Not Even Close to Being Game-Related (Little Upsilon)

Okay, so I'm going to write about my current working hypothesis on none other than language (very roughly). What is my hypothesis? Well, all words are the result one of two processes: integration and differentiation. The second is necessary only because of the first. Therefore, it would seem more accurate to account for language as the result of conceptual integration. I imagine a few questions arise from this: (1) What the heck do you mean by integration and differentiation? (2) Why does integration take precedence over differentiation? (3) Can you speak English, please?

By integration, I am referring to the process by which the mind processes and, specifically, organizes real-world data (sense data). The process of organization is best labeled integration because the mind will consider various particular events and organize a concept according to that which all the events have in common. For example, s

Too much to read

So.... basically early post-Kantian phenomenology?

Too much to read...Want a beer?

Interesting.

This may not be aimed at your main point, but I have a question: why can't we think of blue without having ever seen anything blue? Let's say we've seen yellow, orange, red, but never anything blue. Could our minds extrapolate, and imagine blue? The cause of the sensation of blue is only different in wavelength than the cause of other colors.

Could we someday program an advanced computer to see blue? Not just respond to blue, but to actually perceive blueness?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Too much to read<!-/Quote-!>

Needs work.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

So.... basically early post-Kantian phenomenology?<!-/Quote-!>

Maybe. I must confess my ignorance of phenomenology, but I'm sure that it's post-Kantian (my philosophic background is amateurish). Anyway, would that make it ill-founded or well-refuted? If so, what are the general problems with this view?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Too much to read...Want a beer?<!-/Quote-!>

No thanks.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Interesting.

This may not be aimed at your main point, but I have a question: why can't we think of blue without having ever seen anything blue? Let's say we've seen yellow, orange, red, but never anything blue. Could our minds

"Maybe. I must confess my ignorance of phenomenology, but I'm sure that it's post-Kantian (my philosophic background is amateurish). Anyway, would that make it ill-founded or well-refuted? If so, what are the general problems with this view?"

It's a stance that I more or less hold myself. There is a lot you could read about this that would both advance your thought, raise new questions, and conform/solidify the grounding you already expounded. The philosophy of language and phenomenology have grown up together in the 20th century as rival siblings, not always happy with each other but always in dialogue.

A large part of what you are describing sounds like he idea of intentional consciousness, which a lot of people trace to Kant's Critiques (of Pure Reason, I believe). He says that our minds impose an intentional order on the world. Everything we perceive as order, natural categories, and relationship

Thanks! Degrees are useful things, I hope to have one in a few years.

Another way of looking at this discussion is from the viewpoint of context and constructed meaning. We may be able to independently establish meaning to an object or concept. But much of meaning comes from not only past experiences that may be attributed to an object but also the constructed meanings attributed by a group of people through conversation, stories and experiences.

In the 1980 film “The God’s must be Crazyâ€� a coke bottle falls out of the sky on a tribe of indigenous people in Africa who had never been exposed to civilization, much less a coke bottle. Among other things, the film focuses on the meanings attributed to the coke bottle presence and how the tribe dealt with this new influence. Over time and with the widening of conversations and experiences the meaning of the coke bottle changed. In a broader sense that’s the way we come to attribute meaning to words and conceptsââ‚

Both the personal and social context are relevant, I like to think of the meaning attached to a word in the same terms as I think about of supply-and-demand - that is, the objective meaning (price) is the result of leveling effect of many different subjective meanings (personal value) attached to it. As usage changes, the objective meaning is altered by many small changes in subjective meaning. A new word is like a new product in the market. A new variant usage is like an alteration of the product . . . in some cases, the alteration isn't accepted (like Coke's new formula), Obviously, this works mostly as a metaphor rather than an exacting explanation.

A good example of this is what's happening with gourmet. It's slowly moving from indicating some high-quality cuisine to just meaning decent food because it's being applied more and more on stuff like frozen dinners. The fact that the meaning of the word i

For a number of years i've been fascinated by an idea called the Holographic Paradign. It's kind of out there but is very intriguing and I think is germane to our discussion. The idea starts with the premise that thoughts, particularly visual and sensate thoughts do not reside in only one place in the brain. They reside in numerous places and somehow come together to form the image. This author says that these sensate images form a hologram that we perceive.

He goes on to say that our perception of the universe also is constructed holographically. He says that what we see and perceive is in reality the atoms and super strings that make up all matter, but that we don't see those because our perceptions of reality is holographic. i think the theory breaks down some when i bang my head against a wall, but it's still interesting. So, our brain constructs a way of perceiving that is only one reality.

I think that holds tr

1 Corinthians 13:12

Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation.
-Noam Chomsky

Without, hopefully, sounding too esoteric, the process of language seems to carry greater weight than the mechanics of it. Expression of abstract idea is uniquely human, and is, therefore, wonderfully diverse in its methodology.

I will humbly defer to those with better information; however, Thank you Scarlett for raising the bar on forum discourse.