|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 25, 2020 23:02:40 GMT
The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon.
This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form which supercedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jul 1, 2020 18:03:54 GMT
What would you suggest the symbol "concept" points to? If you endorse the view that this refers to the configuration of neurons whose activation encodes our knowledge and capability to work with this concept, then I would tend to agree. However, I would note that your position strikes me as incompatible with any belief in universals or generics?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 2, 2020 0:06:13 GMT
What would you suggest the symbol "concept" points to? If you endorse the view that this refers to the configuration of neurons whose activation encodes our knowledge and capability to work with this concept, then I would tend to agree. However, I would note that your position strikes me as incompatible with any belief in universals or generics? The symbol points towards the phenomenon it means. For example the symbol of a dog points to the actual dog itself. In these respects the symbol is the image of the phenomenon it points too thus necessitating the symbol as more or less a recursive fractal of the original phenomenon. The question of a strict empirical approach to phenomenon where the symbol is a series of neurons is paradoxical given that the neurons being studied require a series of neurons behind it as responsible for the studying. A loop occurs and this looping form is responsible for the act of self reflection yet dually requires that consciousness is determined by a form beyond it, in this case a circle. This loop reflects a general state of actions where this form is a series of actions within actions, thus as a symbol represents a whole host of phenomenon ranging from a simple cycle in nature (circulation of blood in the body or water on land) to the more abstract mode of self reflection. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 15, 2020 13:12:24 GMT
In order to agree with that in this way:
Let's view S as a sign that a researcher (a person who's able to point at a thing) points at a thing P.
All signs are things, so a researcher coordinates freely one P1 with another P2. And ultimately it's S→P. (P for these examples exists as a sign, so here P is a sign of a thing.)
Here, P1→P2 means that P1 can always replace P2, because P1 is a common/general, while P2 is sub/type of P1. If for all P1 there is P2, and P1→P2, then P2 is an individual sign. If there's P1 that for all P2, P1→P2, then P1 is a category.
So, if a researcher points at P calling it S, I think it's pretty clear that then there might be found such a Pi that P→Pi. Thus, there is no Pn that is Pn→{for all P1 there is P that P1→P}. where
|
|
