<div dir="ltr"><b>The statement "referents are made of language" is simply false on the definition of referent</b><br>Gordon,<br>Which definition? The linguist one?<br>Linguistics is obsolete, in particular at the theoretical level. It is a humanity discipline that tries to make sense of language with tools that are not adequate. In other words, is not a science. It is worst than psychology. <br>We need to develop a scientific form of linguistics and this will require education in math, physics, and computer science. <br>We have tried many times to tell you that the link between things is the referent. I can make a new definition of what reference is (the close loop representing relations between objects) and then explain that what people identify as referents in human language have exactly this characteristic and as we explained to you the idea that human language referents are "anchored" to an object is a useful convention but in reality is an illusion. <br>I'm pretty sure the statement above points to this illusion that you continue to say is what grounds language. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:55 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Gordon and Ben,</div><div>It is very interesting, educational, and insightful to follow these conversations, and see your different ways of thinking about things.</div><div>I have a question for you both. I'm interested to see how your answers will differ.</div><div>CPUs have registers, and the computations are always done between registers. Things like comparison, addition, exclusive or and all that kind of stuff.</div><div>Would either of you guys label those mechanisms done in the CPU as "communication" or "language"?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:01 AM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 2:43 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
(you think that pointing is not a language? I suspect many deaf
people would disagree)<br></div></blockquote><div><br>Fine with me. Sign language is also a form of language. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
This is why referring to linguistics is not helping. </div></blockquote><div><br>? Because we are going to include sign language in our definition of language, linguistics is not helping? Linguists consider sign language also to be a form of language. <br><br>In our primitive caveman example, in which he points at let us say an animal, his first "words" in sign language translate to something like "Look over there! See what I see?" Based on how frantic or calm is his gesturing, his interlocutor might also know if his friend perceives the animal as a threat or as food. Now he has two words. Before long, Fred and Barney are also grunting identifiable noises as their sign language evolves into more complex verbal language.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>As I said
earlier, it's the wrong discipline here. </div></blockquote><div><br>Language models model language and linguistics is the science of language. <br><br>> Referents, being internal conceptual models, <i>are made of
language</i>. They must be, because there's nothing else to work
with, in the brain.<br><br>Really? My brain has visual perceptions and sounds and imaginations and non-verbal thoughts and music and many things going on that can be <i>described</i> with language but are not language.<br><br>I understand what you are trying to say about the "language of the brain" but I would say you are conflating neurology and language. <br><br>The statement "referents are made of language" is simply false on the definition of referent. Only a tiny subset of words in the English language have language as referents. Linguists call them meta-words. They are parts of speech and similar. For example, the word "nouns" refers to the set of all nouns. <br><br>-gts</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>