4 ms·

You're being evasive and hiding behind jargon and frankly, nonsensical phrases. As I said, I am not unfamiliar with Aristotle, so don't be shy about making clea

You're being evasive and hiding behind jargon and frankly, nonsensical phrases. As I said, I am not unfamiliar with Aristotle, so don't be shy about making clear and direct claims. If you can't do that, then, I'm sorry, but this some kind is bullshit. (FWIW, a feature of the Aristotelian logical tradition is that, unlike the modern, Fregean tradition which is indifferent about the relationship between logic and language, it is very much concerned by the logical structures within grammar. From a practical point of view, this makes total sense: we want to be able to evaluate arguments, to clarify arguments, and so on, which are generally given in natural language. Aristotle was also a moderate realist. Language is a reflection of reality.)

Mallowram 1y ago
The clearest direct claim is if there are no contradictions then language is impossible. Language is not a "reflection of reality" in any way shape or form: reality is always specific, language is always arbitrary. We're currently in a neurodynamic/neurobiological overthrow of psychodynamic principles that obviates in presocrats onwards. The fact is language has nothing really to do with reality and has only to do with subjective biases that arbitrarily perform gibberish in the stead of status-gain, control, etc (pick any primate bias that Aristotle onwards was unconscious to). “We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024
Mallowram 1y ago
btw what this means neurobiologically/neurodynamically is that arbitrary language's only function is to refute itself. That is its only form of reasoning or logic in grammar. It's only a temporary palliative that eventually gets revealed (AI does a great job of this, better that media or the web) that embeds simian bias seamlessly. It demands a direct, concatenated, irreducible form of signaling.

Mallowram 1y ago

The clearest direct claim is if there are no contradictions then language is impossible. Language is not a "reflection of reality" in any way shape or form: reality is always specific, language is always arbitrary. We're currently in a neurodynamic/neurobiological overthrow of psychodynamic principles that obviates in presocrats onwards. The fact is language has nothing really to do with reality and has only to do with subjective biases that arbitrarily perform gibberish in the stead of status-gain, control, etc (pick any primate bias that Aristotle onwards was unconscious to). “We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

Mallowram 1y ago

btw what this means neurobiologically/neurodynamically is that arbitrary language's only function is to refute itself. That is its only form of reasoning or logic in grammar. It's only a temporary palliative that eventually gets revealed (AI does a great job of this, better that media or the web) that embeds simian bias seamlessly. It demands a direct, concatenated, irreducible form of signaling.