Understanding Reality

[Strange]

Indeed, part of the pragmatics of language is that there is an assumption that each party will say something relevant and meaningful (see Grice's Maxims, for example). Maybe this is what the good Dr means by "truth". But I am not sure a probability can be assigned to that except by some sort of pst-hoc analysis (which appears to be the opposite of what he suggests).

 

In short, I wish Dr Dick would get on and explain his ideas in more detail, instead of this repetitive drip-feeding of morsels. It is clear there are many people here capable of understanding, and willing to consider, his ideas. If only we would be told what they were...

[Doctordick]

Indeed, part of the pragmatics of language is that there is an assumption that each party will say something relevant and meaningful (see Grice's Maxims, for example). Maybe this is what the good Dr means by "truth". But I am not sure a probability can be assigned to that except by some sort of pst-hoc analysis (which appears to be the opposite of what he suggests).

 

In short, I wish Dr Dick would get on and explain his ideas in more detail, instead of this repetitive drip-feeding of morsels. It is clear there are many people here capable of understanding, and willing to consider, his ideas. If only we would be told what they were...

 

And my position is to analyze the information communicated without making any assumptions whatsoever: i.e., all possible assumptions must be embedded in the deduced interpretation of the communication. I will make minor adjustments of the definitions I have provided where these adjustments universally require absolutely no presumptions.

 

Everyone here wants to know the assumptions I am presuming. The answer is "NONE". That position seems impossible for anyone here to comprehend. Following is my reaction to a number of posts on this page.

 

Some comments on page 4 posts I find I have read!

To Delta 1212, isn't presuming the source of an experience (the communication you refer to) an aspect of "understanding" that communication: i.e., something you are required to learn?

You also comment that you think it is possible to come up with a probability of the source of a communication believing their statement to be true without having understood it. You miss the point that I am defining "understanding" to be placing a probability the sender believes the thought being expressed to be true. The point being that, if one cannot conceive of that circumstance they certainly cannot apply the concept of understanding to the event. At no point do I suggest that the understanding is valid. I am simply putting forward a concept which I want defined. I call it "understanding" because that English word has the closest relationship to what I want to talk about that I am aware.

If you refuse to use my definition then the consequences of that definition are not available to you.

To Strange -- That is all I mean!! And I didn't say the communication was true; I said the primary character (the one trying to comprehend the communication) would place a probability the sender would perceive the truth to be: (consider "truth" to be analogous to "valid", "correct" or some other English word you would like to use. If the primary character cannot come up with any such conclusion, they certainly could not claim to understand the message. And they certainly cannot possibly learn the language without making such presumptions as to the meaning of the individual received information.

"And the receiver must understand the grammar of the language"?? That is what the receiver is trying to learn and just because he thinks he has learned it does not mean that he has.

Delta 1212 said, "but you don't strictly have to do it that way!" So what? Are you trying to comprehend what I am saying or do you have some other purpose in mind? If you want to do it some other way then you clearly have no interest in the conclusions I deduce.

To Strange, all I am doing is setting down an extremely short list of specific definitions. If you are mentally capable of working with the definitions I give, I have some interesting deductions to show you. If not, you might as well forget what I have to say. Please do not try to overlay those definitions with presumptions you would like to make! The object here is to make "No Presumptions".

Once again, in essence everyone here appears to concern themselves with interpreting the language, not with representing it. Representing a concept with the written expression such as "demarcate" is just as arbitrary as representing it with "3459". Learning what it means is a problem the communicator faces in both cases. The collection of all possible interpretations must be deduced from all the variations used in the entire battery of communications.

I appologize if what I am saying is just beyond your comprehension. I think the problem is simply that "you want something you can interpret" and interpretation is something way down the street. Not at all in the first few communications.

Again Delta 1212 says "You could have multiple versions of verbs to demarcate their presence in sub-clauses." So what!! Those are explanations imbedded in the language you must learn, all I am concernd with is representation of the communication mechanism. I have no concern at all as to what they mean. That issue is exactly what the primary charcter is required to learn.

The significance of my representation is that it makes absolutely no presumptions whatsoever on what the communication actually communicates. Absolutely every issue is "something to be learned". The only requirement I set up is that every communicable concept must be represented by a defined number. The receiver applies a numerical identification to what he (or she) identifies as a fundamental concept. Perhaps some communication he (or she) has seen a number of times.

I make utterly no constraint whatsoever on the "second party of that communication". That is an issue the receiver may make down the road but he may or may not be correct! The actual validity is an open issue. The "second party" could be an individual identical to the receiver or a multiple number of such entities. Or perhaps an entity totally alien to the receiver. Get that, "No Presumptions".

 

All I ask is that it be possible that communications can be translated into a language: that any specific fundamental element of that communication can be represented by a specific number, any complex collection of those concepts can be represented by [latex](x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex] (a finite ordered collection of those numbers) and lastly, that the intended truth (or proposed validity) of a specific communication is "defined" to be a probability expressed by the notation [latex]P(x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex].

 

If you are willing to work with those definitions (and the implied constraints) simply indicate you support this specific post and I will start another post on the "speculations" forum.

 

Thank you -- Dick

[imatfaal]

You are the one with a comprehension failure - we understand your axiomata; we do not agree them.

[Strange]

To Strange -- That is all I mean!!

 

 

Given the lack of context, I am guessing this means: your numbers/indices are simply a transliteration of the words.

 

Do you have any comment on the need for grammar and context to understand a list of words? The meanings (or concepts associated with each word/index) are not enough by themselves.

 

 

And I didn't say the communication was true; I said the primary character (the one trying to comprehend the communication) would place a probability the sender would perceive the truth to be: (consider "truth" to be analogous to "valid", "correct" or some other English word you would like to use. If the primary character cannot come up with any such conclusion, they certainly could not claim to understand the message. And they certainly cannot possibly learn the language without making such presumptions as to the meaning of the individual received information.

 

"And the receiver must understand the grammar of the language"?? That is what the receiver is trying to learn and just because he thinks he has learned it does not mean that he has.

 

I am struggling to parse the first sentence here (ironically).

 

Are you (effectively) talking about first language acquisition here? It is certainly true that infants learn the meanings of words and the grammar of a language by learning the probabilities of certain collocations and contexts. Is this what you are talking about?

 

 

 

 

To Strange, all I am doing is setting down an extremely short list of specific definitions. If you are mentally capable of working with the definitions I give, I have some interesting deductions to show you. If not, you might as well forget what I have to say. Please do not try to overlay those definitions with presumptions you would like to make! The object here is to make "No Presumptions".

 

I do not have any "presumptions I want to make". (I guess you mean "assumptions", but never mind. Maybe they accidentally got given the same index number; even though they have completely different meanings.)

 

I am simply trying to get a better understanding of what you are trying to say; or, more importantly, why you are saying it.

 

You are painfully slow to get to the point. Which is why there are some far more interesting and productive side discussions going on.

 

 

Once again, in essence everyone here appears to concern themselves with interpreting the language, not with representing it.

 

No. There is no concern or problem here. It is, by now, quite clear that all you want to do is replace words with numbers. You have explained this half a dozen times. WE GET IT. Can we move on now to why you think this is useful?

 

 

 

I appologize if what I am saying is just beyond your comprehension.

 

It isn't. It is trivial to understand. You want to replace words with numbers. I don't know why you think anyone has a problem with it. It also seems pointless. I am waiting, with baited breath, to find out what the point is. So PLEASE, get on with it.

 

 

 

All I ask is that it be possible that communications can be translated into a language: that any specific fundamental element of that communication can be represented by a specific number, any complex collection of those concepts can be represented by [latex](x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex] (a finite ordered collection of those numbers) and lastly, that the intended truth (or proposed validity) of a specific communication is "defined" to be a probability expressed by the notation [latex]P(x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex].

 

Certainly you can transcribe the elements of a written or spoken language in numerical format. We do it all the time.

 

I would like to see some justification of your claim about probabilities and truth. But I would be willing to accept that, for the time being, if it means we can move on and you can get to the bloody point. You have taken 4 pages to just say the same thing over and over again.

 

You justify this tedious repetition by your assertion that people don't understand you. THEY DO. An idiot could understand you. You have said nothing complicated nor, so far, interesting or novel.

 

If people seem confused it may because what you have said about replacing words with numbers is so mind-bogglingly obvious and well known, it is hard to believe that is all you have to say.

 

I still hope that you might have something interesting to say based on this idea of representing words as numbers, but this hope is rapidly fading.

 

 

 

 

If you are willing to work with those definitions (and the implied constraints) simply indicate you support this specific post and I will start another post on the "speculations" forum.

 

If you repeat your "no one understands me" sob-story again, I will report you for trolling. So grow up, stop acting like a petulant teenager and just get on with it.

 

(I suspect that if you start a new thread, the mods will merge it with this one. But that is up to them.)

Edited June 29, 2017 by Strange

[Delta1212]

There is meaning embedded in more than just the words. We were having a debate about how feasible it is to encode relational information in the manner you are describing, which is a concern that is central to whether one of your premises holds true.

 

Do you intend all of the information in a communication to be encoded by number, in which case they must be order and context agnostic, or are you merely saying that you can can create a cipher for any given language that replaces words with numbers?

 

Edit: If the latter, then I whole-heartedly accept that this is very obviously true.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Delta1212

[DrKrettin]

I am waiting, with baited breath,

 

*cough* I just wanted to be included in the thread.

[Strange]

*cough* I just wanted to be included in the thread.

 

 

And, of course, I meant "bated breath". An example of Muphry's Law in action.

[DrKrettin]

 

 

And, of course, I meant "bated breath". An example of Muphry's Law in action.

 

Um - that's what I was referring to.

[Strange]

 

Um - that's what I was referring to.

I know - was just trying to pretend it was a typo and I knew what it was supposed to be.

 

In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen the word written down before. At least, not since we did Merchant of Venice at school...

 

Of course, to be on topic, I should have said, "ha ha, I meant 279 not 312"

[DrKrettin]

In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen the word written down before. At least, not since we did Merchant of Venice at school...

 

Of course, to be on topic, I should have said, "ha ha, I meant 279 not 312"

 

Oddly, it just happened to be the one speech which we had to memorize (other than the obligatory "quality of mercy"). It would be even more difficult to recite on topic....

 

6455, 46766, 3455, ......

[imatfaal]

Oddly, it just happened to be the one speech which we had to memorize (other than the obligatory "quality of mercy"). It would be even more difficult to recite on topic....

 

6455, 46766, 3455, ......

An on-topic Shakespeare would have to be

 

23812019,914,1,141135,208120,238938,235,311212,1,1815195,225,11425,15208518,2315184,231521124,191351212,119,19235520

 

There is a green plus one from me for anyone who can work it out...

[dimreepr]

Just a guess, is it the "weird sisters" from Macbeth?

[DrKrettin]

It's not this, but I think the OP would strongly approve of

 

When we are born, we cry, that we are come
To this great stage of fools.

[imatfaal]

Just a guess, is it the "weird sisters" from Macbeth?

- nope but I can see the logic

 

It's not this, but I think the OP would strongly approve of

 

When we are born, we cry, that we are come

To this great stage of fools.

not that - but again can see the thinking

[dimreepr]

It's not this, but I think the OP would strongly approve of

 

Yes I know, the numbers are all wrong

Edited June 30, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

An on-topic Shakespeare would have to be

 

23812019,914,1,141135,208120,238938,235,311212,1,1815195,225,11425,15208518,2315184,231521124,191351212,119,19235520

 

There is a green plus one from me for anyone who can work it out...

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

 

Right number of letters and the a's match. The name's don't though.

 

Actually, I can fix that:

 

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other number would smell as sweet.

 

Now it matches perfectly.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Delta1212

[dimreepr]

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

 

Right number of letters and the a's match. The name's don't though.

 

I think you've earned a +1

[Delta1212]

 

I think you've earned a +1

I did. I just figured out the full numbering convention, and it uses the version of the quote that has "word" instead of the second name.

 

So, for the record: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

[imatfaal]

I did. I just figured out the full numbering convention, and it uses the version of the quote that has "word" instead of the second name.

 

So, for the record: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

 

Brilliant! A plus one on both your Houses Posts. I thought the more prosaic version with word instead of name fitted better.