Man, you really know to turn the knife and then rub some salt into the wound, eh?
My only excuse is that I am more of a philosopher than a mathematician.
Whoops-ee-daisy....
And just so we get even: Could you, my young friend with a fresh brain and not being corrupted by the laziness and convenience of the old age, explain to me how you arrived at the "forty years" I have over you?
Erm...your homepage says youy were born in the fifties...
Seriousness aside: Is there something else behind these remarks but mere fun? Have I, inadvertantly, been condescending or patronizing? It certainly was not my intention, and I would hate to come across that way. In fact, I enjoyed the discussion a lot.
No, I think it was to do with the fact that statistics in discussions only matter if the matter you are dealing with concerns the statistics.
IN OTHER WORDS...what ACTUAL percentage it is doesnt matter. It's the concept that nearly all communication doesn't involve activation of a set structure of words.
Finally: Once you manage to get over my mathematical lapsus
- is there anything you can say in response to the points I tried to make in my post?
Firstly: What does lapsus mean?
Secondly: YES>
Thirdly: I am going to.
Quote:
The point is- paradoxcial statements show that language isn't real.
Again, I´m not sure what you mean here when saying "real". Unreal as opposed to what? Are concepts "real"?
Quote:
Therefore, language in itself is meaningless.
Everything in itself is meaningless, if you will.
NO.
Quatona.
I'm sorry.
This evaluation has to be led from objects through to words.
You use the example of the rock. "the most solid, obviously existent object there can be, if you like."
I don't care about the meaning of the rock.
I don't care what you think about it.
I don't care your view on the description, application of a noun to distinguish it from every other object in the universe.
It's a rock.
Call it a rock, call it a chair, call it a froogly goomba if you like.
BUT.
The important thing is- it is there.
No doubt about it. Doesn't matter WHAT you call it or think about it. It is there.
Without language, the whole world still exists.
Imagine you are a cat. You do not think- you simply be.
Apply that to the rock.
You do not think about what it is, why it is, how it is, what it is for ETC...but you know it exists.
Without words, the whole world still exists.
Therefore, language is merely an application of an idea onto a physical entity.
Language is only made meaningful through a series of comparisions that your brain makes- and applies it to the object.
Language, without words, is not a physical, pre-existent substance.
Would you agree with me on this?
Now abstract ideas.
If you understand how the concrete nouns and language works, through a series of comparisons and data storgae and recall in the brain, then you will understand that abstract concepts work in the same way, but are not applied to a physical object. Merely, applied to an idea, made solid through connection to concrete words, or through other people's consensual understanding of what THAT IDEA IS>
Language must be learnt, taught and understood through a series of comparisons, before the person can use it "correctly".
this is for concrete language.
Abstract language can only be learnt in connection with this.
So that, children's books just have a series of pictures with the word on them- and not an emotive or abstract concept.
Would a child ever be able to learn the "meaning" of a word without ever having seen the actual object it refers to?
No.