How did you change paradigm?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:30 pm I'd go along with most of what you say except that I prefer in every discussion to nail my colors to the mast.
I wish it were possible.

Truth is relative to the audience's vocabulary, not the speaker's.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by bahman »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm Sure, it is through education that people learn how to properly live.
It depends on what you mean by "education".
By teaching, I mean teaching all sorts of things most importantly morality.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am If you are going to teach them facts about reality, history and other ontological matters - you are teaching them nothing about how to properly live.
First, they need to develop an analytical way of thinking. They also need to become critical thinkers. Then I teach them some and let them decide about their life when they are almost ready. They do mistakes and they learn from their mistakes.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am You are teaching them what to think not how to think.
They need a base for how to think. We need to provide our children with this base otherwise they cannot think on their own.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm No, I am saying that hate exists and it is important. There is no reason to be ashamed when you hate.
I find it unproductive to hate. Anybody who can drive me to hate has control over me.
It is not. Hating and loving are quite situational.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am In fact, I can say with much honesty that I feel no hatred; or anger. I haven't felt it towards anything for a long time.

Different kind of emotions took its place. Better, more useful emotions.
All sorts of emotions are useful.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm Hate is Evil. We have to be fair when we want to hate as we have to be fair when we want to love.
When do you think hate is fair and appropriate?
For example when a terrorist put a bomb in a location in the city. The location is unknown to us so we cannot find the bomb and neutralize it. I would kick his balls until she/he tells us the location of the bomb.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm Well, God is supreme, Omniscient for example, if exists. If God says to do X and not do Y based on His/Her Omniscience then I should better follow His/Hers command. There must be a good reason to do X and not do Y since He/She is Omniscient and I am not.
But are you following God's commands; or the commands of whoever wrote The Bible?
No, because I am a mature person. But anybody's children need to follow the command of the supreme beings, mothers, fathers, teachers, etc. until they become mature.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am Why follow anybody's commands if you have your own moral intuition/compass?
I am a mature person so I follow my own way. However, when it comes to treating people just and fair, I cannot know what is right and what is fair, since I cannot put myself in their shoes. So the situation becomes difficult. That is where when the proper communication becomes handy.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am If you are looking for a Moral authority - there's Common Law, Jurrisprudence and your own moral intuition.
But intuition could be wrong.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm God is Omniscient so He/she can teach people the proper way of living otherwise we have to learn things through trial and error.
How would God teach you anything? How is he going to communicate that knowledge to you?
By talking, inspiring me, etc.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:12 pm Ignore ontology - it doesn't matter if God exists or not.
It is important.
It really isn't.

You could believe God exists and be wrong.
You could believe God doesn't exist and be wrong.
Be wrong on what?
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am You can do whatever you like with God.
You can do whatever you like without God.
Of course, I am free. But I need the support of someone else until I become mature. Even then I cannot do whatever I like.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am It seems the idea has no ontological value.
It has. You are talking from your own perspective, which is the perspective of a mature person. we are not born mature so we need guideness.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm What do you mean by manifesting God into existence?
Bringing more Goodness to the world. Improve things. Improve yourself. Improve other humans. Improve society.

Don't settle for the status quo.
I agree.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm The Greatest Evil also. It matters since we have to know whether we should follow the scriptures literally or not.
But the scriptures were written by people.
No, the scriptures were written by people but they are words of God, at least people believe so.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am Why follow other people's scriptures if you have your own moral intuition?
I don't.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am Why don't they follow your scriptures?
I don't know. Some are stupid, some are stubborn, etc.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm It is not a useless idea as I described in previous comments.
It's incredibly useless. You've given your moral intuition a name.

So now you get to say "God told me to do X" instead of "I decided to do X".
It is not useless if there is someone who knows things better than you.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm I care. I am not Omniscient so I follow the command of Omniscient.
But if you aren't Omniscient how do you know you are following the command of Omniscient?
By, trial and error, I can realize what I was told was right for me. So I realize that those people who told me to do X and not do Y has better knowledge than I have.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am You could be following the command of somebody who's taken you for a sucker.
True. But I realize the truth given enough amount of time.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am If you are following any holy book - you are most definitely not following the command of anybody Omniscient.
True.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am You are following the command of humans commanding you.
Not necessarily a human being. I think that there is a spiritual reality as well.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm Why epistemic God is important if Ontological God is not?
Because it makes you take responsibility for your moral choices.
But I need a minimal amount of education until I can find my own way. Again, you are talking about the perspective of a person who is mature.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am God didn't tell you anything - you justified your choices with a holy book.
Well, no. People blindly, without any justification, follow a holy book.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm I am living in a Muslim country so I am afraid to say things in public that I am saying here. So belief changes behavior.
I hear you. Good people always get defeated by a bad system. But there's your choice.

God tells you apostacy is a death sentence. So listen... and adapt yourself to the system. Or leave.

Whatever choice you make... it wasn't God that told you to do it ;)
So you agree, that a bad system can change the behavior of good people?
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm They kill me if I tell the truth in public.
Which truth? Is there no way to tell that truth in a way that doesn't get you killed?
For example, there is no God. Etc.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:15 pm But I don't believe in such a thing as sin. So I don't think that it is correct to kill people brutally because of sin.
Seee. You don't need God to tell you what to do.
Sure, but it took me a long time to reach here, where I am now. I learn from my mistake and there were people who thought me things that I am grateful for that.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am It seems to me you understand the problem with fundamentalism (reading holy books literally) quite perfectly.

When you read everything as literal; when you think God is ontological - you submit to the authority and question no commandments. Cruelty ensues.
That's the problem and the conundrum.

If other people aren't open to reason and to pursuing a better way... I have nothing else to say to you but my most heartfelt compassion and sorrow. I can't imagine what it's like to live in such a mental prison.
Yeah, it is very difficult.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:22 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:16 pm If you speak like a Frenchman; or Spaniard; or Italian do you actually mean it?
Depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about being a Frenchman, Spaniard or Italian, then yes. If you're a Frenchman talking about being a Spaniard, could it even be possible for you to mean it? Words are about things. There's a difference between knowing what you're talking about and just mimicking sounds or scribbles you hear and see. You seem to be saying that you're doing the latter. In other words you never say anything about anything.
It doesn't matter what I am talking ABOUT. What matters is WHY I am talking about whatever it is that I am talking about.

I could say "I am being a Frenchman" sarcastically (I've lived in france 15 years - I might as well be french)
I could say "I am being a Spaniard" meaning "Yeah, I have Spanish citizenship. As well as Italian citizenship."

Language is incredibly flexible in this regard. The message matters far more than the actual words used.

There's no need for the level of precision you demand. Language is incredibly imprecise and fuzzy and approximate. And it works just fine.
Sure, there's flexibility in symbolism, but you must, at the very least, know your audience and adjust your language use to get your point across for different audiences. If your audience doesn't get the gist of what you're saying, you've effectively made scribbles and sounds and didn't say anything. How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman? It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).

One could even say that your language use is about your sarcasm, as your intent to be sarcastic is why you said anything at all, and why you used those specific words. One could even gather information about the languages you know and your level of education with those languages by your language use. Your language use is about those things as well. All these various types of information are found in language use - what the scribbles and utterances are about, as in all the causes that are involved in any use of language.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm Sure, there's flexibility in symbolism, but you must, at the very least, know your audience and adjust your language use to get your point across for different audiences.
That's precisely what I am doing.

I already understand my own point and I understand it intuitively. The symbols/words are not for me. They are for my audience.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm If your audience doesn't get the gist of what you're saying, you've effectively made scribbles and sounds and didn't say anything.
Obviously! Which that's the whole point of code-switching.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman?
Because I would use a sarcastic tone of voice? Or whatever other intonation or linguistic trick there is to express/communicate sarcasm.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).
No. That's not how language works. What's sarcasm "about" ? I suspect you are going to start speaking in circles now...
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even say that your language use is about your sarcasm, as your intent to be sarcastic is why you said anything at all, and why you used those specific words.
Were the words "specific"? There's more than one way to express sarcasm about the exact same thing.

You are confusing the specific linguistic expressions I am using with the meaning of those expressions.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even gather information about the languages you know and your level of education with those languages by your language use. Your language use is about those things as well. All these various types of information are found in language use - what the scribbles and utterances are about, as in all the causes that are involved in any use of language.
Ok. So what is language "about" then?

The aboutness of language is so abstract and unspecific!
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman?
Because I would use a sarcastic tone of voice? Or whatever other intonation or linguistic trick there is to express/communicate sarcasm.
Yes!! You're almost there! Your tone of voice or the emoji you use would be about your (intent at) sarcasm.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even say that your language use is about your sarcasm, as your intent to be sarcastic is why you said anything at all, and why you used those specific words.
Were the words "specific"? There's more than one way to express sarcasm about the exact same thing.

You are confusing the specific linguistic expressions I am using with the meaning of those expressions.
Oh no! You're regressing! What other words could you have used to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? Could you have said, "You are what you eat." to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? No? Then it seems that the words you use are restricted at least to some degree in order to communicate your intentions, and it seems that the restrictions come primarily from the audience your are communicating with. There may be many ways to symbolize something, but your audience will dictate which symbols you use. You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).
No. That's not how language works. What's sarcasm "about" ? I suspect you are going to start speaking in circles now...
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even gather information about the languages you know and your level of education with those languages by your language use. Your language use is about those things as well. All these various types of information are found in language use - what the scribbles and utterances are about, as in all the causes that are involved in any use of language.
Ok. So what is language "about" then?

The aboutness of language is so abstract and unspecific!
It's obvious what I've been saying has been going over your head. Symbols are about things. To know what the scribbles, "sarcasm" and "language" are about, go look in a dictionary. If you're asking what the actual processes of sarcasm and language are about/mean, you must be asking what caused them, so go read about how sarcasm and languages came about. In reading about how languages came about you will probably find how sarcasm came about as it is a type of language use. You'll probably find books on the evolution of language and evolutionary psychology helpful.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm Yes!! You're almost there! Your tone of voice or the emoji you use would be about your (intent at) sarcasm.
I am almost there? You appear to be talking to yourself.

My words are for your benefit - not for mine.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm Oh no! You're regressing!
No I am not. I am intentionally saying things which move us away from the point you are trying to make. Because I already know what point you are trying to make; so I am already a step ahead of you in the conversation by giving you counter-examples.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm What other words could you have used to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? Could you have said, "You are what you eat." to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? No? Then it seems that the words you use are restricted at least to some degree in order to communicate your intentions, and it seems that the restrictions come primarily from the audience your are communicating with.
My words are only restricted by my lack of imagination. I could have used an in-joke. People develop rapport and shared sense of humour. I could have appealed to any of our past conversations; or used language in a sarcastic way.

But you know - explaining sarcasm is like disecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.

A frog. Lol. While talking about the French ;)
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm There may be many ways to symbolize something, but your audience will dictate which symbols you use.
Not only my audience. My rapport with my audience. My shared experiences with my audience. My shared background with the audience.

My ability to push the boundaries and manipulate language without going over too far; or just far enough over the edge.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
And you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm It's obvious what I've been saying has been going over your head. Symbols are about things.
OK! Show me!

What's the symbol "things" about?
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm To know what the scribbles, "sarcasm" and "language" are about, go look in a dictionary.
What?!? That's idiotic. Using dictionaries to navigate language is like using training wheels to ride a bycicle.

Language is far too flexible an dynamic for that. You can invent words, repurpose words etc. etc. etc.
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm If you're asking what the actual processes of sarcasm and language are about/mean, you must be asking what caused them, so go read about how sarcasm and languages came about. In reading about how languages came about you will probably find how sarcasm came about as it is a type of language use. You'll probably find books on the evolution of language and evolutionary psychology helpful.
No. I am not asking you that. I am asking you what "sarcasm" is about. You made the claim that language is ABOUT stuff.

I am not asking you for a theory of sarcasm.
I am not asking you for a cognitive account of sarcasm.
I am not asking you for a linguistic description of sarcasm.
I am not asking you for a dictionary definition of "sarcasm".

I am asking YOU what what sarcasm is ABOUT. Explain it to me from your human perspective without giving me other people's theories.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:02 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:30 pm I'd go along with most of what you say except that I prefer in every discussion to nail my colors to the mast.
I wish it were possible.

Truth is relative to the audience's vocabulary, not the speaker's.
That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:21 pm That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
If the spirit of the conversation is collaborative/cooperative - that's usually the case, but if the langage game becomes in any way adverserial there's literally no advantage to reifying one's position in words.

If you don't make your position explicit - the other party has nothing to atack.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:44 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:21 pm That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
If the spirit of the conversation is collaborative/cooperative - that's usually the case, but if the langage game becomes in any way adverserial there's literally no advantage to reifying one's position in words.

If you don't make your position explicit - the other party has nothing to atack.
Adversarial conversations are good when the common will is towards a synthesis. Adversarial conversations are bad or useless when there is no such common will. By "a synthesis" I don't mean a compromise I mean a new paradigm, although a compromise may be the best we can get for the short term.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:10 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
And you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:10 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
And you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Since the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all.
Ohhh, you are going for nastiness now, are you? Imbecille.
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille.
What about non-linguistic forms of communication?
What about the polymorphic use of symbols?
What about contextuality?

What does the symbol "symbol" symbolize?

Looks like your Religion could do with a healthy dose of antirepresentationalism to aleviate the burning sensation.
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
You were arguing with the forum idiot? Tell me more! How does one argue with themselves?
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:28 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:10 pm
And you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Since the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.
When language was invented, the symbols that were used had to be chosen and agreed upon. You wouldn't have to agree with others which symbols to use if which symbols we choose to use wasn't arbitrary, it would be obvious by observation, and we wouldn't have different languages we would have only one universal language. The fact that we have different languages in the first place is evidence that which symbols we use to represent something else is arbitrary.

Symbolism is the process of choosing, arbitrarily, the rules by which we apply using something to represent something else. By creating a rule, we essentially remove part of the arbitrary nature of what we are using to represent something else, so much so that many people end up conflating the symbol with what it represents (see Skepdick's posts and the silly questions he asks).

We don't really ever agree with the symbols that are used in our native language. We are indoctrinated with it. We never really have a choice in what our native language is. We merely adapt and learn what symbols are being used and how. So it may seem like the symbols we use are not arbitrary as we tend to think of the world in our native language, as if those things actually are the things we symbolize them with, but that is an illusion created by our brain as a result of how it creates shortcuts and relegates habitual behaviors to subconscious processes of the brain.

So I will agree with you to a degree in that the rules of some language is what establishes a consistent (non-arbitrary) link with the symbol that was chosen arbitrarily when the language was first invented, and what it represents. Sure, you can use whatever symbols you want to represent whatever you want for yourself (not sure why anyone would bother doing that), but if you expect to communicate with others then you need to know the rules the others are using and the non-arbitrary links that they are using between some scribble or utterance and what it represents in the world.

How could we ever come to understand the concept of symbolism if our minds didn't already represent the world in some way. We know that colors don't exist out in the world. They are a product of the mind. So if the apple isn't really red, then the redness I experience must be a symbol, a representation of something else. The color of the apple seems to coincide with it's ripeness. So apples aren't red or black. They are ripe or rotten and the color is a representation of the state of the apple. There is an aboutness to the mind, a feeling of being informed of how things are like (indirect realism), not a clear window to how the world actually is (naive realism). So if indirect realism is the case, then our minds are representations, or maps if you will, of the territory and can help explain the basis of where the concept of language and representation evolved from.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:55 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:28 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Since the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.
When language was invented, the symbols that were used had to be chosen and agreed upon. You wouldn't have to agree with others which symbols to use if which symbols we choose to use wasn't arbitrary, it would be obvious by observation, and we wouldn't have different languages we would have only one universal language. The fact that we have different languages in the first place is evidence that which symbols we use to represent something else is arbitrary.

Symbolism is the process of choosing, arbitrarily, the rules by which we apply using something to represent something else. By creating a rule, we essentially remove part of the arbitrary nature of what we are using to represent something else, so much so that many people end up conflating the symbol with what it represents (see Skepdick's posts and the silly questions he asks).

We don't really ever agree with the symbols that are used in our native language. We are indoctrinated with it. We never really have a choice in what our native language is. We merely adapt and learn what symbols are being used and how. So it may seem like the symbols we use are not arbitrary as we tend to think of the world in our native language, as if those things actually are the things we symbolize them with, but that is an illusion created by our brain as a result of how it creates shortcuts and relegates habitual behaviors to subconscious processes of the brain.

So I will agree with you to a degree in that the rules of some language is what establishes a consistent (non-arbitrary) link with the symbol that was chosen arbitrarily when the language was first invented, and what it represents. Sure, you can use whatever symbols you want to represent whatever you want for yourself (not sure why anyone would bother doing that), but if you expect to communicate with others then you need to know the rules the others are using and the non-arbitrary links that they are using between some scribble or utterance and what it represents in the world.

How could we ever come to understand the concept of symbolism if our minds didn't already represent the world in some way. We know that colors don't exist out in the world. They are a product of the mind. So if the apple isn't really red, then the redness I experience must be a symbol, a representation of something else. The color of the apple seems to coincide with it's ripeness. So apples aren't red or black. They are ripe or rotten and the color is a representation of the state of the apple. There is an aboutness to the mind, a feeling of being informed of how things are like (indirect realism), not a clear window to how the world actually is (naive realism). So if indirect realism is the case, then our minds are representations, or maps if you will, of the territory and can help explain the basis of where the concept of language and representation evolved from.
Language was not "invented" but was spontaneous as it still is for unselfconscious uninhibited native speakers. When native English speakers get together in the pub they don't take along a phrase book of correct word-symbols. we know the symbols others are using by context and continued usage. It seldom happens that friends indoctrinate each other and if they did so they would cease to be true friends. Language is not usually a power game but is a means of building community.

Our minds do not represent the world. Our minds create the world. There is no thing in itself such as the apple in your example. Neither direct nor indirect realism is the case.

Jargons are partly or even largely deliberate creations, as are written symbolic systems.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm Language was not "invented" but was spontaneous as it still is for unselfconscious uninhibited native speakers.
Ok, so "invented" might have been the wrong term to use. How about "selected" as in natural selection?

I have no idea what a "unselfconscious uninhibited native speaker" is. Examples, please.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm When native English speakers get together in the pub they don't take along a phrase book of correct word-symbols. we know the symbols others are using by context and continued usage.
Sure they do. The rules are stored in their memory. You had to learn the vocabulary, which means you had to learn what words referred to. Do you remember learning the vocabulary of your native language? You know the symbols others are using because you went to school and learned English.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm It seldom happens that friends indoctrinate each other and if they did so they would cease to be true friends. Language is not usually a power game but is a means of building community.

My point was pretty clear in that we do not get to choose what our native language is. We are indoctrinated with it, not just by our friends, but our family and teachers as well.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pmOur minds do not represent the world. Our minds create the world. There is no thing in itself such as the apple in your example. Neither direct nor indirect realism is the case.
Wow. Almost every sentence here is stating a negative without any reasons as to why you are disagreeing, which is effectively saying, "I just don't like what you've said and I'm not going to explain why". The only thing you've actually asserted here is that our minds create the world, but what does that even mean? What is a mind? What is the world? To say "our minds" is to imply that there are more than one. If there are more than one, then what is the medium that separates our minds, if not the world, for there to be more than one? This is a good example of misusing language in such a way as to create philosophical problems rather than solve them.
Post Reply