Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately. Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives. Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination). In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation. What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time. We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.
Theme: Grammar
-
Can We Think without Language?
Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately. Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives. Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination). In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation. What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time. We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.
-
The Conflict of Civilization isn’t with Islam it’s with All of Abrahamism
See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism in all its forms. The problem is not only genes but content. And grammars convey the content. And Abrahamic grammar is nothing more than drug dealing for the human mind.
-
The Conflict of Civilization isn’t with Islam it’s with All of Abrahamism
See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism in all its forms. The problem is not only genes but content. And grammars convey the content. And Abrahamic grammar is nothing more than drug dealing for the human mind.
-
Understanding Deflationary Truth
(Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)
-
Understanding Deflationary Truth
(Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)
-
Understanding Deflationary Grammar (and Dimensions)
(Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons ) |Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary INFLATIONARY: To Inflate = “To Add To” Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story. Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability. Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability. Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references. CONFLATIONARY: Conflate = “To Confuse” To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties. ORDINARY Common speech in all its forms. DEFLATIONARY: To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains. Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars. DIMENSIONS For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).
-
Understanding Deflationary Grammar (and Dimensions)
(Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons ) |Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary INFLATIONARY: To Inflate = “To Add To” Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story. Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability. Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability. Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references. CONFLATIONARY: Conflate = “To Confuse” To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties. ORDINARY Common speech in all its forms. DEFLATIONARY: To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains. Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars. DIMENSIONS For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).
-
CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE? Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to t
CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE?
Thought and Language.
It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately.
Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives.
Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination).
In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation.
What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time.
We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 16:10:00 UTC
-
UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY GRAMMAR (AND DIMENSIONS) (Core Concepts) (attn: SG Si
UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY GRAMMAR (AND DIMENSIONS)
(Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons )
|Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary
INFLATIONARY:
To Inflate = “To Add To”
Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story.
Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability.
Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability.
Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references.
CONFLATIONARY:
Conflate = “To Confuse”
To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties.
ORDINARY
Common speech in all its forms.
DEFLATIONARY:
To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains.
Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars.
DIMENSIONS
For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 13:23:00 UTC