[Hans Blom, 951108]
(i.kurtzer (951023.1600))
yes i fully realize the associations between labels and concepts and
between themselves are mind dependent and can sometimes be replaced
by others. but i don't think that persons typically choose words as
"labels" willy-nilly, but that the word was chosen according to how
it somehow captured something important about the said observation
So a rose by any other name wouldn't be quite the rose that we know?
What does the "something important" that you refer to refer to?
Greetings,
Hans
[Shannon Williams (951108)]
Hans Blom, 951108--
(i.kurtzer (951023.1600))
the word was chosen according to how it somehow captured something
important about the said observation
So a rose by any other name wouldn't be quite the rose that we know?
We are not talking about the reality of the rose. We are talking about
our perception of the reality of the rose. If you perceive the rose
from a different angle, the rose looks different. If you name/understand a
rose according to the angle from which you view it, then two different
names activate two different understandings.
i.kurtzer (951109.1600)
[Hans Blom, 951108]
(i.kurtzer (951023.1600))
>yes i fully realize the associations between labels and concepts and
>between themselves are mind dependent and can sometimes be replaced
>by others. but i don't think that persons typically choose words as
>"labels" willy-nilly, but that the word was chosen according to how
>it somehow captured something important about the said observation
So a rose by any other name wouldn't be quite the rose that we know?
i think you know what i mean. maybe if a rose what called "horse-crap" and
everyone already knew what "horse" and "crap" then maybe people wouldn't
be so ready to put the flower to their noses. i don't know.
What does the "something important" that you refer to refer to?
i suppose with the "imprinting" example it is as simple as that. that
somehow the presention made a effect on the creature's brain so that
there is some similarity between a brain-fact and enviromental fact.
this seems rather vague because it--imprinting--is a word that both
stands for an observational shorthand and implies (not just in my twisted
mind, but other persons minds) an explanation. my contention has
been--and i bitched about this to bill himself regarding defining control
as you remember--that the shorthand terms for observation that we use
should be as theory-free _as possible_. "imprinting" certainly does not
qualify. i don't want to end up talking about red, moving regions of
space when i see a bouncing ball. there can be a degree of rigour
between "imprinting" and sensationalist protocal statements; the line
between conception and sensation is already murky enough, the use of a
word for both only exacerbates the problem.
i.
ยทยทยท
Hans Blom (J.A.Blom@ELE.TUE.NL) wrote: