Mere Semantics: The Importance of Clear Definitions

[Words]

Talking about something vague and without discussion of the definition is similar to 1 person talking about (a+b) and the other person getting (b+c). The essence of the idea, which is simply "b", is missed and unrelated things are brought into the table and people simply absorb false ideas, false connections. The qualities of "c" or "a" becomes inaccurately linked to "b."

I've experienced so many conversations like this, and to me, when you have this type of conversation, then you are really talking about nothing at all, nonsense. a+b=/=b+c. And yet people continue to converse and pretend to understand each other's definitions. It doesn't lead anywhere. It has no potential. Leaving definitions vague is a discussion where people just keep adding more and more unrelated things. a+b+c+d+... Creating a strict definition, at least, leads you to redefinition, which usually means better definition. When you strictly define something then you can strictly test it against certainties. If it doesn't cohere with what is certain(an accepted idea or a set of data) then you can dismiss the definition entirely. If it does however cohere with the constants, then you can finally talk about how it relates to everything else. You can finally discover relationships such as b=a+c. You can finally get somewhere.

And the most irritating about this thing right now is the fact that I'm not even sure what I'm talking about. What about you? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

 

[nexion]

This is shit I have been saying (or at least thinking) for over a year concerning semantics games and how one person can say something and another person interprets it in a completely different way. It is all bound within associations and experience. Within ideas and archetypes, and in mind. The relativization of "objectivity." The same relationship exists between the "actual" and the "perceived," in which case the entities concerned are the subject (man) and some object which merely exists. It was this idea which lead me to a (still-tentative) conclusion that the vast majority of philosophy is merely semantic games, people talking past each other using different definitions for different words, using different words for different ideas.

So yes, I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say.

...Or do I?

 

[Words]

It is all bound within associations and experience. Within ideas and archetypes, and in mind. The relativization of "objectivity." The same relationship exists between the "actual" and the "perceived," in which case the entities concerned are the subject (man) and some object which merely exists.

as;lfkja;lkjfeapoeipqunpqoin.d.fsdf.

I was this idea which lead me to a (still-tentative) conclusion that the vast majority of philosophy is merely semantic games, people talking past each other using different definitions for different words, using different words for different ideas.

The vast majority of the non-strict (do they call it "liberal"?) academia as well. You only need to read a dozen or so "scholarly journals." I'm not saying there should be quantification and math. But maybe there should be a growing almost unquestionable and very precise dictionary, for example. But then there's this idea that it limits thought. I don't understand this.

So yes, I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say.

...Or do I?

beats me.

 

[Vrecknidj]

However, not everyone is trying to do with language what you're trying to do with language. I love the ambiguities in expressions, I'm happy there are multiple meanings in things.

1) Nothing is better than steak!
2) Hamburger is better than nothing.
3) Therefore, hamburger is better than steak.

Things like this are fun. They don't have to be annoying or cause problems. I can use things like this to teach fallacies in logic to otherwise-bumbling undergraduates and they remember it because it sticks.

I know where you're coming from. I've spent a lifetime being a hair-splitter over definitions in certain areas of my work. But, honestly, sometimes nothing beats a good pun, or a poem, or something that turns on the fuzziness of language.

 

[nexion]

The vast majority of the non-strict (do they call it "liberal"?) academia as well. You only need to read a dozen or so "scholarly journals." I'm not saying there should be quantification and math. But maybe there should be a growing almost unquestionable and very precise dictionary, for example. But then there's this idea that it limits thought. I don't understand this.

A dictionary made at one moment in time is only so good as everyone agrees with the definitions contained therein, and as that language does not evolve. But neither of those are true. Unconscious mental associations necessarily change the way man perceives ideas (which is what words are), and evolution of language is inextricably related with evolution of society. The only language that has the potential to be perfect is one that no one ever uses.

 

[Words]

However, not everyone is trying to do with language what you're trying to do with language. I love the ambiguities in expressions, I'm happy there are multiple meanings in things.

1) Nothing is better than steak!
2) Hamburger is better than nothing.
3) Therefore, hamburger is better than steak.

Things like this are fun. They don't have to be annoying or cause problems. I can use things like this to teach fallacies in logic to otherwise-bumbling undergraduates and they remember it because it sticks.

I know where you're coming from. I've spent a lifetime being a hair-splitter over definitions in certain areas of my work. But, honestly, sometimes nothing beats a good pun, or a poem, or something that turns on the fuzziness of language.

I also appreciate this but generally when your objective is to figure things out, you need exactitude. my problem is with people who are trying to understand something and yet continue to add irrelevancies. their efforts are so wasteful. talking about fluff.

A dictionary made at one moment in time is only so good as everyone agrees with the definitions contained therein, and as that language does not evolve. But neither of those are true. Unconscious mental associations necessarily change the way man perceives ideas (which is what words are), and evolution of language is inextricably related with evolution of society. The only language that has the potential to be perfect is one that no one ever uses.

I don't think it's so impossible to reach shared simplicity. The many words we use we take for granted because we find their meanings obvious. You don't think about the many implications of "the", you recognize it's simplicity and you work with that simplicity. These simplicities make it possible to build, to discover, to understand. And what makes "the" different from any other word? What makes it different from the oh so ethereal concepts people are so scared to simplify?

 

[Polaris]

From: Trumpeter (1992) ISSN: 0832-6193. Intellectual Origins of the "Depth" Theme in the Philosophy of Arne Naess. Warwick Fox, University of Tasmania:

Spoiler

4. Empirical Semantics.6.

The Vienna Circle's philosophy of logical positivism or logical empiricism echoed that of the logical atomists (Russell and the early Wittgenstein) in treating language as if it were ultimately unambiguous in character: a proposition could be shown either to be saying something that was clear and distinct or to be nonsensical. For Naess, however, it was empirically demonstrable that the same proposition could be interpreted in different ways depending upon the people interpreting and the situation that applied. Thus, whereas the logical atomists and logical empiricists would have been quite happy to state that sentence p either is or is not logically equivalent in meaning to sentence q, Naess, and the group that he influenced (the "Oslo group"), denied the adequacy of such a judgment by pointing to the empirical fact (or its possibility) that p is only synonymous (or not synonymous) with q for some people in some situations.

But Naess was not only interested in the various ways (or directions) in which the same proposition could be interpreted, he was also interested in differences in what he referred to as the depth of intention that these interpretations could display. To understand the distinction between Naess' concepts of direction of interpretation and depth of intention it is necessary to understand his concept of precization. An expression p is defined as a precization of another expression q if the reasonable interpretations that can be made of p are a subset of the reasonable interpretations that can be made of q. (An interpretation of q is an expression that is synonymous with q for some person in some situation whereas a reasonable interpretation of q is an expression that is synonymous with q for many people in many situations.) In less formal language, then, one expression is a precization of another if it is both a more precise interpretation of that expression and one that might often be made. It follows that every reasonable interpretation of the precization will necessarily be a reasonable interpretation of the original expression.

Using this concept of precization, Naess showed that we can construct chains of precizations in various directions of interpretation. For example, consider an ostensibly straightforward expression such as "all men are equal." Does the reader take this to mean that "all humans are equal" or that "all male humans are equal"? The former option is a reasonable interpretation of the point of departure formulation without being a precization of it in that the reasonable interpretations of both are equivalent. However, the latter option is a precization of the point of departure formulation in that its reasonable interpretations are more restricted than (or a subset of) those that can be made of the original expression. In either case, we can go on to ask, for example: Is the expression taken to mean that "all humans (or male humans) are the equal in the eyes of God" or that "all humans (or male humans) have equal moral worth" or that "all humans (or male humans) are equal before the law" (and so on)? All of these formulations are precizations (or further precizations) of the point of departure formulation. If we select just one of these branches or directions of interpretation - for example, "all humans have equal moral worth" - we can go on to ask, for example: is this expression in turn taken to mean that "all humans should be treated with the same degree of respect regardless of how they behave" or that "all humans should be treated with the same degree of respect providing that they observe certain social norms" (and so on)? And so the ramification process can be continued. Naess wrote:

Sooner or later a situation arises where the subject must admit, if honest, that (1) if he made a definite interpretation of the sentence at all, he either must have intended a or non-a (a certain distinction). Further, (2) that he neither intended a nor non-a, being unaware of the possibility of making the distinction at issue (e.g., between ton as a measure of volume and ton as a measure of weight [Naess' own discussion in this context being in regard to the point of departure expression 'The ship was of 5,000 tons'])..7.​

The extent to which a person discriminates along a chain of precizations (and, therefore, in a particular direction of interpretation) is a measure of their depth of intention, that is, the depth to which that person can claim to have understood the intended meaning of the expression. Thus, as Ingemund Gullvag notes in his study of Naess' concept of depth of intention:

People may differ in their responses not only by choosing different branches of interpretation but by stopping at different levels of discrimination within the same branch. If two persons choose the same branch but stop at different levels of discrimination within that branch, we say they have understood [the point of departure formulation] with different depths of intention..8.​

5. Empirical Semantics and Psychoanalysis

I think it is arguable that Naess' experience of psychoanalysis, which took place in Vienna at the same time as his contact with the Vienna Circle, may well have provided him with a powerful stimulus to the development of the central concepts in his philosophy of language and communication. To begin with, both psychoanalysis and Naess' concept of depth of intention are concerned with depth of understanding - the former with one's depth of understanding of one's self and the latter with one's depth of understanding of others. Thus, where Freudian psychoanalysis is concerned with revealing the extent to which a person is unaware or unconscious of the deeper meanings of their own utterances (whether these be the free association of seemingly unconnected items, verbal accounts of dreams, slips of the tongue, instances of forgetfulness, or jokes), Naess' empirical semantics is concerned with revealing the extent to which a person is unaware or unconscious of the deeper meanings of someone else's utterances (i.e., unaware or unconscious of distinctions that were intended by the speaker).

It should be emphasized that this parallel does not point to the existence of a commonality between empirical semantics and some incidental feature of psychoanalysis; rather, the possibility of differences in depth of interpretation is a fundamental feature of psychoanalysis. The whole point of psychoanalysis is to uncover or reveal material that has been repressed by the conscious mind, so that this material can then be integrated into the personality structure rather than continue to operate like a "back-seat driver"—albeit one that the patient has been (or has preferred to be) largely unaware of. Thus, for example, psychoanalysts are not particularly interested in what they see as the superficial manifest content of a dream, but are virtually interested in what they take to be its deeper, more significant, latent content. Precisely because of this emphasis on depth of understanding, psychoanalysis is often simply referred to as depth psychology.

Second, in both psychoanalysis and empirical semantics, one reveals or makes conscious a person's depth of understanding by a process of verbal probing. While the generality of this parallel could make it seem insignificant to us today, it needs to be remembered that the verbal probing approach to psychiatry and semantics was, in both cases, revolutionary at the time. Psychoanalysis was originally distinguished from other approaches to mental disorder that were then current (such as hydrotherapy, electrotherapy, massage, the Weir Mitchell rest-cure, and hypnosis) by the fact that it was based purely on verbal probing. Naess' empirical approach to semantics was likewise distinguished from its then current alternatives (i.e., the logical approaches inspired by the Vienna Circle) by also being based on verbal probing. For Naess, the synonymity or otherwise of sentence p and sentence q, for example, was not a question to be decided on logical grounds but rather a question to be decided by asking person x in situation y whether p was synonymous with q for them.

It is also interesting to note in regard to this second point that just as the person who initiates the verbal probing in psychoanalysis is referred to as the analyst, so the person who asks the questions in Naess' empirical semantics (in order to reveal such things as the subject's depth of intention) is also referred to as the analyst..9.

Third, the central role given in psychoanalysis to the interpretation of highly complex and exceedingly ambiguous material (such as the free association of seemingly unconnected items, dreams, slips of the tongue, instances of forgetfulness, and jokes) inevitably highlights the fact that interpreters of the same material can differ not only with respect to their depth of interpretation—which was my first point—but also with respect to their direction of interpretation. The possibility of differences in direction of interpretation must impress itself upon anyone who undertakes psychoanalysis: the patient and the analyst—or two different analysts, for that matter—may both address themselves to what they take to be the latent content of a dream, for example, but nevertheless interpret this content in significantly different directions. Thus, the ideas or both depth and direction or interpretation or understanding are as central to psychoanalysis as they are to Naess' empirical semantics.

The parallels I have pointed to between psychoanalysis and empirical semantics take on added significance when one bears in mind the fact that Naess undertook and would have been reflecting upon his "deadly serious," six-days-a-week, fourteen-month experience of psychoanalysis at the same time as he was reflecting upon the views he was being exposed to by the members of the Vienna Circle. Taking all these considerations into account, then, I think one can make a persuasive case for the claim that Naess' experience of psychoanalysis provided him - whether consciously or unconsciously! - with a powerful stimulus to the development of the central concepts in his philosophy of language and communication.

And:

http://robertpriddy.com/COMMUNICATION/10%20Verification.htm

 

[Words]

So very academic of you... so many words too. Trumpeter must be a very wordy person. I will read that um nyever. I think I'll just loiter around and wait for better delivery.

 

[Polaris]

Reading it may provide more precise meaning than me trying to regurgitate just for the sake of regurgitating.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I do think it's important to have well-defined terms; in some situations it is crucial for one word or concept to mean a specific thing and nothing else.

However, outside of those situations I prefer flexibility and I would consider it more important that people understand the gist or the general direction, rather than specific terminology. This is because, outside those aforementioned situations, I feel that inflexible terminology is limiting, and my mind is always thinking of a more appropriate way(in terms of context) to express an idea than it was previously expressed by myself or others.


To say it another way, I add more to an idea because I'm always trying to make it make more sense. I believe the more information that is given*, the more people can pick up on the patterns of what is being said, and will be able to understand the point and follow on their own.


*Not necessarily, more words is not always best, it can serve to confuse.

 

[Words]

I do think it's important to have well-defined terms; in some situations it is crucial for one word or concept to mean a specific thing and nothing else.

in some? i say, in most.

However, outside of those situations I prefer flexibility and I would consider it more important that people understand the gist or the general direction, rather than specific terminology. This is because, outside those aforementioned situations, I feel that inflexible terminology is limiting, and my mind is always thinking of a more appropriate way(in terms of context) to express an idea than it was previously expressed by myself or others.

Why would it matter if your mind wanted to express it in another way? Why would it matter to the objective of collective knowledge-progress?

To say it another way, I add more to an idea because I'm always trying to make it make more sense. I believe the more information that is given*, the more people can pick up on the patterns of what is being said, and will be able to understand the point and follow on their own.


*Not necessarily, more words is not always best, it can serve to confuse.

How does talking about (a+b) when you want to understand simply "b" help? I can understand if it were about comparison, but I assume your talking about treating (a+b) as b in itself. When you say "more information", do you mean specific examples of the idea? Isn't that 'within' the idea itself?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

in some? i say, in most.

A matter of values.

Why would it matter if your mind wanted to express it in another way? Why would it matter to the objective of collective knowledge-progress?

I believe words fail to truly grasp reality and the inner experiences people wish, or may not, to convey. I try to get around this by providing more than one angle to approach a situation, looking for the best context to explain something. More information is being discovered, perspectives are evolving, the situation is always changing. Everything is only provisional.


Communication is more than the literal word: there is tone, and visual illustration, even touch. I think an idea(or art) is best expressed as an experience of the senses and the mind, by combing as many mediums as possible.

How does talking about (a+b) when you want to understand simply "b" help? I can understand if it were about comparison, but I assume your talking about treating (a+b) as b in itself. When you say "more information", do you mean specific examples of the idea? Isn't that 'within' the idea itself?

My thinking is contextual, my worldview / understanding of things comes from observing the thing in its (verbal and conceptual) environment. So naturally I explain to others from this approach.

"b" is "b", but what does "b" mean for the whole alphabet?

 

[Words]

you realize that this is related to type?

A matter of values.

progress.

I believe words fail to truly grasp reality and the inner experiences people wish, or may not, to convey. I try to get around this by providing more than one angle to approach a situation, looking for the best context to explain something. More information is being discovered, perspectives are evolving, the situation is always changing. Everything is only provisional.

You don't believe in a single truth? I think there are "worse" perspectives and there are "better" perspectives, then there is the "best perspective" which is that single truth. Except maybe on certain things like choosing the view for a 3 dimensional object.

Things are provisional simply because people misperceive. This misperception grows as it is handed down from one person to the other. This is why meanings change. If there is no misperception in the beginning or if the best perception is found and kept solid, then there is no change.

Communication is more than the literal word: there is tone, and visual illustration, even touch. I think an idea(or art) is best expressed as an experience of the senses and the mind, by combing as many mediums as possible.

Why do you think this?

My thinking is contextual, my worldview / understanding of things comes from observing the thing in its (verbal and conceptual) environment. So naturally I explain to others from this approach.

What, to you, is the most simplest concept and how would you explain it?

 

[Niclmaki]

Meh, a lot of interesting connections are made from misunderstandings.

 

[Duxwing]

you realize that this is related to type?



progress.



You don't believe in a single truth? I think there are "worse" perspectives and there are "better" perspectives, then there is the "best perspective" which is that single truth. Except maybe on certain things like choosing the view for a 3 dimensional object.

Things are provisional simply because people misperceive. This misperception grows as it is handed down from one person to the other. This is why meanings change. If there is no misperception in the beginning or if the best perception is found and kept solid, then there is no change.



Why do you think this?



What, to you, is the most simplest concept and how would you explain it?

Consider all the particles of the universe. Consider all the ways in which they could possibly be arranged, and all the interactions of those particles and arrangements. Now, try to construct a language in which each word refers to precisely one of these arrangements. The sheer scale of this task is likely beyond both the theoretical and practical limits of human intelligence and materiel.

Nevertheless, if we start in the upper-left-most corner of the obs-- what does left mean? Well, left means... left. It just means left, OK? See what I did there? Logic rests on axioms, assumptions to which we all agree by intuition alone; yet, you propose that all these intuitions could line up and be cataloged. Perhaps, but we'd all need to agree on a few first, and then, make a list of trillions of trillions of trillions of words, each a unique point in the dictionary.

In the end, such a 'universal' dictionary would be impossible, or at least impractical, to create. Better to use situation-based meaning and deal with puns than to need a dictionary larger than this planet.

-Duxwing

 

[Words]

Meh, a lot of interesting connections are made from misunderstandings.

not less than the quantity of "false" connections though.

Consider all the particles of the universe. Consider all the ways in which they could possibly be arranged, and all the interactions of those particles and arrangements. Now, try to construct a language in which each word refers to precisely one of these arrangements. The sheer scale of this task is likely beyond both the theoretical and practical limits of human intelligence and materiel.

Beyond? maybe. But at least we attempt, that attempt being Science. Science has the strict defining that i'm talking about.

Nevertheless, if we start in the upper-left-most corner of the obs-- what does left mean? Well, left means... left. It just means left, OK? See what I did there? Logic rests on axioms, assumptions to which we all agree by intuition alone; yet, you propose that all these intuitions could line up and be cataloged. Perhaps, but we'd all need to agree on a few first, and then, make a list of trillions of trillions of trillions of words, each a unique point in the dictionary.

I don't see why it's unreliable to rely on intuitions. Consider the effectiveness of language. there are concepts that are already more intuitive than the others, and what I think we should aim to achieve is to make the unintuitive intuitive. In order to move on, we need need to concretize more. Computer languages possess this advantage over spoken language.

In the end, such a 'universal' dictionary would be impossible, or at least impractical, to create. Better to use situation-based meaning and deal with puns than to need a dictionary larger than this planet.

the dictionary idea was just a throwaway idea. My point is that understanding and progress relies on clear, intuitive definitions. maybe except for subjects or people...where it is more difficult to find axioms that determine their behavior.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I also appreciate this but generally when your objective is to figure things out, you need exactitude. my problem is with people who are trying to understand something and yet continue to add irrelevancies. their efforts are so wasteful. talking about fluff.

Not everyone understands in the same way. You might understand via clarity, succinctness and brevity, for instance, but someone else might understand via metaphor and convolution.

I'm bringing this up, in part, because my wife (an XNFP) comes to understanding very differently than I do, and I've learned to sometimes understand the way she does. It's very broadening, learning to understand in new ways.

Dave

 

[EyeSeeCold]

you realize that this is related to type?

Well the topic is linguistics, and involves cognition. As long as typology is psychological / cognitive, I would agree it's type related.

progress.

You don't believe in a single truth? I think there are "worse" perspectives and there are "better" perspectives, then there is the "best perspective" which is that single truth. Except maybe on certain things like choosing the view for a 3 dimensional object.

Things are provisional simply because people misperceive. This misperception grows as it is handed down from one person to the other. This is why meanings change. If there is no misperception in the beginning or if the best perception is found and kept solid, then there is no change.

Sure there are worse and better perspectives, and sometimes a best. Even you seem to agree that there is misperception. Misperception is unavoidable, however at least the misperception you refer to could be resolved through going back to basics and finding why things became the way they are.

But the misperception due to inherent shortcomings of human communication is not resolvable, it only can be circumvented.

Why do you think this?

Another human can never exactly know the inner mental environment of another, the inner mind's experience and meaning, without some telepathy. But communicating through all possible channels(senses + mind) is the closest you can get.

What, to you, is the most simplest concept and how would you explain it?

Probably basic arithmetic. I'd explain it using physical objects, most likely rocks.

 

[Words]

Not everyone understands in the same way. You might understand via clarity, succinctness and brevity, for instance, but someone else might understand via metaphor and convolution.

Alright. There are also people who like analogies. But I would limit this to the process of getting an intuitive sense of the idea. After abstract learning, there must be concretizing. Because if you don't clearly label things, then you cannot discover its relation to other things. a is in ab as a is in ac. If you don't isolate "a." If you leave it within the metaphor or the analogy, then you cant understand it systematically(how "a" by itself interacts with other things related.) not sure if that makes sense.

I'm bringing this up, in part, because my wife (an XNFP) comes to understanding very differently than I do, and I've learned to sometimes understand the way she does. It's very broadening, learning to understand in new ways.

Dave

Its broadening but i think certain discoverieis are limited to learning in a specific way.

 

[Words]

Well the topic is linguistics, and involves cognition. As long as typology is psychological / cognitive, I would agree it's type related.

I believe I'm criticizing Se-Ni thought patterns and the way that Se-Ni types don't want to "solidify." "Se->Ni->Si->Ne" is what I think is the ideal pattern of perception for all rationalization. I think many problems surface for both Ni-Se and Si-Ne types because of being stuck in the same cognitive preference. being unable to try something else out.

Sure there are worse and better perspectives, and sometimes a best. Even you seem to agree that there is misperception. Misperception is unavoidable, however at least the misperception you refer to could be resolved through going back to basics and finding why things became the way they are.

But the misperception due to inherent shortcomings of human communication is not resolvable, it only can be circumvented.

Another human can never exactly know the inner mental environment of another, the inner mind's experience and meaning, without some telepathy. But communicating through all possible channels(senses + mind) is the closest you can get.

Probably basic arithmetic. I'd explain it using physical objects, most likely rocks.

I see. I think this is great as an introduction to a word, but often the issue is not about holistic differences but partial yet still important differences between the right perception and the misperception. Between (a+b+c+d+e...+m...+z) and (a+b+c+d+e....+5...+z). In this case, I think it's best to rely on rigidity and coherence in achieving that better perception.

 

[redbaron]

However, not everyone is trying to do with language what you're trying to do with language. I love the ambiguities in expressions, I'm happy there are multiple meanings in things.

1) Nothing is better than steak!
2) Hamburger is better than nothing.
3) Therefore, hamburger is better than steak.

Uh...I think he (she?) means when people use ambiguous terms or use terms with a meaning different to everyone else.

Bad example but if we were debating on the topic of apples vs. bananas, it'd be confusing for everyone else if I was using a different definition of apples to everyone else.

It happens in debate often, both on and off this forum. There are people who use terms that are already established with a commonly agreed upon meaning, to mean something else. This obviously makes it impossible to rebut or discuss that particular topic when the specific meaning of the ambiguous term isn't clarified.

Not because the argument is good, but because it is unclear.

It can be accidental or deliberate. I don't mind accidental mistakes, and I'm perfectly fine with people revising their choice of words to make a point clear.

When people use terms in a deliberately ambiguous manner to try and make a serious point though, I switch off. It's at this point I assume that the person is uninterested in a genuine exchange of ideas and knowledge, or simply has an emotional investment in the issue and is incapable of discussing it in an objective manner.