|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
"Is alright a word?"Alright, Faldage, if you insist, we'll resume our discussion about words... First out we will explain words without using any words... 0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!Alright, those of you who are one with the Universe now know the true meaning of all words, but for those of you who are at odds with the Universe let us together use Wordwind's twirling dogs as a koan for understanding words... Yes, Wordwind, the dog trainer's circling finger is, in fact, a "word", albeit a simple one. A more intricate "word" would be indicated if the dog trainer reversed the finger circling direction from clockwise to counter-clockwise and the dog followed suit. This is not likely but not because dogs are dumb. This is because dogs at this point in time don't have a proper language to stimulate their behavior. You really want to see some twirling? Go see the Twirling Dervish Sect of Muslims. Man, they can really whirl. But don't put down the circus dogs, the Twirling Dervish are simply lucky. They are lucky to have the push of a great parcel of words accumalated through vast time to set them to spin. But ultimately, the only difference between the dogs and the dervish is the complexity of the stimulus and of the response. Now Wordwind, let's say for example that you are a woman and that you have given birth to a cro-magnon baby. (Yes I know that most human babies born today are probably cro-magnon, but what I'm talking about is that you give birth today to a cro-magnon baby of 100,000 years back.} Anyway, your baby would very likely grow up to be articulate and smart, and might even make the debate team at school. On the other hand if you were a wench in the cro-magnon culture and had a modern baby back then, he would likely grow up stumbling around the dark woodlands while articulating at best, let's say for example , maybe about one hundred and twenty-two basic words. So what, you might say, that is a lot more words than the neighboring Neandertals, and they seem to be happy and content while making do with barely fourteen gestures, words, and expressive grunts. Words? Who needs them? Sure thing, little momma, met any neandertals lately? And so now, praise the Lord, say amen, at long last, here is my point... The human brain stores information by association. The formulation of words reinforces the association and thereby enhances recall. The ability to build pyramids and send Alice to the moon is a product of words.
Not ideas, not bulldozers, not free-enterprise, but words. The words we speak and sign are not from us, they are us, in other words, Words R Us, and without words we likely wouldn't be extant. -----------------> On the other hand it might be our inability to understand the nature of our words that causes us to become extinct 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
On the other hand if you were a wench in the cro-magnon culture and had a modern baby back then, he would likely grow up stumbling around the dark woodlands while articulating at best, let's say for example, maybe about one hundred and twenty-two basic words. How about an ape in our own day recognizing a thousand word signs, Amemeba, even signing messages back to her human custodians? Please see "Ape Masters Sign Language", Associated Press, August 9, 2004: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/strange/080904_ap_sn_ape.htmlOr, how about a dog which made frontpage headlines around the world recently because it recognizes the name for over 150 toys and, in particular, because it can make logical deductions and find a toy by name when it has never heard the name of the toy before. The dog, Dante, a border collie, has become a tv star in Germany. This feat of logical deduction [ie. finding a toy by a name it has never heard before] is comparable to the abilities of a human toddler, and has never been considered within the reach of any non-human other than a chimpanzee. [ *I will find this story, published on the frontpage of the New York Times and other leading North American papers within the last 2 months, and post it here when I find it, Amemeba.] Would either of these animal feats cause you to reconsider your 'cro-magnon' theory of words, Amemeba [if I may call it that in short without intending any disrespect]? If an ape, a chimpanzee and a border collie can demonstrate a true understanding of human words, Amemeba, even put those words to actual use, is it not ideas, rather than words, which distinguish humans from animals?*"Rico" not "Dante"The border collie's name is "Rico", not "Dante", and it has mastered the name of over 200 toys, not 150.  Go to: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/articles/2004/06/10/border_collie_found_to_understand_more_than_200_words/BTW here is a photo of Rico [in USA today] for those who find animals at least as appealing, if not so articulate, as people. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-06-10-dogs-language_x.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Play on, jheem. And damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"
Well, thanks for the kind words. This leads me to a strange question but here goes: "Are you real?" I sometimes feel, when reading and posting to this group, that I am conversing with 'bots or Elizas or what-have-yous. (Maybe Tanzarian was right.) Whether than ask if "fnxrd" is a word, I would ask whether "fnxrd" means something in the absence of humans. In a den of textually infernal machines, spewing out itty-bitty nastigrams, can I possibly understand (not you necessarily, but at least what you type)? No, understand is probably not the right word. What is the inverse of "mean"? Using the passive is not enough. "Apple means X." ==> "X is meant by apple." / "I understand what you mean by 'apple'." / "X?" But I digress. At times, I feel that you and tsuwm and faldage and amemeba and grapho are all just the same aperiodic crystals or FSTs generating strings based on such things as arbitrary grammars, the current time and weather, and the input I (and some of my otherselves stuck in this Chinese room that is AWADtalk) provide. And maybe some of the other 'bots and avatars and meat-puppets and hand-socks left unnamed and unenumerated in the list above. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm truly curious. At times, I feel like one of the little clay golems under the thumb of the stranger in town in the Twain story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
I feel rather like Ralph Nader must feel, running for a job he can't possibly win, with his dearest admirers begging him to leave the field.
I personally feel Nader should leave the field, altho I am one of his admirers as well. Perhaps I should take heed of my own advice. Perhaps, I will.  My Dear Mister Wordminstrel, the only conceivable reason that I can imagine for you taking away your songs from the mostly good thinking men of the Awad Board is the fact that you openly admit that you admire Ralph Nader. Either that or the fact that you have learned all that you can learn and can now only sing the Song of Zarathustra while accending floatingly up unto the welcoming arms of the blue skies above. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Well, thanks for the kind words.
It occurs to me that "kind" is to "kindness" what "honest" is to "honestness", jheem.
One can be "kind" on occasion without evincing the more substantial, the more enduring, the more treasured, the more jewel-like preciousness of "kindness".
So one who is not known for "honestness" can be "honest".
So it is with "honesty", the true meaning of which is so poignantly revealed in the time-honored aphorism "Honesty is the best policy".
"Honestness" is not a pragmatic "policy". It is the very stuff, the very essence, the flesh, the blood, and the bone, yes, the very bone, of the person who embodies it.
As to the the larger issues you are pondering, jheem, those are deserving of more thoughtful and deliberate rumination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
while accending floatingly up unto the welcoming arms of the blue skies above.
Ah, but the blue skies above are mostly clouded in greenhouse gases, microscopic soot and smog, Amemeba ... which Ralph Nader laments as much as I do.
BTW one can admire someone for their values, Amemeba, without believing in the strategies they employ to achieve their goals.
Many who admire and respect Ralph Nader for the immense contributions he has made to society over the past many decades, going back to the salad days of "Nader's Raiders", would not want to see him occupying any office of national significance, least of all the Oval Office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
And since we're in an argumentative mood,...
Uh, jheem, is disagreeing argumentative? If so maybe we here should sit around singing innocuous songs about cute words, playing no-keep scrabble , and ferreting out the obscure roots of obscure words like the great tsuwm does just for kicks.
my dear amemeba, why haven't you answered my question about which came first, ideas or words. My injunction to not use words is dropped.
You got me, jheem, ideas came first. At the time I wasn't ready to explain the essence of an "idea". I'm still not.
And as to me explaining words without using words...sure I could, if my ideas had wings.
As for "audacious"...
Maybe my request asking you to explain the processes in signing the concept "audacious" wasn't very clear. I just wanted to understand how a term with nuance like audacity could be signed without cluttering up the lexicon of the American Sign Language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
me: And since we're in an argumentative mood,...
amemeba: Uh, jheem, is disagreeing argumentative?
No, amemeba, but argumentative can mean quarrelsome or contentious. In this case, "we" meant "I". It was more of a rhetorical florish. You can ignore the statement. (I love nothing better than a good argument.)
ideas came first
This is an axiom, yes? It has not been demonstrated. Nor can it. Since ideas cannot get from one noggin to the other without language. There are some language-like gestures (twirling fingers to whirling dogs), but they seem to me more like stimulus-response rather than language / idea-transferance. It's a a large chasm between mechanics of rut/estrus and the poetry of courtly love.
"audacious"
Ah, signing "audacious". (Slaps forehead with open palm.) I can be so thick sometimes. Sorry about that. You'd be best asking a fluent ASler not me. But what is nuance in a spoken language? Or perhaps, just in English? Is nuance part of the default meaning of a word like "audacious" or is part of how two speakers use a word in a discourse? Nuance, to me, has something more to do with the performer (speaker, signer) and the audience (hearer, watcher) than with the materiality of the text (utterance, signage). Unless of course nuance exists a priori in the ideas behind the words (signs). Nuance is added to the utterance suprasegmentally (prosodically, like stress) to change the meaning of the message. Can nuance change the ideas in the speaker's head or just in the hearer's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
At times, I feel like one of the little clay golems under the thumb of the stranger in town in the Twain story.You are to be lauded for thinking these thoughts, jheem, for it is you more than any of the rest of us who could break AWADtalk free of this "Chinese room". P.S. I assume "Chinese room" is inspired by the term "Chinese wall" used by investment bankers and the like. It is a very useful and insightful turn on that esoteric term, jheem. Sometimes I think the "Chinese room" you speak of is more like a "Chinese box". [And, I hasten to add that neither you nor I intend any disparagement of the Chinese people, as distinct from the authoritarian ways of their inscrutable, and necessarily paranoid, leaders.] For any who might be interested in the term "Chinese wall", here is an explanation: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/090501.asp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
P.S. I assume "Chinese room" is inspired by the term "Chinese wall" used by investment bankers and the like.Sorry, no. It refers to a Gedankenexperiment in a 1981 paper by the US philosopher John Searle, at UC Berkeley, which is his attempt at a refutation to "strong" AI (i.e., that we can build machines that think). See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,322
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
514
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
