tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post114780277977573362..comments2023-10-25T10:16:23.924-04:00Comments on Invented Usage: quantum language theoryScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299970053622180647noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1151761871691691682006-07-01T09:51:00.000-04:002006-07-01T09:51:00.000-04:00The problem with linguistic theory as it has evolv...The problem with linguistic theory as it has evolved from the days of "Syntactic Structures" and associated tomes is that it presupposes, falsely in my view, that we have grammars in our heads, and that in speaking and hearing we use algorithms that somehow use this grammar.<BR/><BR/>If one looks at actual linguistic data -- real world conversations, which ought to be the focus of study since The Language Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239614087721047781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148588962436330062006-05-25T16:29:00.000-04:002006-05-25T16:29:00.000-04:00again, i PROMISE to post again soon... but i'm on ...again, i PROMISE to post again soon... but i'm on vacation :) <BR/><BR/>marc, i did disagree with the post where you described the 'core', but if you're willing to concede (as i think you have) that those conceptual meanings also have this electron-cloud type of arrangement, then I like this a whole lot. <BR/><BR/>seb, you've hit the nail on the head: no philosophy can operate outside of languageCristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148415601161007782006-05-23T16:20:00.000-04:002006-05-23T16:20:00.000-04:00Of course, Scott, of course. I'm just intimidated...Of course, Scott, of course. I'm just intimidated by the task, that's all. But I'll shape up and make a complete post soonish if I get to it.Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148399724639267162006-05-23T11:55:00.000-04:002006-05-23T11:55:00.000-04:00my dear seb! you seem to forget that you have an a...my dear seb! you seem to forget that you have an account and can make your own posts here. you know how much that would please us. :)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18299970053622180647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148396940516827742006-05-23T11:09:00.000-04:002006-05-23T11:09:00.000-04:00"concepts play a different role. They are stable i..."concepts play a different role. They are stable in a sense that language is not" Actually, I don't believe they are. They're not exactly the same from one person to another, from one language to another (chair is not the same concept in French as in English, for example). But you are right, psychomechanics probably doesn't offer the kind of answer Cristi wants, unformtunatly. It is more Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148363727624353242006-05-23T01:55:00.000-04:002006-05-23T01:55:00.000-04:00the biggest problem, in my mind, with truth-condit...<B>the biggest problem, in my mind, with truth-conditional semantics is that i don't believe in truth outside of language.</B><BR/><BR/>When I read this, I want to disagree until I remember that you're using "language" to refer to all kinds of representation. <BR/><BR/><B>only representations have truth values. which is why i think a philosophy of language (representation) HAS to precede any Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148363310172696072006-05-23T01:48:00.000-04:002006-05-23T01:48:00.000-04:00Ok, great! That makes sense to me!Although now I'...Ok, great! That makes sense to me!<BR/><BR/>Although now I'm not sure that psychomechanics provides the kind of answers that Cristi wants.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because that theory still requires that there be "an idea, a concept. In the case of words designating "real-life" objects, it would be the idea of this object." This core has to be some kind of representation with a determinate meaning. TheSebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148312728890506972006-05-22T11:45:00.000-04:002006-05-22T11:45:00.000-04:00The core (don't really like the term but I'm stuck...The <I>core</I> (don't really like the term but I'm stuck with it now) is an idea, a concept. In the case of words designating "real-life" objects, it would be the idea of this object.<BR/><BR/>The space around this core (or chewy centre -- sorry, a bit hungry at the moment) is a conceptual space, where some aspects of the main idea are done away with, where we can just use some of the Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148266724206835052006-05-21T22:58:00.000-04:002006-05-21T22:58:00.000-04:00But Marc---"the idea that the meaning of a word us...But Marc---"the idea that the meaning of a word usually centres around one or two core(s) and the fact that, like an attractor, the meaning has no defined boundaries, but will really go outside of an observable zone."<BR/><BR/>What is a <I>core</I>, and what sort of space is the <I>zone</I> around them? <BR/><BR/>In order for their to be even ill-defined boundaries, or movement, or a region, Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148263635608715032006-05-21T22:07:00.000-04:002006-05-21T22:07:00.000-04:00Yes, it is psychomechanics, although not the hard-...Yes, it is psychomechanics, although not the hard-core variety.<BR/>"in the analogy to an attractor working on an N-dimensional space, what are the dimensions? What is a point in the space?"<BR/><BR/>The analogy to a strange attractor doesn't really have to do with N-d space, but rather the idea that the meaning of a word usually centres around one or two core(s) and the fact that, like an Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148252577332101322006-05-21T19:02:00.000-04:002006-05-21T19:02:00.000-04:00thanks, christian, for the encouragement! thanks t...thanks, christian, for the encouragement! thanks to seb & marc too, for keeping this thing going. <BR/><BR/>i know i'm overdue for another actual post, but i'm in phoenix packing up family photos... <BR/><BR/>i guess the biggest problem i see here is that the 'functionality' of most scientific theories is based on their predictive capacity. i don't really see this as a possibility for a theory ofCristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148239749170416612006-05-21T15:29:00.000-04:002006-05-21T15:29:00.000-04:00Wow, wonderful commentary from all posters. A very...Wow, wonderful commentary from all posters. A very stimulating exchange. Glad to have found this blog. Kudos to all of you!Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734094964420922251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148183007977568402006-05-20T23:43:00.000-04:002006-05-20T23:43:00.000-04:00Marc, a question about the theory you espouse--psy...Marc, a question about the theory you espouse--psychomechanics?<BR/><BR/>Is the idea that <I>meaning</I> is a strange attractor, or that the the meaning <I>of a particular word</I> is an attractor?<BR/><BR/>Maybe another way of asking this is: in the analogy to an attractor working on an N-dimensional space, what are the dimensions? What is a point in the space?Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148181666438691242006-05-20T23:21:00.000-04:002006-05-20T23:21:00.000-04:00i think saying that a philosophy of language has t...<B>i think saying that a philosophy of language has to be WELL-DEFINED or replaced by something functional and well-defined is a major problem. claiming that this is a methodological committment and not a philosophical one is VERY dangerous.</B><BR/><BR/>Dangerous for what?<BR/><BR/>I can see how a prior commitment to well-definedness might be problematic to philosophy of language, depending on Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1148178986668993892006-05-20T22:36:00.000-04:002006-05-20T22:36:00.000-04:00"the thing i really like about 'post-structuralist..."the thing i really like about 'post-structuralist' theories, is that they don't begin by excluding things like metaphor, vague predicates, fictional reference" to me, that makes the most sense. Anyone who observes actual language will see that there's a lot of that going on. To begin by excluding those would be, in my view, like trying to come up with a coherent theory of biology based on humansMarc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1147994556879890712006-05-18T19:22:00.000-04:002006-05-18T19:22:00.000-04:00first i'd like to thank seb for, as always, keepin...first i'd like to thank seb for, as always, keeping me honest. <BR/><BR/>second, a few caveats: the analogy i made here is obviously a pretty lose one. i don't believe analytic philosophy is a totally homogenous field (as i'm sure einsteinian phyisics wasn't). but the idea of truth conditional semantics is pretty darn universal among all those different percolating ideas. i also tend to use 'Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1147904565911894752006-05-17T18:22:00.000-04:002006-05-17T18:22:00.000-04:00I'll let Cristi answer before I do, but I just wan...I'll let Cristi answer before I do, but I just wanted to say that the theory I'm coming from is not particularly new; it stems from the work of a French linguist from the first half of the XXth c. (Guillaume). I did, in all fairness, put a more contemporary spin to it by using analogies such as the strange attractor. But since I actually studied physics before linguistics, this analogy quickly Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1147897002615429162006-05-17T16:16:00.000-04:002006-05-17T16:16:00.000-04:00Hold up.First, I don't think it's fair to dismiss ...Hold up.<BR/><BR/>First, I don't think it's fair to dismiss analytic philosophy--as a methodology or personality of academic inquiry--because of the opinions of the majority of analytic philosophers. There is a lot of diversity within analytic philosophy, and new ideas take time to percolate throughout.<BR/><BR/>Second, I can think of two things that may explain the slowness of analytic Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1147867192400137262006-05-17T07:59:00.000-04:002006-05-17T07:59:00.000-04:00You should try and explain to "einsteinian" semant...You should try and explain to "einsteinian" semanticists that meanings have fuzzy boundaries and are basically <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_attractor" REL="nofollow">strange attractors</A> (to stay with the physics analogy). That should get you a good blank stare...Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.com