Re: Symbol Grounding Problem (attn: Vend)

On 25 Apr, 17:34, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

D. Hofstadter called it "triggering symbols" in his new book. It
seems that meaning-grounding in symbols (or in other artifacts/processes if
not symbols - what?), leads to a richer phenomenal experience the next time
a similar stimulus is presented? That is, if you know what you are looking
at (in terms of other things or even aspects of the thing itself), then you
incorporate information into the next translation/interpretation, and loop
around this process precessinally (each time getting a little richer
interpretation...)
.
I dunno, the way I see it, natural language/symbolic
communication is a steady process, it takes years to
develop a vocabulary or symbolic system of referants,
and usually allow for a 'buffer zone' between the particular
unique meaning of a referent as you understand it to mean
and someone elses. That leeway accounts for misunderstandings
but also growth and development. I have to say theres less
argument about visuals despite the aesthetics, than there
seem to be with abstracted symbols, ie a collection of letters
or numbers. Just to add to this, the development of symbols
are man-made, you really shouldn't judge a biological being
regards their perception, where you can with visual image.

I look (artificial) symbolic development in the x,y. If you take a
modern language across the board and organise a system
accordingly, you'll miss out the root cause and developments
that have brought that modern system into place. You either miss
out the individuals growth and development, or miss the history
and culture the graphic and development in technologies,

n.

.