Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
One answered question before you died
Deozaan:
What is it that informs us that each individual's perception of reality is, in fact, an individual experience not directly sharable? I've often heard that point being asserted, but I've never never heard an explanation as to why that assertion should be so.
-40hz (October 12, 2008, 11:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, for one thing, check out the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which basically says that our language and vocabulary shape the way we perceive reality. So since everybody has a different vocabulary, or even different understandings of the same words, we all perceive reality a bit differently than others around us.
Darwin:
What is it that informs us that each individual's perception of reality is, in fact, an individual experience not directly sharable? I've often heard that point being asserted, but I've never never heard an explanation as to why that assertion should be so.
-40hz (October 12, 2008, 11:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, for one thing, check out the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which basically says that our language and vocabulary shape the way we perceive reality. So since everybody has a different vocabulary, or even different understandings of the same words, we all perceive reality a bit differently than others around us.
-Deozaan (October 12, 2008, 03:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
I was thinking of Sapir-Whorf when I wrote my original question. However, there is a whole debate that rages back and forth in linguistics about linguitic relativity. AFAICT, at the moment, Sapir-Whorfian models are in general "favour", but this hasn't always been true and there is still a vocal opposition to this type of modelling.
40hz:
Well, for one thing, check out the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which basically says that our language and vocabulary shape the way we perceive reality. So since everybody has a different vocabulary, or even different understandings of the same words, we all perceive reality a bit differently than others around us.
-Deozaan (October 12, 2008, 03:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
Plowing through the Wikipedia article, but I think I'm going to have to do some additional reading before I can comment. I found one factual error* in the article that makes me wonder what else in there is wrong...
*The Babel-17 entry is incorrect sez 40hz:
Samuel R. Delany's novel Babel-17 is centered on a fictional language that denies its speakers independent thought, forcing them to think purely logical thoughts. This language is used as a weapon of war, because it is supposed to convert everyone who learns it to a traitor. In the novel, the language Babel-17 is likened to computer programming languages that do not allow errors or imprecise statements.
--- End quote ---
It was a weapon of war because it conveyed a vast amount of information concisely, without any chance of error or ambiguity entering into the transmission. Hence it was the perfect language for transmitting battle plans and orders without worrying about the "fog of war" factor that often plagues military communications. It had nothing to do with destroying independent thought.
The "traitor" issue was a subplot. The Alliance Military Command suspected a traitor because of the effectiveness of the enemy's action against it. The effectiveness was due to superior communications afforded by Babel-17, coupled with a genetically engineered Special Ops unit that used it.
Babel-17 itself was just a language that conveyed information better than any other language. Period.
Not being a nit-piker. That point was Delany's whole point about (and the genius of) Babel-17.
Deozaan:
Plowing through the Wikipedia article, but I think I'm going to have to do some additional reading before I can comment. I found one factual error* in the article that makes me wonder what else in there is wrong...
-40hz (October 12, 2008, 06:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
To be honest, I didn't read the Wikipedia article, because I've been introduced to Sapir-Whorf through college courses. So I was just linking it for the sake of providing some background information about it.
40hz:
Plowing through the Wikipedia article, but I think I'm going to have to do some additional reading before I can comment. I found one factual error* in the article that makes me wonder what else in there is wrong...
-40hz (October 12, 2008, 06:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
To be honest, I didn't read the Wikipedia article, because I've been introduced to Sapir-Whorf through college courses. So I was just linking it for the sake of providing some background information about it.
-Deozaan (October 13, 2008, 07:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
Appreciated, and not a problem. It was just that I found Sapir-Whorf so interesting that I wanted to make sure I was getting it correctly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version