What's going on in the minds?

[Polymath257]

Lets see now.....they had words for "cat" ( yep...I know what a cat is )
and a word for "dog" ( yep, know what a dog is ).
"language" is not about "words".

Interesting viewpoint. I disagree. The word is the assignment of a sound (or other abstraction) to something like a dog or a cat.

For example, I would bet that you have no 'word' for a great many phenomena that others *do* have words for because of their specialization.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

You really need to work on your back peddling game....

ALL "learning" is just remembering.
now go and learn what that means.

 

[Polymath257]

I am seeing a marked increase these days in "scientism", which is the false belief that the scientific process is the only valid means of determining truth. And along with this belief, I am seeing a rejection of the metaphysical nature of consciousness. These folks seem to think that because science can explain the mechanics of human cognition, that human cognition is "nothing more" than the result of a complex bio-mechanical process. That the mechanics are all that's "real", and the cognitive results are a kind of illusion.

That's not quite how I see it. I think that human cognition is ultimately physical in nature. But I don't think that cognitive states are an illusion any more than i think that pressure or temperature are illusions. They are real processes in the physical world.

This way of thinking worries me a lot, as it feels very reminiscent 1930s futurism, that led modern humans to view a horrific manifestation of fascism is a 'natural order' of things; justified by their new found knowledge of nature's mechanics.

I don't think that was the primary motivation for fascism. Or even a secondary motivation. At most, it was a convenient set of ideas for a conclusion they already reached.

 

[Polymath257]

ALL "learning" is just remembering.
now go and learn what that means.

Socrates, you are not.

And I disagree.

 

[McBell]

ALL "learning" is just remembering.
now go and learn what that means.

I remember now
I remember how it started
I can't remember yesterday
I just remember doing, what they told me
Told me
Told me
Told me​

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Interesting viewpoint. I disagree. The word is the assignment of a sound (or other abstraction) to something like a dog or a cat.

For example, I would bet that you have no 'word' for a great many phenomena that others *do* have words for because of their specialization.

Language is about "understanding" ( to stand beneath, to look up into )…..not "words".
A native Japanese person for example, who has NO knowledge of the English language, certainly understands
what "water" is.....even though they have NEVER HEARD the English word "water" .

 

[McBell]

ALL "learning" is just remembering.
now go and learn what that means.

Actually, remembering is simply the first level of learning.

Perhaps if you could get to level 3, you could be taken seriously?

 

[Polymath257]

Language is about "understanding" ( to stand beneath, to look up into )…..not "words".
A native Japanese person for example, who has NO knowledge of the English language, certainly understands
what "water" is.....even though they have NEVER HEARD the English word "water" .

Yes, they know what water is (understanding it is a different thing, by the way).

But yes, language *is* about *words* and how we encode our ideas into pressure waves in the air (or bodily movements in the case of sign language).

Language is about *communication*: how to convey an idea from one person to another. That is done via an encoding by the sender and a decoding by the receiver. That encoding/decoding is called a language.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Words , without understanding is like....well, like this forum here.
Just a bunch of noise...

 

[McBell]

Words , without understanding is like....well, like this forum here.
Just a bunch of noise...

Not everyone shares your limitations.

 

[Polymath257]

Language is about "understanding" ( to stand beneath, to look up into )

This alone shows your bias to English. In other languages, that little play on words fails.

Ex:
comprendre: to take with

comprender: to take with

liao jie: to finish tying up

All mean 'understand' in their respective languages

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

This alone shows your bias to English. In other languages, that little play on words fails.

Ex:
comprendre: to take with

comprender: to take with

liao jie: to finish tying up

All mean 'understand' in their respective languages

lol.....I'm well aware of what "Webster" thinks...
only problem is he's not the "author" of the word "understand".

Oh, I know he thinks he's "authorized", but he has no "authority"..."
when one usurps "authority", they are proven to be "unauthorized "

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Maybe you should quit, while you think you're ahead ?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you should quit, while you think you're ahead ?

Why would you think I'm worried about who is ahead ( a head?)?

 

[Polymath257]

lol.....I'm well aware of what "Webster" thinks...
only problem is he's not the "author" of the word "understand".

Oh, I know he thinks he's "authorized", but he has no "authority"..."
when one usurps "authority", they are proven to be "unauthorized "

I didn't get those from Webster, who only deals with English.

And neither is Webster the 'author' of "liao jie".

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Why would you think I'm worried about who is ahead ( a head?)?

I don't get any pleasure out of embarrassing anyone ( even though it may seem the opposite to some here ).
But if you're going to jump in the fire you should know if you can put it out, else you get burned.
and you can't cook without making a mess either way.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't get any pleasure out of embarrassing anyone ( even though it may seem the opposite to some here ).
But if you're going to jump in the fire you should know if you can put it out, else you get burned.
and you can't cook without making a mess either way.

Looks to me like the fire went out long ago.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I didn't get those from Webster, who only deals with English.

And neither is Webster the 'author' of "liao jie".

"webster" is just a reference to our modern day dictionary, English version or otherwise.
It's what people use to "define words" ( like you are doing )….not realizing that words were around
long, long before "webster". And MANY words we use everyday , we don't even know what they really mean.

 

[Polymath257]

"webster" is just a reference to our modern day dictionary, English version or otherwise.
It's what people use to "define words" ( like you are doing )….not realizing that words were around
long, long before "webster". And MANY words we use everyday , we don't even know what they really mean.

On the contrary, word meaning is defined by how they are used. If you want to know the history of the words (which is often fascinating), you can learn about the etymology of any given word.

You are confusing the concept and the encoding of that concept. Language is the encoding. Words are the encoding. Meaning is the concept.

As for words being around long before Webster, that is correct, but irrelevant. I doubt you would be able to read Chaucer in the original.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

On the contrary, word meaning is defined by how they are used. If you want to know the history of the words (which is often fascinating), you can learn about the etymology of any given word.

You are confusing the concept and the encoding of that concept. Language is the encoding. Words are the encoding. Meaning is the concept.

As for words being around long before Webster, that is correct, but irrelevant. I doubt you would be able to read Chaucer in the original.

The etymology of words, how they have been used and changed over time, will only help you intellectually.
Any literate person can "read" .

So, lets begin with a word that I'm sure you have heard before.....like "EVIL"
now tell me what this word means, NOT what it means to you personally, or to any other "source"
of inquiry. But what it REALLY means ?