tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post230832221325845757..comments2024-03-28T13:40:26.497+00:00Comments on M-Phi: The Space of LanguagesJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-3143357072751080382016-06-12T13:31:09.809+01:002016-06-12T13:31:09.809+01:00Language is most important part of your life who t...Language is most important part of your life who tell us how talk with other and read and working thanks for sharing your ideas about language and <a href="http://www.paraphraseservices.com/" rel="nofollow">help with paraphrasing</a> .Allen jeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312119051975318074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-56986020132014504882013-09-19T01:56:52.762+01:002013-09-19T01:56:52.762+01:00In answer to one of the earliest questions in this...In answer to one of the earliest questions in this post, I think it is possible to imagine that the relationship between agents, rather than the semantics, is trivial. This is possible if there are standard applications for the perceiver, e.g. if the mind requires some referrant point (qua language) to have any perspective whatsoever. This is easier to believe if it turns out that what we mean by constructing a meaningful point of view has something to do with language or systems, e.g. if there is no certainty without language. If that is not the case, then people can disagree on emotional grounds. But is that really disagreement? It might be just as easy to say that agents do not even refer to eachother, rejecting one of the fundamental premises of society. What I detect is a willingness to outright accept arguments which have not been made, by accepting the view that individuals perceive ABSOLUTELY differently. Indeed, what could we mean by absolute? And where there is not an absolute difference, so the argument goes, there IS some relation.<br /><br />So I find the argument that agents are perceptually different to be specious, because, indeed, language establishes a similarity. And language is all that could ever be discussed. As soon as there are emotional components of language, there are also emotional similarities. Otherwise, in those cases, the discussion simply fails to be sophisticated.<br /><br />Additional points:<br /><br />*Your concept of communal/social language is hyperventilating by referring to absolutes, as mentioned above.<br /><br />*A major explanation for the omega function is the appearance of originality in the system. It is possible to conceive that some things that have been thought important simply failed to be "ultimately" important. There have been many fervant writers, but when books are rejected, it may be that people gravitate away from language. Returning to books is explained by a more advanced concept, like snafu. It is as thought it could not be explained. What I see in this is a relation between the omega function and originality. Some things are original. But are they mathematics? What if mathematics is genuinely the invention of Pythagoras or a Chinese man, in some sense? Impossible and yet possible. Even if mathematics is a definite reality, it may be one of many. What if people had studied instead, aesthetic archetypes, or psychological validation? Many of these theories might seem more substantial to the mind than mathematics. That argument only enters in a linguistic context, but nonetheless, there is an argument.<br /><br />*I outright reject the concept that mathematics is explanatory for languages in general. Language is a more general concept than mathematics, because it has more core ideas, more imagination. They are not always organized, but mathematics, it has been proven, is not always coherent.Nathan Coppedgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272730626911068222noreply@blogger.com