I'm not a bot, I'm a neurobiologist with a start up that's about replacing the symbolic. and I'm pretty stunned at how inert CS is regarding language. You can find plenty of typos in my posts, and they're not all about this, they're about myth, causality, the symbolic.
To accuse a human of being a bot is really poor manners.
Far from word salads, they are based in deep theories from empirical demonstrations that words are our most fundamental illusions. If you want the deep research we use internally (about 100 citations) start here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXtU97SCjxaHCrf8UVeQGYaj...
I suggest that CS has little ability to debates the scientific reality of language if posters are going to complain scientific statements that are defined and defendable are word salads.
That's a warning CS hasn't done its homework.
> I'm a neurobiologist with a start up that's about replacing the symbolic
What's your startup? What are your publications? That Google doc link is more word-salad and random quotes and citations.
What on earth is a "start up that's about replacing the symbolic"?
> If you understand the nature of language fully, then its ultimate function is to refute itself. In other words, all our use of arbitrary signals leads eventually to specific signals. To make that simpler, each statement in any existing language is about replacing language.
This is word salad, for example. You're not trying to "make it simpler", you're trying to obfuscate (or it's just random).
> That's a warning CS hasn't done its homework.
What's a "CS"?
Commenter says language carries no meaning. Why discuss? (How would you discuss?)
Ask Gemini
The idea that "language has no meaning" highlights the arbitrariness of language, meaning there's no natural, necessary connection between a word's form and its concept. The relationship between a word and what it signifies is a result of social convention and agreement within a linguistic community. For example, the sound of the word "dog" does not intrinsically resemble the animal itself; rather, we've all agreed to associate those sounds with the canine creature.
It's a much more banal claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics#...
I meant the claim at the end of this comment: "language doesn't really mean anything." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45372551
I'm fine with each sign being arbitrarily chosen at some point. People can even make that sound kind of cool with the Helen Keller "water" thing. But if the whole conversation is meaningless, that's a snoozer. I'd be happier staring at the clouds.
Speech by being is one thing, but words on the page have little hope of cohering semantic. This isn't theoretical physics, this is the transition of syntax from the writer (the task variable meanings that are no longer specific, they are arbitrary) into grammar/metaphors, beset by a paradoxical condition called conduit metaphor that dissolves access to that initial mental state, and lets the meaning run wild. Additionally, In functional linguistics, because the status, control, bias, manipulation, ie social elements are quite separate from the agentic, the dark matter of this warps access to meaning. Keller is a best case hypothetical. When we run long segments of text, you ask 20 people you get twenty meanings. So, yes, language is meaningless: it's arbitrary.
He doesn't mean to say the conversation is meaningless, just that the signs themselves have no intrinsic meaning, since they're arbitrary. Which, duh. It's a banal claim articulated poorly.
There's a little bit of ore here to mine (there are philosophical accounts of natural meaning, for example; see Paul Grice), but he mostly seems to just believe in a transcendental signified, and missed the boat on how incredibly rich the consequences of e.g. J. L. Austin and late Wittgenstein are for how we think about language.
Grice and Wittgenstein are good starts, but Cassirer, Basil Bernstein, Halliday, Reddy, Lakoff, Winograd, Stitch, Ryle, Givon, Deacon, Fontaine all weigh in on the notion that language doesn't cohere meaning. Each offers a different variation on whether any symbol, metaphor, grammar actually holds or refers to semantic. When animal signals are considered, we get to see specific signals in action (Rendall, Cheyney, Hauser) and it's here the conduit metaphor's glaring paradox becomes evident, even for speech. If an utterance can never generate the same or extremely similar metal state that generates an action repeatedly, then the utterance is arbitrary, it's for all better purposes meaningless.
It's not a "banal claim" it's the foundational property of language that excludes it from any biological specificity (direct relationship to survival).
“There is nothing red about the word red, and the word big is itself rather small.” (Cuskley, Simner, & Kirby)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00033...
I don't disclose affiliations here, that's the beauty of HN. I get to keep my anonymity to explore.
A start-up that replaces the symbolic engages with specifics in signals in the record (animals, entoptics, onomatopoeia, calendrical signs, action-syntax externals, cinematic action-glyphs) and figures out what representations veer referential and offers concatenation.
The idea that language refutes itself is as old as the pre-socratics. I won't go into the detailed history here, but there are 1000s of reference for this statement. I'll use Cassirer's, which is pretty succinct.
..at some point a direct contact must occur between knowledge and reality. If we succeed in freeing ourselves from all these interpretations – if we above all succeed in removing the veil of words, which conceals the true essence of things, then at one stroke we shall find ourselves face to face with the original perceptions..
Ernst Cassirer The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms
Freeing ourselves from the veil of words is theoretically equivalent to language's ultimate function is to refute itself.
CS is computer science.
btw it's clear the drive to encapsulate in plain English was and is the achilles heel to CS, coders are forced to finger point using characterizations of "word salad" at scientifically complex theories and analytic ideas.