Language as labeling



  • 1. The set of all SUBSETS that don't contain themself -> PARADISE
    The set of all SETS that don't contain themself -> PARADOX The set of all SUBSETS that don't contain themself -> PARADISE This is the status quo of early 21ST Century mathematics. In the 2nd subset version you can (attempt to) list the subsets and contain refers to the list position being an element of the subset (of natural numbers). Since small examples actually give a new subset not in the list.... TADA... the set of all subsets is BIGGER THAN INFINITY!!! Herc -- "George Greene" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote >> Are you really that stupid to assume ...? > > I don't NEED to ASSUME!

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Just Playing » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:12:34 GMT

I am sure that it is my fault for not being able to make myself
understood and that is why I will try to use again  the analogy to the
periodic table of elements.
If you know the chemical formula of a molecule that interacts with
another molecule you will know what will be the resulting molecule
based on this knowledge.
The same way if you could decipher the "formula" of words and concepts
you would know what the ending result of their interaction will be.
Basically it is similar to how we arrive at a conclusion when we read
or hear something. We  may not be aware of the whole process, of the
interaction of the concepts,  mostly because we take shortcuts, but the
process is similar to what I described with chemical formulas.
If we could find the "formulas" we could  replace the words with these
formulas and a lot of discussions would become unnecessary.
BTW I appreciate everybody's input and I learn something from all of
Thank you,

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Edgar Svendsen » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:59:17 GMT

Think of walking from the desert to the grasslands;  there is a point where 
you are clearly in the desert, after a long walk you are iin the grasslands, 
what is imperceptable is the exact boundry between them, the precise line 
that divides grassland from desert.  When you are in the middle of either 
the difference is quite clear but the boundry itself is "imperceptable.

Brazilians are taught the Portugeses word for "snow",  Dwellers in the 
Amazon can recognize the word.  Is the atom of meaning that they attach to 
it the same as the atom of meaning that the Andes dwellers attach to it?  In 
other words is the atom of meaning of a word independent of the speaker and 
hearer of the word?  If it is, then your scheme may be possible, if not then 
I think it will prove elusive.


Re: Language as labeling

Postby Publius » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:14:34 GMT

Your interpretation of "contradicts" is not "non-standard," but it is not 
the meaning understood in logic.

"Contradict," like most other words, has several meanings in ordinary 
language. Saying "A contradicts B" could just mean that A is incompatible 
with B, for various reasons, not all of which are strictly logical. E.g., 
"The weatherman just contradicted himself. A minute ago he said it was 70 
degrees, now he says it is snowing."

If it is 70 degrees it can't be snowing, but if it is not snowing, it may 
or may not be 70 degrees.

If "A contradicts B" is meant as a logical contradiction, then one must be 
able to derive the Aristotelian form. E.g., derive C from A and ~C from B. 

It is because the referents of pronouns are not fixed by grammar (word 
order), but by context. Hence writers must make sure such ambiguities can 
be resolved from context.

In the case of the scar, the sentence provides context enough, since scars 
are not readily transferable. Bones are transferable, so more context is 

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Publius » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:18:19 GMT

That is the "common sense" understanding. But per the logical 
understanding, for A to contradict B, A must specifically deny what B 
asserts. Not being true simultaneously is not enough.

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Just Playing » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:39:50 GMT

Edgar Svendsen wrote:
Thank you for your response. You are one of the few that tried before
to read my posts as well as respond to them and I really appreciate
As I understand it in your example you try to bring an exampe where
there is a change but we are not aware of it
IMO the mere fact that we have a hard time being aware of the change
it is not a reason to assume that our sensors have not processed it.
OTOH what I am trying to say is that we create a model of what is
perceived by our sensors and we label the different combinations of the
information according to some rules.
Sorry if I am not clear enough.

The fact that they recognize "something" might signify that we use an
internal represention and we apply labels to parts of this internal

It is not an atom but a combination of our sensors.

>:In other words is the atom of meaning of a word independent of the
speaker and

As long as our perception works in a similar way we should be able to
assign the some meaning to our words.

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Brian Fletcher » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:48:18 GMT

To explain the math of the human spirit.

I should have said "universal" not common. Understanding wirtten music doeas 
not enhance ones appreciation of the sound.

Not when you are able to observe the theory of observation.

Eg. I observe the Lamborgini in the belief (theory), it will enhance my 
quality of life.

I aquire it, and discover the truth.

IT DID!!!   na-na-ne-nana ;-)

All conflict is "inner", projected at others.

Dearly beguiled, we are gathered here today to join.......(you know the 
rest )


Re: Language as labeling

Postby Brian Fletcher » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:52:40 GMT

No need for congratulations. Thats akin to congratulating someone for 
growing tall.

Many I know try to adapt to a way of thinking, that they are already beyond.

A poor example being gifted children in a 'normal' class.

Poor eg, because it refers only to the intellectual 'facet'.

It takes more patience not to move on.


Re: Language as labeling

Postby Just Playing » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:18:42 GMT

Would you quantify the "more" part?

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Brian Fletcher » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:01:59 GMT

Applied for longer periods in your life.


Re: Language as labeling

Postby makc.the.great » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:02:50 GMT

Like you are reading much yourself.
There's a whole other recent thread about this already in

 http://www.**--****.com/ #c4896ef01a50e554

Re: Language as labeling

Postby forbisgaryg » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:46:52 GMT

This may be where you are going wrong when it comes to what follows.

We use all of our senses.  When you hear a liquid leaking from a pipe
 it sounds different than when you hear a gas leaking from a pipe.

Yes, all of our senses are used to classify objects.  There are liquids
and gases that are the same when it comes to the basic senses but
whose difference is in their effects on other objects.  For instance,
natural gas does not smell.

Language is like a chain.  It is easier to pull than to push.  The
creates a chain of words.  The reader has to use the chain properly
to get the meaning, which is the end to the author's means.

Don't chemists use HOOH and H2O2 to represent the same substance?
I doubt they would use HOHO or OHOH to represent the substance.
What you call a formula is just a statement in a language.  00HH, I
don't think so.

No, your description of water is too sparse.  We will talk of an acid
"a watery substance".  We won't talk about a clear syrup that way even
if we don't taste it.  Where did viscosity come into your definition of
Don't say it is touch because we can recognize such a liquid inside a
(provided there are two substances, the other being a gas).

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Just Playing » Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:21:41 GMT


I have hust used the wikipedia definition for water:
"Water (from the "/wiki/Old_English_language" word wer; c.f
"/wiki/German_language" "Wasser", from "/wiki/Proto-Indo-European"
*wod-or, "water") is a tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless (it
has a slight hint of blue) substance in its pure form that is essential
to all known forms of "/wiki/Life" and is known also as the most
universal solvent. Water is an abundant substance on Earth. It exists
in many places and forms: mostly in the oceans and polar ice cap, but
also as cloud, rain, river, freshwater aquifer, and sea ice. On the
planet, water is continuously moving through the water cycle involving
evaporation, precipitation meteorology, and runoff water to the sea.
Water fit for human consumption is called potable. This natural
resource is becoming more scarce in certain places as human population
in those places increases, and its availability is a major social and
economic concern."
in order to make my point. If you have a problem with the definition it
means that you have a problem with the encyclopedias an not me.

Language is like a painting, you use some "images" to convey a message.

I guess that the correct formula is H20. The point was that whem you
know the formula you know that there is a reson why 2 atoms of H will
combine with one atom of O. You do not have a H15O57 formula, do you?

Re: Language as labeling

Postby Edgar Svendsen » Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:39:14 GMT

No.  It's not that we are unaware of the change, it's that the actual 
boundry is indistinct.  In my example well-meaning people may disagree on 
whether the grassland start on *this* side of the first clump of grass we 
encounter in our journey or whether, since even deserts have some plants, 
the grassland actually start over there where there are three clumps of 
grass together.  Yes our sensors all see the same thing, the question is 
when is there just enough grass to be grasslands and not desert.  We could 
make up a totally arbitrary rule, "tob be grassland thare must be 3.6 clumps 
of grass of a certain size in every square meter"; but even this doesn't 
solve the problem because by reorienting the sqaure one can say one are is 
or is not grassland.  The boundry is indistinct even though when you are in 
the middle of each area it's characteristics are clear to the senses.
It is just this that I have doubts about.  I agree that "As long as our 
perception works in a similar way we should be able to

Not all words are inherently perception based.  "Tree", and "rain" are 
clearly perception based but "smart" or "kind" or "forgiving" are not.  They 
depend on the perception of behaviour but equally on interpretation of that 
perception and the interpretation seem to actually outweigh the perception 
in establishing the meaning.  This is not a trivial set of words, it covers 
more of what we tend to talk about then the purely observational words.


Re: Language as labeling

Postby S2 » Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:03:10 GMT

There is a theory of thought that has Hindu origins.  They use the
analogy of the mind being like an ocean.  All thought comes from the
same internal source.  Thoughts bubble up from this source.  As they
rise in the mind they begin to get form and meaning.  At their grossest
level they move from thought to speech.  As a bubble rises to the
surface of the ocean.

This model suggests that every meme (unit of meaning) would correspond
to a word in the mind to a thought.  A thought becomes an abstract
image/sound that carries specific meaning.  This points to a thought as
an energy carrier that has connected with it a meaning.

The origin of this model is the explanation of mantras.  These are
sounds that are repeated mentally until they loose all worldly semantic
meaning and move towards a vibration.  As awareness follows the path of
the mantra eventually the mantra itself disolves into the source of
thought, and one is left with awareness of nothing.  No thought.  Just
awareness in the here and now.

What you are proposing is the idea of an "element of speech" that
resides in the mind, pre linguistic.  Perhaps resting in memory as

The problem with working with this unit is that it by definition defies
our ability to communicate it.  The minute we catagorize or label a
thought, it becomes speech.

Jacques, Is this closer to what you are thinking?


Re: Language as labeling

Postby makc.the.great » Sat, 12 Nov 2005 20:02:59 GMT

We now have much easier way to turn thoughts off. Sleeping pills.

Return to AI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guest