Just-language, without any irl stuff, probably doesn't really achieve communication. Because the words don't carry their definition. And they definitely don't carry any real experience-stuff (sight, sound etc) either.

It's just assumed that you're connecting the word to the definition/experience, in your head, in a way that makes communication happen.

And that's a big assumption. It might be only 80% congruent. Or 50%. Or 5%. We could be a race of Chinese boxes for all we know.

IRL there is a verification to the process. If I order a pizza and I get a pizza then that's a pretty good sign that the communication is working.

But on the Internet, where it's just-language? Forget it. Howling solipsists all the way down.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child)

I think Ferdinand de Saussure’s intuition is closer to the truth than the idea that words have a 1:1 congruence to objective reality, or that they’re truly defined by their dictionary “definitions”. Rather, all the words in a language mutually define each other via their correlations in usage, and the resulting network of correlations forms a unified structure we then match to the similar structure we recognize in reality.

Because this structure is entirely contained within the usage patterns of the language itself, it doesn’t need to be communicated via any extra-linguistic channel.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    That we all glean the same meaning from the "usage patterns" is close enough. And that says nothing about referring to real experiences.

    I suspect that rigorous language : science, engineering etc, is more valid and validatable. But the casual stuff not so much. And set foot into esoteric subjects and the howling really begins..

  • source
  • parent