Meaning is not carried by the words, it’s carried by your mind. We assume that we assign the same meanings, but that’s a big assumption.

These online conversations, composed of words and only words, are arguably 99% us just talking to ourselves. Maybe even 100%.

  • ᓚᘏᗢ@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    You should read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, it’s basically this but with cool cyberpunk shit and more mindfuckery.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Meaning is not carried by the words, it’s carried by your mind.

    I disagree. Meaning is carried by words. That’s what words are for. And you can use them to clarify their meaning in fine detail.

  • alternategait@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This is why a lot of academic papers outside of science start with a definition of used terms with citations.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Makes sense. If we try, if we are careful, the quality of our communication can be vastly improved.

      In my own particular field I often first try to ensure that all participants in the conversation share the same experience.

      • bsit@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That’s a pretty tall order. How do you confirm that you objectively share the same experience if you can only ever access your own subjective experience?

        • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          You could stand next to the guy while you both look at the relevant thing. That’s a pretty good way.

          Another way would be to use the same method for looking at the relevant thing. Let’s call it “an experimental method”. Because it delivers an experience.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      With a bit of careful effort we can improve the process.

      In fields where communication matters more we have several methods for that.

  • e0qdk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    No, we are communicating. People can coordinate their actions to achieve things that are impossible for an individual. We obviously don’t have perfect shared understanding, and miscommunications are not uncommon (as others have already pointed out) but we can exchange enough information to do useful things.

    Also, we can make jokes. The fact that it’s possible to craft a joke and make someone laugh by setting up and intentionally subverting expectations through language is pretty good evidence that we have shared understanding and similar processing.

  • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    13 hours ago

    So you mean to say: we personalize interpretation of someone else’s writing, therefore we’re rather responding to our own thoughts, than in response to the other’s writing? If so, I would say this is true for the majority of people; especially when discussing anything political for example, where a strong bias is present.

    • SenK@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Yes, this is pretty much exactly what happens. It’s the map-territory problem, but with every single word. We have rough agreements on what some words mean. Easy enough with what we take to be solid objects. This X is a cross, like two objects intersecting. Yes, we know what X is. Okay, now do the same thing to every word in this sentence. And then again to every word in this sentence. Oh… how about subjective experiences? Love. Sadness. What are those? How did you come to think of those words when describing love? Were you born with language? You don’t inherently know what anything is. You just have a bunch of code in your head.

      • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, if you really start breaking down sentences, to their individual words and their respective concepts, everything falls apart. But it’s important to keep context in mind: which generally limits room for interpretation enough, for most to roughly interpret them similarly (unless your autistic brain makes you go on a detour…). If you start formulating your wording carefully enough, you can start writing legal documents; and ironically make sure, 99% of the population, can no longer follow a word you’re saying.

        • SenK@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Yeah, if you really start breaking down sentences, to their individual words and their respective concepts, everything falls apart.

          Yes.

          Yes.

          Go on. Read that again. Or write that again, slowly.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I’m assuming that when you say “though” you mean “thought”, and when you say “Olato” you mean “Plato”, and when you say “1000” you mean “2400”, and when you say “covered this” you mean “proposed that we all subconsciously share knowledge of a realm of pure, unmediated ideas which we learned in a previous life”… but of course you might mean something else entirely, and I’d be none the wiser.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          All language is a fundamentally incomprehensible illusion of communication, and people have thought that for a while.

          Makes for some banger songs though.

          • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            All language is not created equal. There is language with vast context (irl, face to face, between acquaintances, in a shared ultrarich physical environment) and language with minimal context (social media). That’s a big important difference.

            • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              For the record, I do agree. It’s worth occasionally thinking about the limits of communication, but it is the foundational technology of civilization.

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Misunderstandings happen quite frequently. Especially between neurodivergent people and neurotypical people. Now imagine how many misunderstandings we don’t know about

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yeah, words have meaning to the person saying them, but aren’t guaranteed to have the same for the receiver.

    Its why we try so hard to share a reality and define things.
    And we have faith that we are on the same side of understanding.
    Its also why the world is fucked up right now, no faith, we need to know, and we quiz and push to narrow our world to just those we can be sure of.

    Do you really think its worth it to only talk to yourself? Or do you figure out how to share how you feel and what you see in the world with others?