🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Doug,

My discussion will proceed first in a gen-
eralized way, and then I'll reduce it to
the specific nervous-system dynamics
in which "language" and "concepts"
derive.

"Doug Morse" <morse@edoug.org> wrote in message 
news:slrnfdl2ou.3vl.morse@ikrg.com...

| What is the difference between language
| and concept, or are they the same thing?

Oh Man! What a =Beautiful= Question!

No, they're not the same thing.

"Language" is =just= a communications
=interface=.

Think of this in terms of "Morse code".

"dit-dit-dit [--] dah-dah-dah [--] did-dit-dit"

"S-O-S"

The "dit"s and "dah"s are =only= symbols
that 'address' "characters" [symbols] of the
"alphabet" that, in-turn, 'address' [symbolize]
far-larger, integrated-meaning.

"Save our ship!"

Which, further, 'addresses' the =generalized=
meaning, "Oh, Please! I am in Peril. Come
rescue me!" [even the affect is integrated-with-
in the "S-O-S"], in which "ship" 'translates' =gen-
erally=, meaning "Save-Life", which happens
to be where the "peril" is.

As in Alexander Graham Bell's plea [when he
spilled acid on himself during a trial of the 'first'
telephone], "Watson, come here! I need you!"

Which is literally the same-stuff as "S-O-S"
and "dit-dit-dit [--] dah-dah-dah [--] did-dit-dit",
with Bell's location in his lab being the anal-
ogue of a "Life-containing"-ness "ship's" loc-
ation, and Bell's body being the "Life-that's-in-
'peril' ", which is to be " 'rescued' ".

The "concept" is much-deeper than the sym-
bols used to 'address' it, which includes infin-
itely-variable "shades" of meaning, as I indi-
cated in the A. G. Bell example by using 'fun-
ny'-quotes around " 'peril' " and " 'rescued' "
because Bell's Life was not in-Absolute-Per-
il, and he wouldn't've lost-it if he'd not've been
"rescued" by Mr. Watson [at least, not immed-
iately. If Bells' skin whas broached by the acid,
and infection had been allowed to instantiate
itself, it could've taken Bell's Life -- 'small'-
emergencies become 'big'-emergencies, over
'time', if they're not 'addressed', which is more
of the infinite-variability that I discuss below.]

The main feature of "language" is that it can
be comprised of symbols in infinitely-variable
ways [for those who have it, as is discussed
in AoK, Ap1.] The particular symbols that're
used in language-interface dynamics do not
matter. What matters is the =coherence= that's
inherent in their use, including infinitely-variable
"shades-of-meaning" in whatever infinitely-var-
iable, coherently-linked symbols that're used.
[Infinity is compounded, over and over again
'within' =all= human experience, including lang-
uage-interface dynamics [which is why nervous
systems', nevertheless, just-doing-what-they-do
is so Awesome!].

It's all of this inherent-variability that discloses
"language" to be ='only'= an =interface= between
"communication" and much-deeper, =Vastly=
-larger stuff.

It's the =coherence= that is what "concepts"
[physically] are. "Concepts" are [ideally] Invar-
iants, regardless of what infinitely-variable
"symbols" ["language"-interface dynamics] are
used to 'address' them, and how particular
symbols are 'instantaneously'-used to 'address'
"concepts".

Just as in the little "S-O-S" example, above.

Coherence-in-language is, itself, infinitely-
variable in a way that's extremely-Important
to understand with respect to human inter-
active dynamics, be-cause the infinitely-vari-
able use of "symbols" in "language' is =ex-
perientially= -Determined in an individually-
unique way.

Which is how and why, for instance, 'ferrol'
Children develop "languages" that cohere
'perfectly'-well for them, but are incoherent
with respect to general-populations in which
Individuals don't share the Children's iso-
lated experience.

This same-stuff occurs =routinely= within
general populations as a Consequence in-
herent in differential-experience, and, be-
cause folks-in-general don't [yet] understand
how and why "language" [behavior, and [even]
affect] are in-formed [verb] as a result of in-
dividually-unique experience, folks tend,
Strongly, to 'fight' over individually-unique,
and individually-correlated, coherence-dif-
ferentials [which're 'just' experience-differ-
entials.]

One guy sends an "S-O-S" in his individual-
ly-unique language-interface dynamics, and
gets-"angry" when nobody "rescues" him.

But, at least in-part, nobody "rescues" him
because nobody coherently-understands
the guy's individually-unique "language"-in-
terface dynamics.

It's an =across-Individuals= coherence-differ-
ential that 'blocks' communication in such
cases, and such cases are =routinely= -oc-
curring within human interactive dynamics.

Which is some of how and why "concept"
has the Illusion of being 'hard-to-address'.

It's 'hard'-to-communicate "concepts" that're
not generally-already-coherently-'held'-across-
populations, =NOT= be-cause the "concepts"
are "Hard", but be-cause the "concepts" are
just not already-coherently-'held' ['within' nerv-
ous systems] -across-populations.

So "the guy" who wants to be "rescued" 'must',
first, instantiate understanding that will be gen-
erally-'held'-across-populations, before he has
any hope of being 'rescued'.

Be-cause, before folks can "understand" that he
is in need of 'being-rescued', they 'have to' un-
derstand his "S-O-S".

It's the same-stuff with respect to the converse-
case, in which it's "the guy" who sees that every-
one else is in need of being 'rescued' [BTW :-] -------------------------

Either way, "the guy" is confronted with the task
of instantiating coherent understanding of a
"concept" across-populations.

["Whew!" :-]

| Does language build on a conceptual system?

Language-interface dynamics accumulate
'within' individually-unique experience, as a
consequence of the interactive 'sanctions'
that acrue during individually-unique exper-
ience.

Folks 'move toward', or 'move away from',
relative to another Individual's "utterances"
-- which is commonly connoted by "agree-
ment" or "disagreement" -- and ['ideally'] the
Individual 'adjusts' his subsequent usage
of the "utterance" within his language-inter-
face dynamics. ['funny'-quotes around
" 'ideally' ", above, because it's =not= "ideal",
in all Possible ways, to 'acquiesce'-to folks'
'movement' with respect to the contents of
one's language-interface dynamics.]

The first stuff, of the above paragraph, is
what Loving-Parents do with the all-over-
the-map "utterances' of their Infants, for
instance.

By Lovingly positively or negatively 'sanc-
tioning' Infants' utterances, Parents liter-
ally Direct the in-form-ing [verb] of their
Infants' language-interface dynamics.

Adults do the same-stuff with respect to
other Adults, but the "Love" is often ab-
sent in the Adult case -- which is not a
trivial circumstance, as I'll [hopefully :-] -------------------------
explain below.

| Or perhaps concepts emerge from or
| are a byproduct of linguistic representa-
| tion and processing?

=Everything= that happens 'within' human
nervous systems happens in a "by-produced"
way. I'll explain below.

| Most of all, what is a good definition of
| "concept" or "conceptual representation
| and processing", especially from a psych-
| ological, neuroscience, and linguistic
| point of view?

One 'problem' with how you've phrased this
specific question is that the "linguistic" part
is 'just' an =interface= with respect to the
Vastly-larger "concept" and "neuroscience"
stuff.

"Language" is to a "cake" as "icing" is to
the "cake". The "icing" is a "presentation-
interface", not the "cake". Part of the Problem
that's addressed in your question is that, in
language-interface dynamics "Cake-and-
icing" is ruotinely 'addressed' using the
symbol "cake". This happens be-cause
everything 'within' nervous systems tends,
Strongly, to be 'minimially'-represented.
Such 'minimimal'-representation is 'just'
'maximal'-efficiency 'within' the informa-
tion-processing work that nervous sys-
tems routinely do, but this 'minimial'-rep-
resentation-ness 'cloaks' what's actually
going-on 'within' nervous systems, which
is how and why questions like yours have
the illusion of 'being-difficult'. They're not
inherently-difficult. Routine nervous sys-
tem function 'just' 'cloaks' what's in-them,
which, on the one hand, is a 'good' thing,
because it renders routine behavioral
dynamics 'easy', but, on the other hand,
is a 'bad' thing, because the 'cloaking'
"sets-traps" that 'snap-shut' upon Human-
ity's Progress, 'preventing' it, by instantiat-
ing the circumstances in which Conflict
arises.

[That your question goes-right-to-the-'heart'
of this last stuff is why I called it "Beautiful!".]

I'll explain-further, below.

| I find that these research areas routinely
| invoke the notion of concepts and concep-
| tual processing, but a decent definition of
| them -- let alone a solid one -- seems
| terribly elusive.  So, thoughts and sources
| on this would be great to hear about.

I'll now begin the "2nd part" of my discussion,
which'll focus-upon nervous system dynamics
that're particularly-relevant to your "language"/
"concept" question. [For folks who have it, ev-
erything that I'll discuss has been in AoK all
along. I'll just be "translating" from the language-
interface dynamics that I used while writing AoK
to language-interface dynamics that use Doug's
more-conceptual [:-] language-interface 'per-
spective'. [I routinely do the same sort of "trans-
lation" stuff in everything I post here in b.n. It's
'all' been in AoK all along.]]

Given an "environment", what is necessary if
anything is to be "done" in that environment?

Directed-'movement' that occurs with specific-
respect to the "stuff" of the environment.

There's a lot in the above simple statement.

1. For instance, 'movement' that is Directed
in ways that're negatively-correlated to the
stuff of the environment will be 'negatively-
sanctioned' by the environment be-cause
the 'movement' will expend-energy without
actually accomplishing anything.

2. And vice versa, with respect to 'movement'
that is Directed in ways that're positively-
correlated to the stuff of the environment.
These 'movements' will be 'positively-sanc-
tioned' by the environment be-cause they
will actually accomplish something as an
effect of the energy that was expended in
the 'movement'.

3. 1 and 2 are completely-generalized, but
more than them is needed be-cause in-
stances of 2 which are Directed in exact-
ly opposite ways undo each other, being
'transformed' into instances in 1.

To handle the energy-wastefulness in-
herent in such 'movements'-that-undo-
each-other [3.], evolutionary dynamics
converged-upon instantiating "memory"
in organisms.

'all' that "memory" is is the instantiation
of environmentally-correlated-copies-of-
'environment' 'within' nervous systems
[which is what "biological mass", AoK,
Ap5, physically is.]

Be-cause of "memory" ["biological mass"],
the "undoings" of 3, themselves, become
'environment', which is what "concepts"
physically are -- combinations of extern-
al and internal 'environment' that 'contain'
experience, which 'containments' more or
less enable 'movement' to be Directed as
in 2.

"Concepts" are, in this way, "macroscopic
'atoms' " with respect to energy-expenditure.

What "language" is is the 'dance' that the
vocal apparatus does, or one's fingers do,
or one's body does, =while= one is gain-
ing experience [including the instantiation
of "memory" [biological mass] as one ex-
pends energy relative to 'environment' [both
'momentary'-external and internal.]

Language is as a "tool" through which "con-
cepts" are converged-upon, 'minimally-in-
stantiated, and 'contained'.

But see? This definition of "language" is
much-broader than that which is routinely
"conceptualized" as "constituting language".

It includes =everything= that a body does,
not 'just' "words" and their usage.

Because everything that a body does does,
in fact, instantiate "memory" as in 3.

Folks've [Falsely] 'separated language-in-
terface dynamics from "the rest" of what
organisms ["bodies"] do, mostly because
language-interface dynamics do enable
Human Beings to pool their energy-ex-
penditures, collectively, which greatly-
amplifies the Directed-force that can be
brought-to-bear as in 2.

This matters because "concepts" exist
at a much-lower 'level' 'within' nervous-
system function than do language-interface
dynamics.

Language-interface dynamics are like the
flapping-of-butterfly-wings relative to "con-
cepts' " 'concreteness'.

It's the deeper stuff of "concepts" that Dir-
ect behavior, not language-interface dyn-
amics.

It's =routine= in language-interface dyn-
amics that folks 'send S-O-S' stuff, but
folks just do not 'hear' -- be-cause it's
"concepts" that Direct behavior, and, as
above, "concepts" 'contain' ='everything'=
that Individuals have experienced.

In the form of 'minimal'-TD E/I.

Which is how and why folks get-together
to 'flap-their-lips' [:-], but 'nothing' ever
changes -- which is the mutual-undoing
of 3., above.

While "concepts" 'roll'-right-along, rel-
atively-never-changing, except to the
degrees that, as Charles Darwin lamented,
Youngsters grow-up experiencing the
edge-of-difference" that folks've tenuously-
instantiated 'within' the Youngsters' exper-
iential-'environments'.

The collective-"S-O-S" is 'heard' only by
the Young.

[I 'fear' that I've written at too-high-a-'level',
as usual, having written for folks who've
been reading all along. Everything I've dis-
cussed in this post is 'just' "TD E/I-minimiz-
ation as I've been discussing it all along.

'just' more energy-'containing'-energy stuff.

Be-cause I heard the generalized-"S-O-S"
of Humanity.

I understand that the OP [Doug] probably
doesn't, yet, understand what "TD E/I" and
"TD E/I-minimization" are, but that's the
"Battle" I've been 'fighting' all along -- so all
that's necessary cannot be reiterated in a
single post. Which is why I chose to write
'between-the-lines' as I have in this post.

[Which is an instance in the 'difficulty' at
the 'heart' of Doug's query, which I've,
hopefully, addressed adequately above.
This 'difficulty' exists across all of Humanity.]

"Concepts" are 'just' 'minimal'-TD E/I-en-
ergy-'containing'-energy-nesses [:-], and
they are 'just' =in= the =Abstract TD E/I.

"Words" occur at an extremely-higher
'level' 'within' language-interface dynamics,
as folks do the work that's inherent in "com-
munication", all of which has been explained,
at an introductory 'level', in AoK, all along, as
in, "Thus, the left ring finger depresses the 's'
key" [while typing the language-interface sym-
bol, of the "concept", "square" [AoK, Ap6, which
I chose, BTW, while writing AoK, because
"square" encapsulates Maths-Incommens-
urability, which is infinitely-Precise.]

[All theoried-up, with nowhere to go :-]

"Oh well."

k. p. collins