From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-27, Richmond  wrote:   
      
   >> Ever hear of the "Tower of Babel"? ;-)   
   >   
   > Considering we don't live in the same country, or at least   
   > I don't think we do based on looking at the headers in   
   > your article, we are doing pretty well.   
      
   I have no idea what you're typing about! ;-)   
      
   > I think you are in danger of throwing out the baby with   
   > the bathwater there. The fact that the meaning of words is   
   > not precise, does not mean they are of no use, or that they   
   > are futile. Language has done wonders for human beings.   
      
   But there's also misunderstanding, labeling, the likes   
   of fights and wars precipitated by words. But I suppose   
   there's no way to value the plusses and minuses in a way   
   that could lead to an overall assessment.   
      
   > The evolution and widespread use of language is evidence   
   > that it works and it is useful. Do you read books? or do   
   > you regard them as futile?   
      
   I've not read a book in quite some time, but that's more   
   due to other life changes leading to time re-prioritization.   
      
   That said, I used to read a lot more blogs/phlogs/gemlogs   
   all the way through, and now I typically read a few   
   sentences and conclude a mix of "ugh, same old" and   
   "there's a good chance I'm not doing to understand this   
   as intended anyway, so ".   
      
   >> I've no idea what 'futility' - or any of the other words   
   >> I've used - means to you.   
   >   
   > I think you have some idea.   
      
   Dammit! Can't you let me make just *one* weak point! :-)   
      
   > I didn't admit that was all we know about   
   > consciousness. This problem is about communication,   
   > not knowlege. Given enough time people can refine the   
   > shared meaning of the word until they understand each   
   > other, or at least nearly enough. Today's word should be   
   > 'pragmatism'. But we could proceed like Wittgensein, not   
   > that I profess to have read much of him, but we can make   
   > statements about consciousness and then see if we both   
   > agree the statement is true. E.g.:   
   >   
   > You are unconscious when you are asleep.   
   >   
   > You were not conscious of the name of the tallest mountain   
   > in the world before you started reading this statement.   
      
   Hmmm. Okay.   
      
   > Imagine a chair. Now tell me you don't know what   
   > 'chair' means. How many different kinds of chair can   
   > you imagine? and yet none of them is a tree, I think you   
   > will agree.   
      
   Okay. I can't disagree with respect to words referring to   
   physical objects.   
      
   But, well, we've already seen a word like 'consciousness'   
   is more problematic. 'Love'. Even 'atom' given differing   
   levels of familiarity with the progress of subatomic   
   physics.   
      
   And then, of course, gender-related words have become a   
   complete mess....   
      
   --   
   oldernow   
   xyz001 at nym.hush.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)