I have lots of words that mean the same thing.
And I bet you do too!
>> But I'm afraid simple awareness is still a mystery.
>
>Yes -- awareness itself is deeply intertwined with intelligence, no doubt;
>partly I suspect because awareness is such an exercise in pattern
>recognition and chunking. It's hard to be aware of that car if you can't
>recognize "cars".
I'll grant that pattern recognition and chunking may well
be necessary for awareness, but I'm pretty sure they're not
sufficient.
Shit. Just realised I've reverted to level 2 tactics on a
subject I previously decided was only approachable on level
3. Umm, ignore the foregoing if you wish, or do what you
like with it.
>> While it might be arguable that isomorphism is at the root of
>> meaning, in that it's possible in principle to trace all
>> meanings back in time to isomorphisms, I'm utterly convinced
>> that when etymology's left out of the picture, ie we focus on
>> *present* meanings, there is very often no isomorphism to be
>> found.
>
>Really? Wade is right that meaning as isomorphism is an elementary
>statement about the function of language -- e.g. "car" has meaning because
>I perceive the symbol as isomorphic to the external object. Basically, the
>function of a dictionary is to supply you with an/the/some isomophism[s]
>for the word in question. I'm curious as to what you mean by "present"
>meanings?
Let's drop that one for now. But I have a question for you:
What's the isomorphism of an expletive?
-- Robin