Language as labeling

I am not used to make points but what about this:
IMO the main problem we have in trying to communicate with each other
is the fact that the words we use are not created logically and we need
a lot of definitions in order to try to understand each other.
JP

This one is pretty easy.  If A contradicts B, they can't both be true, 
but if all we know is that they contradict one another, the possibility 
of their both being false remains open.  A->~B rules out their both 
being true perfectly well, while A<->~B adds the (unwanted) result that 
they can't both be false.

-- 
Aaron Boyden

"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
                                              -Thus spoke Zarathustra

This came up in another thread.

You are using the definition I'm using.  The person I was diagreeing
with
asserted A contradicts B means A is equivalent to not B.

How does this relate to the question at hand?
I'm trying to determine the question at hand.

My first thought was what was being discuss was something like a
semantic features:  http://www.**--****.com/ 
I decided otherwise but am not sure why.  It might be because
not all words are easily classified in this way and their syntactic
role is more important.

Yeah it's called logical atomism, and it doesn't work - contrast
earlier Wittgenstein with later!

Definitely logical atomism. Presumeably the elements you're talking
about would be things like 'colour', 'extension', that kind of thing?

> The basic idea is that starting from the information perceived by all our sensors we create a lot of combinations and we label these combinations.

Unfortunately this describes neither the process of learning the
meaning of words like 'water', nor the use of the symbol once the
meaning's been established by training.

Let me guess - you'd be tempted to call replacement of one symbol, say
'water' by a description in terms of logical atoms an 'analysis' -
water /really/ means "colour=x, substance=y, &c.".

USA "means" an arena to practice freedom, also the "dream" of discovering 
solid foundation, and the appearance of supporting individuality.

America, "means" solid foundation, having the appearance 'and' supporting 
the dream of discovering spiritual reality.

Your own name 'code' is similar to your dna code, in the sense that both 
cases illustrate the individual is greater than the sum of its parts, but 
clearly identifying specific aspects.

Until one recognises and applies the qualitative (human) reality of the 
symbols of the alpha numerical system , we are like  fish swimming around, 
looking for the ocean.

In synch with the ng, this is what Pythagoras was "all about". I also humbly 
suggest this is what you are "really" looking for.

BOfL

you see, that's all you had have to say.

instead we have this thread where you already claimed several times
that people are getting it all wrong as to what you were trying to say.
apparently, this thread was also "not created logically and we need a
lot of definitions in order to try to understand each other".

:-P

The symbol (Py system) for water is a equilateral triangle.

All depend at which level one is "reading". There is no common ref, per se, 
just a convenience of communication.

I have often heard the statement that semantics is behing all human 
conflict. Makes sense.

BOfL 

I'm using "common sense" definition. In formal logic there are many
things having little to do with common sense. Take a look at definition
of contradiction here:
 http://www.**--****.com/ 

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:57:57 -0500, The Sophist < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > in






A and B contradict each other if any one of their predicates differs.
That doesn't mean either or both is not true. They could both be true.
Example air and water. A and B only deny each other absolutely if all
their predicates differ.

~v~~

> The symbol (Py system) for water is a equilateral triangle.

I've never heard of the Py system - what's it used for?


Oh I don't know about that! I think I'm more inclined to believe that
there are different reasons for adopting different symbolisms, but that
problems arising with one symbolism won't be solved by changing
symbolisms. As for the idea that the meanings of symbols comprise
smaller meaning-units - a triumph of theory over observation!


Especially if philosopy's anything to go by!

How would you know? Up to this point you did not bring anything to
discussion except attitude?
JP



If you would make an effort to read maybe you would understand that if
a system like this could be created we will not have this type of
discussions anymore.
JP

Has anyone here graduated from college in an hour?
If yes congratulations, otherwise you are like me and it takes some
time to move from your typical way of thinking to a new one.
In this case I used water as a very basic example, similar to how you
start  teaching someone the basics of reading and writing in school.
The idea is that we do not start by learning a meaning but by labeling
something that has already been perceived, in this case we assign the
label water to the combination of information perceived thru the 4
sensors.
It is a long way from here to abstract concepts but I think it is a
correct way and it takes patience to move on.
JP

Might you be referring to ideograms?  Oriental languages, like Chinese
and Japanese, utilize said notation.  


W : )