Philosophy Now Forum

The function and only function of statements is for communication between people.

In isolation statements are meaningless. They cannot have a property of truth, nor are they subject to laws of logic such as that of excluded middle.

Meaning can only be extracted from a statement through its interpretation be a person.

Statements can only be labelled as true by a person who considers that such a statement reflects their beliefs. And different people may label the same statement in different ways.

Statements such as 'there are no married bachelors' can be generated by a logical system using rules of grammar and an English dictionary, but such statements remain meaningless until interpreted by a person.

Do you agree? If not,why not?
.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am The function and only function of statements is for communication between people.

In isolation statements are meaningless. They cannot have a property of truth, nor are they subject to laws of logic such as that of excluded middle.

Meaning can only be extracted from a statement through its interpretation be a person.

Statements can only be labelled as true by a person who considers that such a statement reflects their beliefs. And different people may label the same statement in different ways.

Statements such as 'there are no married bachelors' can be generated by a logical system using rules of grammar and an English dictionary, but such statements remain meaningless until interpreted by a person.

Do you agree? If not,why not?
.

Yes. No. Maybe. I will give you a number of angles and new models to reason with so - be patient.

Objectively (in a vacuum) there is nothing outside of the text. This is Derrida's view. I agree with it.
http://www.brycerich.com/2011/02/there- ... -text.html

This is why there are ancient languages we cannot yet decipher.

BUT statements are not made in a vacuum. Statements are made with intention/purpose. So in general if we share some context - we can infer some meaning.
We have shared experiences, shared knowledge. We have SOME shared context (this is very important).

And so we need a better conception for language. Rorty proposes that we conceptualise language as a communication tool where different people, with different goals/intentions produce different truths.
5 minutes of your life are well-spent here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78

This is the sociological perspective.

Down to the technical nitty gritty we have the encoding/decoding model of communication ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding/ ... munication )
Writing is the encoding of meaning into symbols.
Interpretation is extraction of meaning from symbols.

And so if human communication is based on intention I will invent a new taxonomy. Intentional break down in communication (lying? stalling? disrupting? power struggle? contrarianism?). I am not interested in this - philosophy deposita fine job at obfuscating communication here.
It is the art of contrarianism.

Operating under good intentions there are a number of reasons why communication fails.

Take this statement: I went to the bank yesterday. You probably extracted meaning from it, but I am not sure you accounted for ambiguty.
I meant 'I went to the river bank', not the place where you deposit money.

Other reasons for communication failure is mis-interpretation in nuance.

And so there is the distinction between lossy and losless compression (encoding/decoding).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression

I won't bore you with details because the wiki articles have

Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with improved compression rates (and therefore reduced file sizes).

And so I can reconstruct far more detail from "I went to the bank yesterday' than you can! Because I have far more context!

Language is a tool and it is lossy compression. Which is why human communication fails, except by accident.

http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

And so, statements are only meaningless IF the encoder and decoder share absolutely nothing. No experiences. No culture. No language. No knowledge. No mental constructs.

When there is SOME shared context statements are just communication tools which suffer from lossy compression.

The simplest way I like to demonstrate this entire notion is in this simple experiment.

1 + 1 = 10

True or false?

So I take from that, that overall you are in agreement with me,

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:59 pm So I take from that, that overall you are in agreement with me,

Yes. Just making sure you recognise the nuance.

This general problem has a common name in analytic philosophy. Symbol-grounding problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
and some claims that it has been solved: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/nicole.ro ... symbol.pdf

For machines - maybe. Not for humans

There is also one example where this is not (quite) true. Programming languages as formalised by Chomsky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

Those carry strict meaning because their rules for interpretation are strictly and well defined.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am The function and only function of statements is for communication between people.

In isolation statements are meaningless. They cannot have a property of truth, nor are they subject to laws of logic such as that of excluded middle.

Meaning can only be extracted from a statement through its interpretation be a person.

What happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by more than just a person?

Is that how MORE meaning (truth) can be obtained, gained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amWhat happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by ALL people?

Is that how ABSOLUTE meaning (Truth) can be gained, obtained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements can only be labelled as true by a person who considers that such a statement reflects their beliefs.

A person does NOT need beliefs to label a statement as true.

Statements can be labelled as true in other ways than what you are just suggesting here.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am And different people may label the same statement in different ways.

But if ALL people label a statement as true, then what does that make that statement?

If ALL people are labeling the same statement as true, thus there is NO one in dispute, then there is/are some statement/s NOT in dispute.

And, What is the name/label given to a statement that is NOT in dispute, is a fact, and unambiguous?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements such as 'there are no married bachelors' can be generated by a logical system using rules of grammar and an English dictionary, but such statements remain meaningless until interpreted by a person.

Do you agree? If not,why not?
.

Of course ALL things are meaningless to human beings, until human beings interpret them and give them meaning.

Take 'evolution' and 'life' for example. Two words, and things, which on their own are completely meaningless, that is until they are interpreted and given, or not given any, as the case maybe, meaning.

Some people interpret (and believe) that Evolution and Life have NO meaning, (and, NO purpose also). While others interpret differently and give these things meaning, and purpose.

But only when an interpretation of ALL things fit together perfectly can meaning, and purpose, be given correctly.

When AN interpretation is shown of how ALL things can and do fit together, perfectly, then it will also be discovered and SEEN just how there IS purpose and meaning behind, and within, ALL things.

In this case meaning and purpose is NOT given, but SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, for what it inherently really IS.

The inherent purpose, however, FOR ALL things needs to be discovered and/or learned first, in order to then be able to SEE the inherent purpose OF those things, and then so called hidden inherent meaning behind and within EVERY thing IS revealed.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:32 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am The function and only function of statements is for communication between people.

In isolation statements are meaningless. They cannot have a property of truth, nor are they subject to laws of logic such as that of excluded middle.

Meaning can only be extracted from a statement through its interpretation be a person.

What happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by more than just a person?

Is that how MORE meaning (truth) can be obtained, gained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amWhat happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by ALL people?

Is that how ABSOLUTE meaning (Truth) can be gained, obtained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements can only be labelled as true by a person who considers that such a statement reflects their beliefs.

A person does NOT need beliefs to label a statement as true.

Statements can be labelled as true in other ways than what you are just suggesting here.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am And different people may label the same statement in different ways.

But if ALL people label a statement as true, then what does that make that statement?

If ALL people are labeling the same statement as true, thus there is NO one in dispute, then there is/are some statement/s NOT in dispute.

And, What is the name/label given to a statement that is NOT in dispute, is a fact, and unambiguous?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements such as 'there are no married bachelors' can be generated by a logical system using rules of grammar and an English dictionary, but such statements remain meaningless until interpreted by a person.

Do you agree? If not,why not?
.

Of course ALL things are meaningless to human beings, until human beings interpret them and give them meaning.

Take 'evolution' and 'life' for example. Two words, and things, which on their own are completely meaningless, that is until they are interpreted and given, or not given any, as the case maybe, meaning.

Some people interpret (and believe) that Evolution and Life have NO meaning, (and, NO purpose also). While others interpret differently and give these things meaning, and purpose.

But only when an interpretation of ALL things fit together perfectly can meaning, and purpose, be given correctly.

When AN interpretation is shown of how ALL things can and do fit together, perfectly, then it will also be discovered and SEEN just how there IS purpose and meaning behind, and within, ALL things.

In this case meaning and purpose is NOT given, but SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, for what it inherently really IS.

The inherent purpose, however, FOR ALL things needs to be discovered and/or learned first, in order to then be able to SEE the inherent purpose OF those things, and then so called hidden inherent meaning behind and within EVERY thing IS revealed.

It cannot be determined whether the meaning extracted from a statement by one person is the same as that extracted by another person.

If most people label a particular statement as 'true' then it can be considered to be true by consensus.

When I refer to extracting meaning from a statement I am referring to some sort of practical use or at least the potential for practical use. Eg 'There is a tiger behind you' would suggest some sort of practical response. I am not referring to purpose or other interpretations of the word 'meaning'.

If a statement is labelled as 'true' by anything other than a person, such as a machine, then the claim remains meaningless and abstract. it is still just a manipulation of abstract symbols. Eg '2+2=4 is true' .

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:32 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am The function and only function of statements is for communication between people.

In isolation statements are meaningless. They cannot have a property of truth, nor are they subject to laws of logic such as that of excluded middle.

Meaning can only be extracted from a statement through its interpretation be a person.

What happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by more than just a person?

Is that how MORE meaning (truth) can be obtained, gained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amWhat happens if the exact same meaning is extracted from a statement through its interpretation by ALL people?

Is that how ABSOLUTE meaning (Truth) can be gained, obtained, or known?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements can only be labelled as true by a person who considers that such a statement reflects their beliefs.

A person does NOT need beliefs to label a statement as true.

Statements can be labelled as true in other ways than what you are just suggesting here.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am And different people may label the same statement in different ways.

But if ALL people label a statement as true, then what does that make that statement?

If ALL people are labeling the same statement as true, thus there is NO one in dispute, then there is/are some statement/s NOT in dispute.

And, What is the name/label given to a statement that is NOT in dispute, is a fact, and unambiguous?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 amStatements such as 'there are no married bachelors' can be generated by a logical system using rules of grammar and an English dictionary, but such statements remain meaningless until interpreted by a person.

Do you agree? If not,why not?
.

Of course ALL things are meaningless to human beings, until human beings interpret them and give them meaning.

Take 'evolution' and 'life' for example. Two words, and things, which on their own are completely meaningless, that is until they are interpreted and given, or not given any, as the case maybe, meaning.

Some people interpret (and believe) that Evolution and Life have NO meaning, (and, NO purpose also). While others interpret differently and give these things meaning, and purpose.

But only when an interpretation of ALL things fit together perfectly can meaning, and purpose, be given correctly.

When AN interpretation is shown of how ALL things can and do fit together, perfectly, then it will also be discovered and SEEN just how there IS purpose and meaning behind, and within, ALL things.

In this case meaning and purpose is NOT given, but SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, for what it inherently really IS.

The inherent purpose, however, FOR ALL things needs to be discovered and/or learned first, in order to then be able to SEE the inherent purpose OF those things, and then so called hidden inherent meaning behind and within EVERY thing IS revealed.

It cannot be determined whether the meaning extracted from a statement by one person is the same as that extracted by another person.

It CAN, if the two people communicate to and with each other, in a truly open and honest way.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 amIf most people label a particular statement as 'true' then it can be considered to be true by consensus.

Well WHAT ELSE can 'truth' be considered on?

As far as I am aware it is only you, human beings, who consider what 'truth' IS, so based on that fact, only you, human beings DECIDE what 'truth' is, or what IS true, or false.

Obviously, if EVERY thing was in AGREEMENT with what IS true, (or false), and so there was absolutely NO one thing disputing, then an intelligent enough species would recognize that that IS, what truth IS. Also, if that species WAS really intelligent enough, then they would already KNOW and recognize that they would NOT believe that this is the absolute Truth. They would already KNOW and UNDERSTAND that further, more thorough, or newer Truth may come along but if they were BELIEVING some thing was true and could not be false, then they would NOT be OPEN to some thing else coming along showing otherwise.

NOW, that IS the absolute Truth (that is, of course, IF absolutely EVERY thing agrees with it).

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 amWhen I refer to extracting meaning from a statement I am referring to some sort of practical use or at least the potential for practical use. Eg 'There is a tiger behind you' would suggest some sort of practical response. I am not referring to purpose or other interpretations of the word 'meaning'.

Fair enough.

You did not stipulate that earlier so I interpreted a meaning, or interpreted what, I obviously had thought, you might have meant.

But as I continually say, and have just now proven, with EVIDENCE, without actual first hand clarification and confirmation from the writer what THEY MEANT, when they WROTE some thing, then there is NO way of KNOWING absolutely, for sure, what meaning/intention was behind the writings, nor what the author actually meant, in what they said.

For example, there is NO way of KNOWING, for sure, what the actual intention IS within the quran, unless, of course, one is able to ask clarifying questions to the original writer of the quran.

Also, extracting meaning from statements regarding life, evolution, human beings, et cetera, then follows a practical use and at least the potential for practical use. For example when the CORRECT meaning is extracted/given to those terms, which are truly meaningful terms, then what IS Truly meaningful can and will be created. For example, what is Truly meaningful is; a stress-less, pollution-free, non-abusive, truly peaceful, loving, and harmonious world, for everyone, can and will become transformed.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 amIf a statement is labelled as 'true' by anything other than a person, such as a machine, then the claim remains meaningless and abstract. it is still just a manipulation of abstract symbols. Eg '2+2=4 is true' .

I agree.

Machines do NOT extract meaning from, nor give meaning to, things. As far as I am aware, ONLY human beings can start to do this.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 am It cannot be determined whether the meaning extracted from a statement by one person is the same as that extracted by another person.

If most people label a particular statement as 'true' then it can be considered to be true by consensus.

When I refer to extracting meaning from a statement I am referring to some sort of practical use or at least the potential for practical use. Eg 'There is a tiger behind you' would suggest some sort of practical response. I am not referring to purpose or other interpretations of the word 'meaning'.

If a statement is labelled as 'true' by anything other than a person, such as a machine, then the claim remains meaningless and abstract. it is still just a manipulation of abstract symbols. Eg '2+2=4 is true' .

You have fallen for the metaphysical trap.

Here is a litmus test: When you ask "what X is" in relation to concepts you are talking about metaphysics. In the absence of an ostensive definition (e.g point finger at X) asking "what is" questions is moot. We can only observe the consequences of X, not X itself. We can reason about how X interacts with other things and approximate it.

You don't know what meaning is either. All you know is that the word "apple" is meaningful to you because the consequence of that word triggered a concept in your mind. You know that 'grobmunf' is meaningless because it evokes nothing.

This is a fundamental concern in science. We don't know what energy IS, but it is meaningful because we know how energy behaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

We don't know what 'meaning' is either so rather ask: What do I use meaning for? What are the consequences of meaning?

And so if an abstract symbol serves as an input to a process which has real-world, measurable consequences then it is no longer meaningless (in the scientific sense). It is testable/measurable/observable.

e.g "Computer parses 2+2 = 4 and vending machine returns $4 in change"

Or even if you just examine the software as a whole system - the context would tell you exactly what the "4" means.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:13 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:35 am It cannot be determined whether the meaning extracted from a statement by one person is the same as that extracted by another person.

If most people label a particular statement as 'true' then it can be considered to be true by consensus.

When I refer to extracting meaning from a statement I am referring to some sort of practical use or at least the potential for practical use. Eg 'There is a tiger behind you' would suggest some sort of practical response. I am not referring to purpose or other interpretations of the word 'meaning'.

If a statement is labelled as 'true' by anything other than a person, such as a machine, then the claim remains meaningless and abstract. it is still just a manipulation of abstract symbols. Eg '2+2=4 is true' .

You have fallen for the metaphysical trap.

Here is a litmus test: When you ask "what X is" in relation to concepts you are talking about metaphysics. In the absence of an ostensive definition (e.g point finger at X) asking "what is" questions is moot. We can only observe the consequences of X, not X itself. We can reason about how X interacts with other things and approximate it.

You don't know what meaning is either. All you know is that the word "apple" is meaningful to you because the consequence of that word triggered a concept in your mind. You know that 'grobmunf' is meaningless because it evokes nothing.

This is a fundamental concern in science. We don't know what energy IS, but it is meaningful because we know how energy behaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

We don't know what 'meaning' is either so rather ask: What do I use meaning for? What are the consequences of meaning?

And so if an abstract symbol serves as an input to a process which has real-world, measurable consequences then it is no longer meaningless (in the scientific sense). It is testable/measurable/observable.

e.g "Computer parses 2+2 = 4 and vending machine returns $4 in change"

Or even if you just examine the software as a whole system - the context would tell you exactly what the "4" means.

There is nothing metaphysical about what I have asserted.

It is about the communication of ideas.

When you refer to a 'process which has real-world, measurable consequences' I presume you are referring to some sort of machine rather than a person. In which case the abstract symbol that is used as input to that machine can be considered as a communication or instruction to that machine.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:21 am There is nothing metaphysical about what I have asserted.

It is about the communication of ideas.

It doesn't have to be. Language can be prescriptive OR descriptive.

There is a flower on my desk.

OR

Go get me a coffee!

I like to think of it as time-distinction. What was or is (descriptive) vs what ought to be (prescriptive),
I probably have no control over you, so I am not going to get my coffee. But if I told my slave-robot to do it....

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:21 am When you refer to a 'process which has real-world, measurable consequences' I presume you are referring to some sort of machine rather than a person. In which case the abstract symbol that is used as input to that machine can be considered as a communication or instruction to that machine.

Observe that a "communication" requires two an encoder and a decoder.

The symbol is STORED in the machine. The algorithm (expressed in language) drives the machine's behavior. It's prescriptive - not descriptive AND it's not being "communicated" to the machine. At least - not right now.

And there is no reason to think a person is not a machine. Even though the abstract label is descriptive, not prescriptive - you probably wouldn't drink out of this bottle anyway:

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:29 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:21 am There is nothing metaphysical about what I have asserted.

It is about the communication of ideas.

It doesn't have to be. Language can be prescriptive OR descriptive.

There is a flower on my desk.

OR

Go get me a coffee!

I like to think of it as time-distinction. What was or is (descriptive) vs what ought to be (prescriptive),
I probably have no control over you, so I am not going to get my coffee. But if I told my slave-robot to do it....

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:21 am When you refer to a 'process which has real-world, measurable consequences' I presume you are referring to some sort of machine rather than a person. In which case the abstract symbol that is used as input to that machine can be considered as a communication or instruction to that machine.

Observe that a "communication" requires two an encoder and a decoder.

The symbol is STORED in the machine. The algorithm (expressed in language) drives the machine's behavior. It's prescriptive - not descriptive AND it's not being "communicated" to the machine. At least - not right now.

And there is no reason to think a person is not a machine. Even though the abstract label is descriptive, not prescriptive - you probably wouldn't drink out of this bottle anyway:

If language is considered to be a communication, there is no need to split it into arbitrary divisions such as prescriptive or descriptive.

Certainly a communication requires an encoder and a decoder. And the decoded message can be quite distinct from the literal interpretation of the language. For example, the communication 'go get me a coffee' could be decoded as 'this guy is off his tree'.

But the point of treating statements as a communication is that it nullifies the attempts to treat language as though it is something that has a direct link to the real world. Things like the cosmological argument fora god lose their power. The laws of logic are not strict laws that must be applied to statements, but instead take on the role of suggestions.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:42 am If language is considered to be a communication, there is no need to split it into arbitrary divisions such as prescriptive or descriptive.

Certainly a communication requires an encoder and a decoder. And the decoded message can be quite distinct from the literal interpretation of the language. For example, the communication 'go get me a coffee' could be decoded as 'this guy is off his tree'.

My only point is that if you treat language as a universal e.g "all language is communication" and you ignore the nuance, then the philosophical pedantry simply shifts towards "communication". What is communication?

Sounds are communication. So sounds are language?

In my world-view any transfer of information is communication. And when asked "what is information?" - all I have is a mathematical equation to Shannon entropy. Which is language

Can I give you an ostensive definition to 'information' ? No. I understand the concept intuitively.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:42 am But the point of treating statements as a communication is that it nullifies the attempts to treat language as though it is something that has a direct link to the real world. Things like the cosmological argument fora god lose their power. The laws of logic are not strict laws that must be applied to statements, but instead take on the role of suggestions.

Yes. I am not a fan of logocentrism either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism ).

But this is why I draw the descriptive/prescriptive distinction.

Make me coffee describes the future (if you follow through).
It traverses the is-ought gap ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem ) which is a big thing in philosophy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:46 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:42 am If language is considered to be a communication, there is no need to split it into arbitrary divisions such as prescriptive or descriptive.

Certainly a communication requires an encoder and a decoder. And the decoded message can be quite distinct from the literal interpretation of the language. For example, the communication 'go get me a coffee' could be decoded as 'this guy is off his tree'.

My only point is that if you treat language as a universal e.g "all language is communication" and you ignore the nuance, then the philosophical pedantry simply shifts towards "communication". What is communication?

Sounds are communication. So sounds are language?

In my world-view any transfer of information is communication. And when asked "what is information?" - all I have is a mathematical equation to Shannon entropy. Which is language

Can I give you an ostensive definition to 'information' ? No. I understand the concept intuitively.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:42 am But the point of treating statements as a communication is that it nullifies the attempts to treat language as though it is something that has a direct link to the real world. Things like the cosmological argument fora god lose their power. The laws of logic are not strict laws that must be applied to statements, but instead take on the role of suggestions.

Yes. I am not a fan of logocentrism either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism ).

But this is why I draw the descriptive/prescriptive distinction.

Make me coffee describes the future (if you follow through).
It traverses the is-ought gap ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem ) which is a big thing in philosophy.

Definitions are overrated. All they are is describing one word in terms of other words. It is inevitably circular. Communication does not need to be defined precisely. Can you even define a tree precisely? And for that matter can you define 'definition'?

As for the is-ought gap, 'ought' is nothing but a selfish attempt to influence the behaviour of others through communication, or to put it another way 'ought' is propaganda.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:57 am Definitions are overrated. All they are is describing one word in terms of other words. It is inevitably circular. Communication does not need to be defined precisely. Can you even define a tree precisely?

The reason why I am such a pedant is because the distinction is so tiny that it's trivial to miss.
The distinction between circularity and recursion.

Recursion is computation. Recursive definitions are models (of reality).

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:57 am As for the is-ought gap, 'ought' is nothing but a selfish attempt to influence the behaviour of others through communication, or to put it another way 'ought' is propaganda.

It's a problem with logic/language. Gargabe in - garbage out. There is no "truth" to input into logic.

Words define other words, define other words, define other words. It's a closed system that makes no contact with "the ground" (reality).

This is called the symbol-grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

When I say "Make me coffee". And you interpret it and you make me coffee. My words have made contract with "the ground".

Computers obey instructions (interpret meaning!). Computers obey language - contact with the ground.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:06 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:57 am Definitions are overrated. All they are is describing one word in terms of other words. It is inevitably circular. Communication does not need to be defined precisely. Can you even define a tree precisely?

The reason why I am such a pedant is because the distinction is so tiny that it's trivial to miss.
The distinction between circularity and recursion.

Recursion is computation. Recursive definitions are models (of reality).

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:57 am As for the is-ought gap, 'ought' is nothing but a selfish attempt to influence the behaviour of others through communication, or to put it another way 'ought' is propaganda.

It's a problem with logic/language. Gargabe in - garbage out. There is no "truth" to input into logic.

Words define other words, define other words, define other words. It's a closed system that makes no contact with "the ground" (reality).

This is called the symbol-grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

When I say "Make me coffee". And you interpret it and you make me coffee. My words have made contract with "the ground".

Computers obey instructions (interpret meaning!). Computers obey language - contact with the ground.

Recursion is just a computational process where the output of one cycle is used as the input for the next repeated cycle. I don't see how that can possible lead to a 'model of reality'

Your 'grounding problem' seems like a pseudo problem. If you say 'make me a coffee' and I respond 'you are off your tree' your communication is just as 'grounded' as if I had made you a coffee

And computers are only perceived to follow instructions, it is only the perception by a person that 'grounds' its response in 'reality'.

It is only people that have a model of reality (at least so far in technology). Computers and modern robots are no more than machines in the same way that a plough is a machine.