16
How effective is linguistic communication, really? (piefed.world)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

I'm not sure "madness" is the term I'd use but I see what you're getting at. Communication is a weird thing if you think about it long enough, the idea of trying to recreate a subjective experience in someone else's mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

    In common communication the shared fantasy is treated as equivalent to experience.

    Not in science though. Science (and science-like things) is an exception there. Science has the providence-thing (you could say that it explicitly acknowledges that language isn't enough). I'd say that's the source of its power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent