
The scientific method depends in repeatable experiments instead of just reports using human language. The repeatable experiment is where different labs, all over the world, use the universal language of sight, to test the universality of the claim, regardless of their native spoken language.
-
Your answer is excellent, but you should try to expand it.
Is a universal language based solely on vision?
-
A word simply represents something. Data represents things. Thought is performed on data rather than on actual objects. Different languages use different words, but they use them to represent the same things and they process the data in ways which can produce new data which also maps to reality. If you tell me that you have a pet with udders and which moos, I can manipulate these representers and produce another one: the word cow. When I examine your pet, I will not be surprised to find that it's a cow. Someone else can do the same thing using a different set of representers, such as ubre and mugir, and they will process that data (in combination with their representational map of reality) to produce the word vaca, and just as I am not surprised to find that your pet is a cow, they won't be surprised to find that it's a vaca. Language is all representation, and the represented is unchanged. The patterns of processing are also practically the same, and so is the structuring of the data in the representational map. (There will be some differences relating to different ambiguities in different languages and different probabilities being assigned to some things as a result of different uncertainties in the data taken in.)
Importantly, we only really understand the outside reality through our internal data model of that reality - so long as it continues to match up well, we effectively understand the external reality too, but only in an indirect way.
-
A word simply represents something.
A good answer.
The op didn't think it through far enough.
-
The other idea here that I should have commented on is the "language of vision". The real language of thought is data, and that data represents the 3D1T/4D nature of reality, modelling it. Everything we see is translated into that kind of data to form part of that model, and we can manipulate the data in the model without using language of the spoken kind, but the "language" of thought instead. We're still working with nothing more than data that represents external realities (and fictional ones too, and projections of possible futures as we simulate interactions). Each of us may have our own unique "language" of thought when it comes to the actual representers used, unless it is so programmed into us genetically that we all represent things in this model with the same "symbols" - that's one for brain science to explore. It seems likely to me that a lot of it will be genetically preprogrammed, particularly when you see a baby deer being born, standing up within a few minutes and then running off after its mother - it simply doesn't have time to invent its own way of modelling the world from scratch. We may be like that too - not with motor skills, obviously, but in the way we see things around us.
-
Research question:
The combination of letters MATTER - is name of what ?
-
Research question:
The combination of letters MATTER - is name of what ?
"physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."
From Google.
-
Research question:
The combination of letters MATTER - is name of what ?
Does it matter? Is it matter? Is it another matter? The same combination of letters is used to represent at least three different ideas. If you mean "stuff", then you apply rules to identify stuff in your mental model of the external reality which can be labelled as "matter", and various transformations can then be made to that label to express the idea with alternative wordings which will also map to the same stuff in the model. It is possible to think about matter by working with a direct representation of it in the model as bits of something in a virtual space or by working with concept codes alone and processing using rules that apply universally to the concepts involved e.g. to generate from it that the matter must have mass, that it must occupy some space, that it cannot pass through other matter, that there are specific ways in which it can be bonded or compressed together, etc. Many of the things can be worked out either way: through picturing matter directly or by thinking about it through concept codes and knowledge tied to its coding. There is more than one way to think.
-
The combination of letters ... table ,,, is the name of what?
There is no answer in words, because every word is just a name.
The only answer is this.
Point to "something" and say:
The combination of letters ... table ... it's the name of this.
Whoever hears the answer ... looks at this thing and knows
He can also touch this thing,
That's how you know,
A similar answer should be related to the combination of the letters .......matter
-
The combination of letters ... table ,,, is the name of what?
There is no answer in words, because every word is just a name.
The only answer is this.
Point to "something" and say:
The combination of letters ... table ... it's the name of this.
Whoever hears the answer ... looks at this thing and knows
He can also touch this thing,
That's how you know,
A similar answer should be related to the combination of the letters .......matter
It seems remarkable that you can write so much without realising that many words don't relate to things you can point at.
Have you really not recognised that your ideas are laughably wrong?
Colin2b pointed it out in the 2nd post in the thread.
You say
"The only answer is this.
Point to "something" and say:
The combination of letters ... table ... it's the name of this."
Well, that's clearly not true.
How do you "point at" love, or darkness, or Thursday?
Come back when you have thought it through properly.
-
Man has a natural ability to create a language of names.
This name is a unique sound
We got used to the sounds of the letters.
Man has natural knowledge.
Man gives names to his natural knowledge.
Darkness is the name of natural knowledge, and light is the name of natural knowledge.
Even time is the name of natural knowledge.
Even form is the name of natural knowledge
-
This name is a unique sound
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone
You really need to do more work on this before your ideas are fit to clutter up the site's bandwidth.
-
The combination of letters ... table ,,, is the name of what?
There is no answer in words, because every word is just a name.
You can describe a table and discuss its functionality without using the word "table", so there are alternative ways of wording things, and what we have with thought and language is the ability to make all manner of transformations between concepts to show how they are related and what the component ideas behind complex concepts are. Ultimately, every word in language can be broken down until it is made up of nothing but fundamental components of meaning, at which point we're working with physics and physics alone (although some of it is not fully resolved and doesn't quite reach that base - e.g. consciousness). And all of these concepts relate within the model that's also stored in the brain where the external reality can be mapped in a very direct way such that a virtual table is held there and the mind can experimentally modify it and simulate its new functionality without having to tamper with the real thing and risk wrecking it.
-
Axiom: It is impossible to study a language, using its words.
Distinction: When a person does an act, natural knowledge comes to him.
For every natural knowledge man gives names, such as hot, cold, shape, light, quantity, time, light, darkness
The name is understood, only for the perpetrator.
The language of names of natural knowledge is the human language.
Man has a natural system of translation, between sounds of letter combinations, and natural news.
-
It is impossible to study a language, using its words.
Having proved that you are neither a mathematician nor a physicist, you are now demonstrating that you are not a linguist either.
-
An ordinary mathematician, do not know that pi changes.
A regular physicist does not know that there are only two quantitative things in the world, and they are time and energy.
An ordinary physicist, did not recognize the passive energy.
An ordinary linguist does not know that the only function that combinations of letters can fulfill is the role of names.
Human language is a language of names.
-
The combination of letters ... table ,,, is the name of what?
There is no answer in words, because every word is just a name.
The only answer is this.
Point to "something" and say:
The combination of letters ... table ... it's the name of this.
Whoever hears the answer ... looks at this thing and knows
He can also touch this thing,
That's how you know,
A similar answer should be related to the combination of the letters .......matter
You are discussing knowledge by association, language, written or spoken, corresponding to objects or behavior. This is what is typically done when learning a foreign language or for an infant learning the local language. It is not any type of revelation, and has been studied and applied for ages.
-
The novelty is that man gives names to his natural knowledge.
Hot, cold, shape, light, quantity, are the names of natural knowledge
Natural knowledge can not be explained in words.
An ancient man who approached the fire obtained a natural knowledge.
What he had to do was to choose a sound that would serve as the name of this natural knowledge.
-
Axiom: It is impossible to study a language, using its words.
You're not entirely wrong. It would be possible to teach someone a language without telling them what any of the words mean (although they'd need to have the patience of a god to do it, but you could also do it with a computer). If they then try to use that language to analyse that language, they won't get anywhere because none of it is meaningful to them. If they already know another language and understand what all the words mean, they could potentially use that language in analysing the new one (which they don't understand at all), but it is not just the language that they are using - it is thought that they are applying, and that requires an understanding of the meanings and an ability to simulate them.
Incidentally, it may be possible to decode the new language and fit meaning to it just by looking at its transformation rules and comparing the patterns with an understood language, so if an AGI system of ours was to meet an alien AGI system, they might be able to work out how to communicate with each other just by comparing languages (and the transformation rules) without exchanging any meanings at all. It would of course be quicker if they exchanged meanings too, and they could do that just by providing images to illustrate words and actions. Some of the more abstract words would be harder, but they'd mop up all the problem words later on, the whole process perhaps taking just a few minutes of processing.
-
There is no such thing .... to interpret words
Each word is just a combination of letters.
The only function of a letter combination ... is just a name
A language researcher should ask one question.
This letter combination (****) is the name of what?
If he got the answer, he cracked the language.
This answer is of an act that brings natural knowledge.
-
An ordinary mathematician, do not know that pi changes.
A regular physicist does not know that there are only two quantitative things in the world, and they are time and energy.
An ordinary physicist, did not recognize the passive energy.
An ordinary linguist does not know that the only function that combinations of letters can fulfill is the role of names.
Human language is a language of names.
A competent mathematician knows that pi is constant. If he didn't already know t, he would after seeing the proofs given in your other thread.
A competent physicist can do dimensional analysis and would recognise the reasonable- but not unique- choice of fundamental units employed by the SI.
A competent physicist knows that energy and weight aren't the same thing.
You are not a competent physicist or mathematician.
-
Axiom: It is impossible to study a language, using its words.
You just did.
-
Did you know if you rotate uppercase letters anticlockwise 90° you get ancient symbols?
D is morning sun.
So PAUL reads "Tomorrow you will see you're way back to heaven".
Or as is there jungle directions:
J is don't change paths.
Uppercase are warnings, and lowercase are sights to see.
Never did finish it off... though as it's a jungle... should you follow the advice?
-
How do we get out of the trap of human language?
By the use of maths and formula.
-
It is true that the language of numbers is an understandable language, because it is a quantitative language.
All humans have a natural knowledge of quantity.
-
It is true that the language of numbers is an understandable language, because it is a quantitative language.
All humans have a natural knowledge of quantity.
Likewise though humans have from basic education the understanding of words, but the problem is when definition has several meanings for the same word. The trap I see is ambiguity when using words. However we could remove this trap by adding a quantity to the word that then describes the context we mean it.
In example I will use the word force.
{quote]force1
fɔːs/Submit
noun
1.
strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backwards by the force of the explosion"
synonyms: strength, power, energy, might, potency, vigour, muscle, stamina, effort, exertion, impact, pressure, weight, impetus; informalpunch
"Eddie delivered a blow with all his force"
2.
coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not by force"
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, pressure, pressurization, influence; More
verb
1.
make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.
"the back door of the bank was forced"
synonyms: break open, force open, burst open, prise open, kick in, knock down, blast; crack
"the doors had to be forced"
2.
make (someone) do something against their will.
"she was forced into early retirement"
synonyms: compel, coerce, make, constrain, oblige, impel, drive, necessitate, pressurize, pressure, press, push; More[/quote]
In the quoted 4 explanations for one word. So if when writing we also added quantity to the word , we remove the trap
I.e I can not (noun 2) force you in to accepting this. But by adding a quantity into the language you know the definition of force I am referring to .
-
In my opinion, your approach is very interesting and correct.
Do you accept the idea that any combination of letters in human language is just a name.
So, the only question is ... the name of what?
This question can not be answered in words, because every word is only a name.
This situation can be solved, with an act that brings to natural knowledge.
The name of natural knowledge, is a revolutionary idea.
There are names of "things", there are names of "actions" and there are names of natural knowledge, such as light, hot, rough,
Time, quantity, shape,
-
Do you accept the idea that any combination of letters in human language is just a name.
So, the only question is ... the name of what?
It is the name of what ever we decide it is. For instant a Hammer, we call it a Hammer , we learn children the ''Hammer'' is named a Hammer. The correct name would be a formation of atoms with a good density that we use for hitting things like such as a nail. However that would be long winded so we shorten down to a generalised term and call it a Hammer.
However Imagine a Hammer that was made of crystal or glass. Would it still be a Hammer? The uses have changed so why call it a Hammer?
But in general we just name things so we all have the same idea of what a Hammer is. I think things are named by shape and use although the name given is not normally the use or shape.
-
The correct name would be a formation of atoms with a good density that we use for hitting things like such as a nail.
I call that a brick.
-
A natural process following the expression ... The name of this thing is a tree.
The look reveals the shape of the tree.
Touching the trunk reveals that it is rough
Bending a branch requires tiring muscle action.
These actions brought to the doer a natural knowledge.
Shape is the name of natural knowledge.
Rough is the name of natural knowledge,
And fatigue is the name of natural knowledge.
The natural knowledge of man allows him to create a language of names.
-
These actions brought to the doer a natural knowledge.
In what sense is this "natural"?
If it was natural, surely I'd not need to touch the branch to know it was rough etc.
-
Touching the tree trunk brings you natural knowledge.
What you do is give this natural knowledge.
The name is just a combination of letters.
If I ask you, what did you know in the footsteps of the tree trunk? You will not be able to explain to me in words.
If I do a simple act of touching the trunk of the tree, I too will get a natural knowledge.
If I get the name you gave to this natural knowledge, we already have a language.
Human language is a language of names. Each letter combination is just a name.
-
Touching the tree trunk brings you natural knowledge.
What other sort of knowledge is there?
-
The ancient man saw a wolf and another wolf and another wolf ....
He also saw a rock and another rock and another rock and another rock.
And he also noticed the step, and another step, another step, another step, and another step.
Then he knew that he knew a wonderful natural knowledge.
Oddly enough, he knew that he could give a name to this wonderful knowledge
And he gave the name QUQU
-
natural knowledge.
What other sort of knowledge is there?
-
Do you understand the trap of words? In the wake of an actual act that man does, natural knowledge comes to him.
He knows, but he can not deliver this knowledge, with words.
With repeated muscle action, the person climbs steps.
Every muscle action is tiring.
Fatigue is the name of natural knowledge, which can not be delivered with words.
Anyone who wants to achieve this natural knowledge has to climb many steps.
Fatigue is quantitative, from which we reach the concept of energy
-
natural knowledge
What other sort of knowledge is there?