ϕ Preliminary considerations on theory of meaning

 In short:

(just as a hypothesis)
• meaning of message (word/sentence/text) for human = sustainable/reproducible and predictable mental representations caused by the message in the brain of message receiver
• mental representations consist of some very basic perceptions intrinsic for human individuals
• being able to enumerate that basic perceptions we can “encode” any complex representation — that is it is like a machine code of brain-computer
• and as well it makes possible to specify semantics of natural language formally

Details

I’m not an expert in the theory of meaning, just curious about it so I don’t pretend that the statements above are true and bring any new knowledge to the field.
But when you are going to study something it is normal to have in mind some preliminary picture consisting of what there can be and expectations about the results of study. So my expectation here is to confirm or refute the “hypothesis” by finding more adequate discoveries. Anyway this is a good starting point as it allows to formulate particular questions.. and queries to search engines 😄
Now let me explain

How I came to these conclusions 

— some observations:
1. We use finiteset of notions (words), but are able to  d talk about anything we that exist in the world
2. Any new word is defined by already existing ones
3. And many of already existing words are based on older simpler roots
— hence entire vocabulary was built from small amount of most basic notions, which correspond to something perceived by humans directly (because it the moment of creation of the initial vocabulary there was nothing to make it indirect..)

4. Humans as all other species have limited number of perception channels — or perception kinds — so why there should be an infinite number of kinds of basic mental representations?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

💻 Programming: recipe: response validation against OpenAPI schema in Python

Image
Summary: code snippets and explanation of how to validate HTTP-response using  openapi-core package If you deal with some service based on OpenAPI Specification you might want to perform validation of HTTP responses returned by it. One of the ways to do this an internet search provides for Python is to use openapi-core package. If you look at their documentation ( here or here ) you will find it very stingy: couple of short code snippets and couple of sentences just stating what is done. In particular for response validation we have exactly the following:   You can also validate against responses   from openapi_core . validation . response . validators import ResponseValidator   validator = ResponseValidator (spec) result = validator . validate (request, response)   # raise errors if response invalid result .raise_for_errors()   # get list of errors errors = result .errors ...   Here we see some confusing things: why do we need a request object to be able to validate the respo
Read more

💡💻 Genius inventions: FORTH programming language

Forth  is an example of what I call “ elegant solution  of a complicated problem”. What will you do if you have a computer without any software to operate on it? It’s hard to imagine an alternative to what Charles H. Moore invented in 1970. Indeed, if you don’t have an operational environment to accomplish your goal you have to create that environment from zero. The question is only of ‘cost’ — efforts you will spend. The geniousness of the Forth language is that it is designed so that it can be easily implemented step by step from scratch and on each next step existing part of the system helps you a lot to move further. _________ ..other articles..
Read more

⚙️ TRIZ notes: the law of regression

Image
 Working  on his theory of inventions  Genrich Altshuller  invented/discovered so called  Laws of technical systems evolution  which further were developed by other contributors. Looking at those laws we can see that all of them are in some sense “positive” — i.e. implicitly assume that technical systems always develop from “worse” to “better” only. BUT from my experience I can conclude that the things are not so simple. For example: in 2000ths I used several button-based “stupidphones”. They could do almost nothing except the very basic functions a phone in general is necessary for. And of course it was very unsatisfactory. But when I changed to use “smartphones” I soon was faced with very disappointing obstacle: when I set an alarm on a “stupidphone” and it happens that the device is low on power it still is able to awake next day to activate the alarm and perform ringing even if it turned off due to a complete discharge of the battery before. Very helpful feature. And no modern devi
Read more