Comments on: Metaphor 2 http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/10/metaphor-2/ A blog on consciousness by Janet Kwasniak Wed, 23 May 2012 04:13:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/10/metaphor-2/#comment-3319 mariana Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:51:29 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/10/metaphor-2/#comment-3319 There are all attempts to build a model where to make the notion of meaning fit. Of course no models is perfect, so probably a combination of them would be the best. By the way interesting choice of models yours. This is a really interesting paragraph to reflect upon. I agree that there is a need to have the support of a set of basic meanings in order to be able to crate new ones, but if we follow the dictionary example there seems to be that .the complete assignation of meanings needs an arbitrary point to start from. But once we have our hole meaning network there are all created based on a combination of other meanings, which can lead to the existence of aberrations such as the explanation of one word based on a second word and that that second word is explained based on the first word, The problem of the origin of the foundation of the most primitive meaning is analogous to the problem with the foundations of any science or discipline, for example in math we need to start from some assertions, such as 1 equals one, which we accept is true, but this assertion can perfectly be put in doubt, and has no solid way of demonstrating that is correct. So indeed everything departs from imposed “truths”, This is related to the theorem of Gödel where he talks about incomplete systems, and how is impossible for science such as math to be sustained or validated by themselves. I am not sure that we need metaphors due to our limited resources in our head, I think that we need metaphors because we always need something to base on our new meaning, some kind of base/support, and this process of creation of new meanings is probably done departing from the most basic concepts and then the gradual increase in complexity of the new meanings which also tend to become more and more abstract. Thanks fr listening tto me and thanks a lot for your fantastic blog There are all attempts to build a model where to make the notion of meaning fit. Of course no models is perfect, so probably a combination of them would be the best.
By the way interesting choice of models yours.

This is a really interesting paragraph to reflect upon. I agree that there is a need to have the support of a set of basic meanings in order to be able to crate new ones, but if we follow the dictionary example there seems to be that .the complete assignation of meanings needs an arbitrary point to start from. But once we have our hole meaning network there are all created based on a combination of other meanings, which can lead to the existence of aberrations such as the explanation of one word based on a second word and that that second word is explained based on the first word,

The problem of the origin of the foundation of the most primitive meaning is analogous to the problem with the foundations of any science or discipline, for example in math we need to start from some assertions, such as 1 equals one, which we accept is true, but this assertion can perfectly be put in doubt, and has no solid way of demonstrating that is correct. So indeed everything departs from imposed “truths”, This is related to the theorem of Gödel where he talks about incomplete systems, and how is impossible for science such as math to be sustained or validated by themselves.

I am not sure that we need metaphors due to our limited resources in our head, I think that we need metaphors because we always need something to base on our new meaning, some kind of base/support, and this process of creation of new meanings is probably done departing from the most basic concepts and then the gradual increase in complexity of the new meanings which also tend to become more and more abstract.

Thanks fr listening tto me and thanks a lot for your fantastic blog

]]>