> > > > >[Marsha] > > > > >By conventional truth I mean a pattern that is relational, > > > > >ever-changing and conceptually constructed. What of a conventional > > > > >truth is shared? Are you, six letters with some kind of relationship > > > > >to crime, shared? > > > > > > > > > >[Krimel] > > > > >Conventions may have those properties but a convention is shared. The > > > > >term has no meaning in the context of the individual. Letters are > > > > >shared conventions my explanation for the etymology of my name is > > > > >likewise shared. In short EVERYTHING about a "conventional truth" is shared. > > > > >That is what makes it conventional. > > > > > > > >Marsha > > > >Can you name one static of pattern (meaning) that is shared > > > >100%? Each particular will have its little deviation. > > > > > > > >[Krimel] > > > >Of course not, neither in terms of 100% of people agreeing nor of two > > > >people sharing 100% overlap in understanding. Fortunately neither of > > > >these is required of a conventional understanding. The issue is really > > > >about how much overlap (short of 100%) do we actually need to communicate and > > > >share understanding. The science of information theory is all about this. > > > >Communication and convention are the ability the exchange meaning and > > > >messages. Or to be more precise reduction in uncertainty. Evolutionary > > > >success for example, depends in reducing uncertainty and ANY reduction > > > >confers selective advantage. This is as true of memes are of genes. > > > > > >This is how we evaluate concepts and conventions. We determine how > > > >meaningful they are by how well they reduce uncertainty. It is > > > >reduction not absolute reduction that is critical. > > > > > >Marsha > > >The existence of zebras is a conventional truth. Are using the > > >phrase 'conventional truth' differently? > > > > > >[Krimel] > > >I think so unless this a trick question. I have experienced zebras and my > > >individual concepts of zebrahood are different from yours but our shared > > >convention with regards to zebras is a 'conventional truth' even though > > >there is uncertainty as to the exact amount of overlaps in our individual > > >experience. > > > >Marsha: > >No trick question. The visual pattern of a zebra may be similar > >between the two of us, but "Is that all there is, is that all there > >is. If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep > >dancing..." Do you get what I'm suggesting? > > > >[Krimel] > >Not really, but I am a glass half full kind of guy, I guess. What more > >would you like for there to be? > >Marsha: >More than a half empty kind of attitude, but maybe that is not you. > >[Krimel] >And see there, all this time I thought I was trying to help you out with >that.
Marsha: I understand that we have different approaches to questions and problems. I was not criticizing you as saying maybe reducing things to their bare minimum is your style. I happen to think that past experiences tend to greatly influence patterns (conventional truth). You may not think so. That doesn't make me right and you wrong. It doesn't even give me the right to think I should get you to understand my point-of-view. When this happen I just do not know what to say next. [Krimel] Try this: The only way to escape the pre-intellectual world of pure experience is to encode immediate perception into memory. Memory is multimodal. When we encode something into memory we include not just the sights and sounds but the physical sensations and the emotional tone. When we recall something we select the most significant aspects of the past as the apply to the present. So when we remember something we filter the past through the present context. This process of recall strengthens certain aspects of the memory. Concepts arise when multiple recollections can be seen to be connected to the present perception. We begin to classify experiences into categories. Language is the formalization of these categories into a common (conventional) set of symbols for shared experience. When we speak or write are encoding our personal experiences into a conventional set of symbols. Everything we know tells us that this is a "lossy" form of encoding. This means the much information about my personal experience is lost as a result of encoding. Furthermore, in order to understand what you are saying I have to decode the set of conventional symbols that you used to encode your personal experience. I am pretty sure that decoding process is lossy as well. A full glass is just theoretically impossible. Something gets poured out and lost no matter what we do. We can try to construct languages that are ever more precise; with meanings so exact that no ambiguity is possible. It's called mathematics. Or we can speak in terms so general or emotional that communication is almost visceral. It's called poetry. But something is always lost in the encoding and decoding. Still, look at how good we are at extracting meaning from limited input. Within seconds of meeting we can make all sorts of estimates about one another in terms of attractiveness, status, intelligence, emotional state and whether we like or dislike each other. We can pick up fragments of conversations and piece the text together. We can read books while listening to iPods. We can follow intimate details of the lives of celebrities by scanning the headlines at grocery store checkout lanes. A lot of what gets lost in pouring this way, is pretty useless anyway. What you will find in that half full glass has fewer calories AND more taste. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
