| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078.658862.15550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
|
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
| Quote: | impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
--
john
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:33 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: |
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
|
If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never
have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial report.
Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of
Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's
"Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
The same
| Quote: | thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
|
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:43 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
[...]
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT
mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES
mean
"no other Lord".
Not "no other Lord", "no other god". "Lord" is just the euphemism
for
th guy's name. The "none" refers to the "Beside Me, there is no
god"
in the previous verse.
[...] |
In the isolated second sentence, "I am the Lord and there is none
else", it's "Lord", but of course you're right in terms of the whole
passage. Our enquirer, though, with his taste for one-to-one
correspondences, may believe that "Lord" and "God" here refer to two
distinct persons; in which case I might find the sentences difficult
to interpret.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131082087.460436.224160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078.658862.15550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
That depends what you mean by 'clearly', and what you mean by
'understood'. They are abstract terms, and somewhat ambiguous.
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
That's an unprovable assertion unless you have direct access to the
mind of the writer at the instant of writing. In fact, your only access
is what was written, and, of course, the context and your familiarity
with the writer, and all the rest of it.
|
All that is needed is to make unique one-to-one mathematical mappings
between the symbols that encode the meanings, and the meanings themselves.
| Quote: |
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
|
Those are not precisely literal meanings. Those meanings are derived from the
primary literal meaning, as secondary meanings. What I am saying is that with
numbers, (unlike many English sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43
as any other amount than $723.47.
| Quote: | It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
|
Just set it up such that there is a one-to-one mathematical mapping
between the encoding of meaning with words and the meaning that
is encoded. This can only be done if meaning is derived with 100%
perfect literal precision.
| Quote: | evidence. The only alternative is for you to claim that you have the
unique correct interpretation that you claim exists. It's either forget
the claim, or surrender to megalomania (the monomania is already
evident).
--
john
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F. Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dkf6da$5hp$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
|
Unlike with English words no one is free to interpret $723.47 as
any other amount. There is a perfect one-to-one mathematical
mapping between the symbols {$723.47} and the primary semantic
meaning that is specified.
| Quote: |
If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial
report.
Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's "Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and
Public Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:26 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131082087.460436.224160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078.658862.15550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
That depends what you mean by 'clearly', and what you mean by
'understood'. They are abstract terms, and somewhat ambiguous.
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
That's an unprovable assertion unless you have direct access to the
mind of the writer at the instant of writing. In fact, your only access
is what was written, and, of course, the context and your familiarity
with the writer, and all the rest of it.
All that is needed is to make unique one-to-one mathematical mappings
between the symbols that encode the meanings, and the meanings themselves.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
Those are not precisely literal meanings. Those meanings are derived from the
primary literal meaning, as secondary meanings. What I am saying is that with
numbers, (unlike many English sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43
as any other amount than $723.47.
It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
Just set it up such that there is a one-to-one mathematical mapping
between the encoding of meaning with words and the meaning that
is encoded. This can only be done if meaning is derived with 100%
perfect literal precision.
|
OK, it's your project. You do it, and then report on the result. I'm
sure everyone will be interested.
| Quote: | evidence. The only alternative is for you to claim that you have the
unique correct interpretation that you claim exists. It's either forget
the claim, or surrender to megalomania (the monomania is already
evident).
|
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:34 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131114402.116938.130390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131082087.460436.224160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078.658862.15550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
That depends what you mean by 'clearly', and what you mean by
'understood'. They are abstract terms, and somewhat ambiguous.
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
That's an unprovable assertion unless you have direct access to the
mind of the writer at the instant of writing. In fact, your only access
is what was written, and, of course, the context and your familiarity
with the writer, and all the rest of it.
All that is needed is to make unique one-to-one mathematical mappings
between the symbols that encode the meanings, and the meanings themselves.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
Those are not precisely literal meanings. Those meanings are derived from the
primary literal meaning, as secondary meanings. What I am saying is that with
numbers, (unlike many English sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43
as any other amount than $723.47.
It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
Just set it up such that there is a one-to-one mathematical mapping
between the encoding of meaning with words and the meaning that
is encoded. This can only be done if meaning is derived with 100%
perfect literal precision.
OK, it's your project. You do it, and then report on the result. I'm
sure everyone will be interested.
This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully comprehend |
natural language.
| Quote: | evidence. The only alternative is for you to claim that you have the
unique correct interpretation that you claim exists. It's either forget
the claim, or surrender to megalomania (the monomania is already
evident).
--
john
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:33:50 +0000, "Laura F. Spira"
<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means.
|
OK. Let's accept that for the sake of argument (even though the
interpretation of "$727.43" is dependent on context -- US, Canadian,
Australian, etc, dollars.).
Such precision is not achievable in respect of most aspects of the
universe including us who are part of the universe.
Precision may be unachievable because the phenomena we wish to describe
are inherently imprecise, or, as with the mathematical constant Pi for
example, are not in the least uncertain or fuzzy but cannot be precisely
expressed in our integer-based numerical system.
| Quote: | There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never
have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial report.
Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of
Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's
"Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
-- |
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:13 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 04:17:32 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:10:14 +0000, Laura F Spira
laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
Exactly the sentiment I was about to express, but wanted to see
Laura's comment first. I killfiled the man early one; these days, I
skip most of the many responses to the fellow, too. This phenomenon
reminds me of when Spencer Hines used to post here, trolling, it
seemed to me, for responses. It surprised me that he got so many.
|
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in loose and
imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those things
that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to many
others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he believes that
if a version of English can be created in which words have unambiguous
meanings then God will be able to communicate with us with no fear of
misunderstanding. Of course if this language does not have a word for
what God wants to say he'll have to revert to metaphor leading to
misunderstandings and disagreements all round -- back to square zero.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:t6omm1l7nmske2paoeih7r4ftg9ol8rp7r@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:33:50 +0000, "Laura F. Spira"
laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means.
OK. Let's accept that for the sake of argument (even though the
interpretation of "$727.43" is dependent on context -- US, Canadian,
Australian, etc, dollars.).
Such precision is not achievable in respect of most aspects of the
universe including us who are part of the universe.
Precision may be unachievable because the phenomena we wish to describe
are inherently imprecise, or, as with the mathematical constant Pi for
example, are not in the least uncertain or fuzzy but cannot be precisely
expressed in our integer-based numerical system.
We can already precisely specify Pi. |
{the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle}
This is known as algorithmic compression.
Also as long as we represent a vague specification with exactly the same
degree of vagueness that the writer intends when we derive this same
degree of vagueness in our understanding of this encoded meaning, we
are still being 100% literally precise. I usually ask people to provide a
range estimate of what they mean by phrases such as "a long time".
When they say that the can't possibly be more specific, I say is it
more than a billionth of a second and less than a million years? Can
you improve upon this range estimate? Then they usually narrow it
down to a reasonable degree of specificity.
| Quote: |
There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never
have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial report.
Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of
Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's
"Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:25 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:00umm1pq4sh83i7k1gghpnphdlff8s8ab7@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 04:17:32 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:10:14 +0000, Laura F Spira
laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
Exactly the sentiment I was about to express, but wanted to see
Laura's comment first. I killfiled the man early one; these days, I
skip most of the many responses to the fellow, too. This phenomenon
reminds me of when Spencer Hines used to post here, trolling, it
seemed to me, for responses. It surprised me that he got so many.
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in loose and
imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those things
that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to many
others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he believes that
if a version of English can be created in which words have unambiguous
meanings then God will be able to communicate with us with no fear of
misunderstanding. Of course if this language does not have a word for
what God wants to say he'll have to revert to metaphor leading to
misunderstandings and disagreements all round -- back to square zero.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
The problem with figurative meanings is that with enough subjective leeway
anything can mean anything. There is only one possible way to completely
eliminate all error in the communication process, and that is to reduce the
subjective leeway to zero, and derive a perfect one-to-one mathematical
mapping between the words and the meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:26 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to
be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in
loose
and imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those
things that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to
many others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he
believes that if a version of English can be created in which words
have unambiguous meanings then God will be able to communicate with
us with no fear of misunderstanding. Of course if this language
does
not have a word for what God wants to say he'll have to revert to
metaphor leading to misunderstandings and disagreements all
round --
back to square zero.
|
Earlier on in the proceedings, it crossed my mind to wonder if he
was, in fact, looking for evidence to use _against_ Biblical
literalism. The Bible, that thought went, is quite obviously not a
pantheist text, so if one of its sentences could be shown
unequivocally to be pantheist in meaning it would be shown to be
self-contradictory. Then, again, it had seemed at the outset that he
was hoping to reconcile the Bible with some Hindu beliefs. Soon, of
course, he wandered into the "ISO lexicon" quagmire. By then, I too
had lost any clear sense of what his purpose in visiting us was; but
at least I knew I'd lost that clear sense, so my sanity, such as it
is, remains undamaged.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nancy13g
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:36 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...] back to square zero.
Would this be the appropriate place to put one of those "Oy!" things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:44 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3t1cuoFql1k6U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to
be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in
loose
and imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those
things that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to
many others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he
believes that if a version of English can be created in which words
have unambiguous meanings then God will be able to communicate with
us with no fear of misunderstanding. Of course if this language
does
not have a word for what God wants to say he'll have to revert to
metaphor leading to misunderstandings and disagreements all
round --
back to square zero.
Earlier on in the proceedings, it crossed my mind to wonder if he
was, in fact, looking for evidence to use _against_ Biblical
literalism. The Bible, that thought went, is quite obviously not a
pantheist text, so if one of its sentences could be shown
unequivocally to be pantheist in meaning it would be shown to be
self-contradictory. Then, again, it had seemed at the outset that he
was hoping to reconcile the Bible with some Hindu beliefs. Soon, of
course, he wandered into the "ISO lexicon" quagmire. By then, I too
had lost any clear sense of what his purpose in visiting us was; but
at least I knew I'd lost that clear sense, so my sanity, such as it
is, remains undamaged.
--
Mike.
The Hindu sense is also the Christian mystic sense, and the Judaic mystic sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:51 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3t1cuoFql1k6U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to
be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in
loose
and imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those
things that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to
many others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he
believes that if a version of English can be created in which words
have unambiguous meanings then God will be able to communicate with
us with no fear of misunderstanding. Of course if this language
does
not have a word for what God wants to say he'll have to revert to
metaphor leading to misunderstandings and disagreements all
round --
back to square zero.
Earlier on in the proceedings, it crossed my mind to wonder if he
was, in fact, looking for evidence to use _against_ Biblical
literalism. The Bible, that thought went, is quite obviously not a
pantheist text, so if one of its sentences could be shown
unequivocally to be pantheist in meaning it would be shown to be
self-contradictory. Then, again, it had seemed at the outset that he
was hoping to reconcile the Bible with some Hindu beliefs. Soon, of
course, he wandered into the "ISO lexicon" quagmire. By then, I too
had lost any clear sense of what his purpose in visiting us was; but
at least I knew I'd lost that clear sense, so my sanity, such as it
is, remains undamaged.
--
Mike.
Being "one" with God is also supported in John 17:21 |
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us...
"one" is literally the first element of the set of counting numbers.
Every other meaning of "one" is figurative, rather than literal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in