Are symbols the "language" of emergent properties/phenomena. (choices, choice)

[Ozzie]

Are symbols the "language" of emergent properties/phenomena?

If yes, what is the "language" of symbols? (suggestion: images?).

If not, is natural language emergent?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Are symbols the "language" of emergent properties/phenomena?

If yes, what is the "language" of symbols? (suggestion: images?).

If not, is natural language emergent?

Symbols are essentially relationships; an association between two things. In order for a property or phenomena to be "emergent" (coming into view), it must be symbolized for us to understand it. Our brains must make an association between that new thing and other pre-existing things, forming a structure so that the new thing can be experienced.

So yes, I would say.

[Ozzie]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Symbols are essentially relationships; an association between two things.

A polarity having measurable strength?

In order for a property or phenomena to be "emergent" (coming into view), it must be symbolized for us to understand it. Our brains must make an association between that new thing and other pre-existing things, forming a structure so that the new thing can be experienced.

Isn't it more simple to think that the association having greater strength, valency or whatever will come into consciousness.

Can't frubal you twice.

[Ozzie]

It makes sense to me that the simplest concepts are constructed by way of primitive comparison (they are a realisation of a difference ) and their strength is based on difference in attachment to emotional concomitants.

[Guitar's Cry]

[quote=Ozzie;918793]

A polarity having measurable strength?
Isn't it more simple to think that the association having greater strength, valency or whatever will come into consciousness.

This would be a behaviorist's argument, wouldn't you say? That certain symbols having certain strength are the true will behind choices?

This is probably true. But it also depends on how you define "strength." An association that fits nicely into the schemata of our mind will certainly be stronger than another, hence the power of empirical data. Of course, if an association is strong enough to rearrange the framework, then it is a powerful language indeed!

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

It makes sense to me that the simplest concepts are constructed by way of primitive comparison (they are a realisation of a difference ) and their strength is based on difference in attachment to emotional concomitants.

But aren't the most complex concepts built off this primitive foundation?

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

But aren't the most complex concepts built off this primitive foundation?

Yes but even the most simple concepts are emergent. More complex concepts could be constructed by further comparison ad infinitum and their strength measured by what might be termed "gathering valency".

[Ozzie]

[quote][quote=Guitar's Cry;918808]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

This would be a behaviorist's argument, wouldn't you say? That certain symbols having certain strength are the true will behind choices?

I'm fairly confident a behaviourist would not concern themselves with either the concept of "true will" or with choices.

This is probably true. But it also depends on how you define "strength." An association that fits nicely into the schemata of our mind will certainly be stronger than another, hence the power of empirical data. Of course, if an association is strong enough to rearrange the framework, then it is a powerful language indeed!

New strong associations powerful enough to disrupt the existing framework are commonplace eg. shocking incidents are more memorable. I wouldn't go so far as to describe the strength of an association as language.

If the definition of a symbol is "conditioned event", I would have no problem talking in the language of symbols. I am searching for the currency.