Organising semnatical gaps using reason

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby Certainly real » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:13 pm

There are many different languages in the world and whilst they sound different, ultimately, they’re all doing the same thing. They all label semantical gaps. In this blog post, I will begin by giving an explanation of what I mean by semantical gaps before arguing that any use of language or method of communication either produces something absurd, potential, necessary or unknown.

Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available. Anything meaningful that one can think of is either a semantical gap, or various semantical gaps that is/are being focused on by the mind at any given point in time. When you consider the nature of existence and the mind and what it can imagine, there being an infinite amount of semantical gaps available in existence starts to become clear.

It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.

Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven’t created this concept, I’ve essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.

To be fair, even the label unidragon that I’ve attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you, you can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You’d require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.

In my previous blog posts, I argued that anything that has meaning (essentially any semantical gap) needs to be accommodated by existence as all minds are entirely dependent on existence and there is nothing outside of existence for the mind to obtain. In order for reason to be adhered to and paradoxes avoided (such as the paradox of something coming from nothing) existence needs to accommodate all semantical gaps. Just as it needs to accommodate all potential sounds, pitches, colours and shapes that can be produced, it needs to accommodate all semantical gaps.

Any use of language will either produce something absurd, unknown, potential or necessary. Let’s start by looking at the absurd category:

Absurd

For example the phrase square-circle is absurd as is a married bachelor, a bendy straight line and so on. Even the idea of a super task: A task that consists in infinitely many component steps, but which in some sense is completed in a finite amount of time (Manchak and Roberts) is absurd. These are all paradoxical, contradictory phrases. They don’t have any meaning but reason can be applied in a way that conclusively rules them out of existence. They have never existed and can never exist. Conclusively, existence does not accommodate them.

Potential

Almost all semantical gaps fall under this category. They are things whoes potential to exist has always been there and will always be there. Examples include: Unicorns, dragons, unidragons, trees, humans, galaxies, universes and so on. They can change from one thing to another. They are hypothetical possibilities (as in the potential for them to exist is always there) Unlike absurdities such as a square-circle which we rationally know can never exist, we know rationally that potentials such as a unidragons can exist. Try the following thought experiment: Try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything?

Necessary

Concepts that don’t fall into absurd or potential but have meaning, fall into the category of necessary. The most obvious example of which is Existence. The sentence “the potential for existence to come into existence is there” is absurd. Existence is not something that is hypothetically possble, rather, it necessarily is. It’s not a potential. Either existence has always existed and will always exist or it never existed and will never exist. Also absurd is “Existence can go in and out of existence”. Existence has clear meaning, therefore if it is not absurd and not a potential/hypothetical possibility, it is necessary; as in necessarily existent; has always existed and will always exist and is not amenable to change. Things within it may change but it itself cannot. For example, I am in existence, a part of existence. I can change, but that which is all-existing/omnipresent (whatever it may be) cannot.

Unknown

For example the phrase 20th dimension or the 20th sense, are unknown. There may be a 20th sense in existence that we have no awareness of or a 20th dimension that we are unaware of. We don’t know if they exist or if they can ever exit. These phrases don’t have any meaning, but unlike a square-circle we don’t know if they are paradoxical or contradictory, so we cannot apply reason to them to rule them out of existence or rule them as potential or necessary. Unknowns are simply unknown. Reason can’t be applied to them and so they are irrelevant to the exercise of reason.

When discussing potentials, I said try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything? If you’ve attempted this and concluded yes I can, I will attempt to demonstrate how your conclusion is problematic.

We can all imagine what a triangle is. Having straight lines is part of the definition of a triangle. Consider the following two sentences:

1) Triangles can exist
2) Triangles can exist in our universe
There is nothing wrong with the first sentence but the second sentence is absurd. Our universe has gravity and gravity is such that it does not allow for straight lines therefore triangles cannot exist in our universe. Sentence 2 is absurd. It is just like saying the bendy straight line.

To sum up, anything that is absurd, can never exist and will never exist. So a straight line can never exist in an environment that does not allow for straight lines. Some movies or thoughts of imagination contain contradictions. There is nothing wrong with the movie from a visual perspective or an active thought of imagination. But when you fully flesh them out, whilst the visuals or the image stays the same, their rational credibility goes from potential to absurd.

Consider the sentence: Superman lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all imagine superman lifting something as heavy as a bus. Our imagination can produce the images and Hollywood can also produce a scene that visually shows superman doing this. A reality or universe existing wherein which this happens is entirely possible given existence being infinite and eternal. There is nothing absurd about this because the definition of superman, or the semantical gap that superman points to, entails that he is sufficiently powerful enough to lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds. The maths and the science add up fine so this sentence goes in the potential category. It is something that Existence can bring about.

Now consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. Again we can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don’t add up, so it goes in the absurd category unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

The ability to imagine absurdities is impossible. A being lifting something so heavy that it does not have the sufficient force to lift (which is what the Nelson Mandela example amounts to) is an absurdity. It is because potentials are so amenable to change that the mind is able to consider and picture so many different hypothetical possibilities/potentials. There are so many hypothetically possible ways where in which Nelson Mandela can lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds, but they all require that the science and the math add up. So maybe Mandela’s physiology changes overnight to the point that he has the sufficient strength to lift something heavier than 25,000 pounds. Ultimately though, the semantical gaps focused on would have to change for absurdity to not ensue. So again, with this in mind, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby Guide » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:58 am

Why "gap"? Seems like a presence of something. Phrike is a shivering, like that of the cold thing, a primitive shiver caused also in the mind, given to one by another. Now it is there, whereas, without language, we don't have it available.
Guide
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby Certainly real » Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:11 am

Guide wrote:Why "gap"? Seems like a presence of something. Phrike is a shivering, like that of the cold thing, a primitive shiver caused also in the mind, given to one by another. Now it is there, whereas, without language, we don't have it available.


I'm not sure to be honest. I meant like semantical spaces. Essentially, I meant like available meanings in Existence.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby Guide » Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:29 pm

So, you say salam and peace name the same available region?
Guide
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby Certainly real » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:15 am

Guide wrote:So, you say salam and peace name the same available region?


Yes
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

Postby encode_decode » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:39 pm

Interesting read and I can see where you are coming from. That is the beautiful thing about some languages; that is the ability to express oneself. I do notice that my imagination and logic were at odds with each other to decipher the underlying meaning of what you were intending on getting across and therefore I could entirely rewrite what you have written to have the same meaning but in far different words. I totally get what you mean by semantical gaps.

I would go so far as to say that language is all about meaning and that even if one were to use words imprecisely but in such a way that meaning could be conveyed in an acceptable way then language has served its primary function which is to convey meaning for example idioms and such, despite idioms being dependent on context and context processing areas of the brain. Here we encounter the first problem involving logic and that is meaning does not depend on exact usage of a language.

I would have to say that the strings of words being transmitted and the ability for the receiver to process and understand the words received is somewhat related to the production of meaning in an abstract sense. So if you are using the string "semantical gaps" and I understand what you are saying then successful conveyance of meaning has taken place(that would be, what you are meaning and expressing). Using the "ability to reason" because I do believe you are referring to an ability here, is a necessary component of organising semantical gaps for the transmitter and receiver respectively.

There are indeed many different languages in the world and ultimately they are not DOING the same thing, they are however converging on doing the same thing, and that is labelling as you say, "semantical gaps". Here you can see that I have sidestepped what I know you are saying with the express purpose of illustrating that one could get picky about what you are saying and essentially decay what you have written and that would be an example(if I were being serious that is) of an inability for the receiver to actually understand what you have written. Why would I do this? Because . . . language changes but meaning does not, however the future receivers ability to get the original meaning of the writing decays over time as a function of language changing. Hopefully I am making myself clear enough here.
    Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
    (James S Saint)


    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654)


    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself)
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1202
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

    Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

    Postby Certainly real » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:41 pm

    Thank you for the feedback encode_decode.
    Certainly real
     
    Posts: 222
    Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

    Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

    Postby Guide » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:50 am

    However, this is not true. Since language is dependent on growing into a world. For some Australian persons, for example, the same word is used for dancing and for harrowing the fields and other labors. So, there would be no correspondence of words, as simple as an identification.
    Guide
     
    Posts: 198
    Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

    Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

    Postby Certainly real » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:03 pm

    Guide wrote:However, this is not true. Since language is dependent on growing into a world. For some Australian persons, for example, the same word is used for dancing and for harrowing the fields and other labors. So, there would be no correspondence of words, as simple as an identification.


    You can certainly have more than one word label multiple things. But what I'm saying with regards to semantical gaps, is that the things that are available to be labelled are set. You won't encounter another being that has a completely different set of semantical gaps. It would be paradoxical.
    Certainly real
     
    Posts: 222
    Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

    Re: Organising semnatical gaps using reason

    Postby Guide » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:37 am

    Nonsense.
    Guide
     
    Posts: 198
    Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am


    Return to Philosophy



    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users