[aetzbar (OP)]

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?

[aetzbar (OP)]

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.

[Colin2B]

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).

[aetzbar (OP)]

name of what ?
the combination of letters .....object

[puppypower]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

Your answer is excellent, but you should try to expand it.
Is a universal language based solely on vision?

[David Cooper]

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.

[guest4091]

A word simply represents something.

A good answer.
The op didn't think it through far enough.

[David Cooper]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

Research question:

The combination of letters MATTER - is name of what ?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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.