|
|
| Movie Critiques |
| Resources |
| Top 20 Problems |
| Human Condition |
| Advanced |
| What Kind World? |
| Read for Fun |
| Home Page |
| Reference Shelf |
| Story Ideas |
| Mission |
| Notices |
|
Part III
Commentary on the birth of words,
Dorian Scott Cole
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 By Dorian Scott Cole
Distribution Notice: This book is not public domain and may not be distributed in any form in any media, including print or electronic, and may not be included in any collections for distribution in any media. Individual readers may make a printed copy for personal use as long as the copyright notice remains on the work.
|
|
CONTENTS
|
|
The Universe Is Flat The ancients were right about this, too.
|
|
Chapter 7 Words Can Poison You It has long been widely understood that perception rules the universe. For example, long ago people perceived that the earth was flat. The idea that one might reach a distant land in a shorter time by sailing in the opposite direction, around the globe, was unthinkable and postponed the discovery of many new lands. Sailors ventured into the vast ocean with fear, growing more cynical and fearful as their supplies diminished and day after day all that could be seen was more water. One risked falling off the edge of the world, and the threat of mutiny grew stronger as imagination fueled terror with each passing day. Perception ruled, and perception had nothing to do with reality. So, the universe is flat. Any why not, perception rules, and perhaps the appearance of the universe is only a matter of perception. What do we know? we have never been "out there." No space ship has ever sailed around the universe. Just as the perception that the earth is flat prevented the discovery of new lands, perception affects our daily lives, and even affects our words. Perception affects how we speak and what we believe our words to mean. While today we know that the earth isn't flat, perception still easily misdirects us. Perception is frequently used by others to control us or prevent us from discovering the truth. For example, once I called a benefits group to ask about a long delinquent benefit reimbursement. I got a recording: "Due to an unusually heavy volume of claims..." In other words, half the department is on vacation and they really don't care if I get reimbursed. My situation is irrelevant to them, but I'm supposed to believe that suddenly half the world is sick and they are working miserably hard to meet my needs... late. I called another division of the same company to ask about another check which they were supposed to send. I really don't need my money for anything, I just like to spend my time calling them. The week before, a person had pleasantly informed me that she would "expedite" it for me. That person was no longer there. Another cheerful voice told me what I wanted to hear. I know responsibility and customer service when I see it, and this is a direct miss. Of course I realize from long experience with this benefits company that they just don't care, but they desperately wish me to have the perception that they do care and they work very hard at creating this misperception. Misperception has been a natural fit for the Internet. I once sent a series of six e-mail messages to one dot-com domain company trying to straighten out a small problem. I received either a precomposed response or a "we're looking into it" response each time, which was brilliant testimony to the fact that they neither cared nor were even trying. A year later I went through the same thing on the same problem with the same result. I gave up and later changed registrants. Customer service with dot-coms does not yet compete with brick and mortar businesses. Dot-coms deluded themselves with the misperception that an Internet based business carries no overhead. Of course the "brick and mortar" businesses started this trail of lies, and bureaucracies have refined it to an art form. My daughter sent to her birth state for a new birth certificate. Her first attempt was mailing a form that she got over the Internet, for speed. They forgot to mention (or she didn't notice) that the request required accompanying identification, so within a few weeks they sent it back, unprocessed. I would mention the specific state, but my "perception" is that they would permanently lose the birth certificate. Once an organization reaches the critical mass of a bureaucracy it gains a new mission. This new mission is perceived as "To perpetuate its own existence." This too is a misperception. The real new mission is "To perpetuate its existence as an entity that does nothing except bungle." It perpetuates its existence by covering things up. If it gets caught, it intimidates. My daughter's next step was to send the request by overnight mail and she placed a postage paid overnight envelope within so they could send it right back. Her perception was that they would recognize the envelopes, the original form, understand the urgency, and expedite the processing. Wrong. She assumed that the people in a bureaucracy care enough to do a job properly and that government agencies exist to provide a responsible service. Where did we ever get such misperceptions? Perception is as perception does. For example, consider the national shortage of spoons. Perhaps it is an international shortage - I haven't been out of the country for a while so I haven't studied this in international scope. But even mentioning it creates a perception that it is an international reality, and provides greater credibility to it as a national problem. Why is there a national shortage of spoons? I began to realize when my children were young that there was something going on with spoons. One day we had a full set of spoons in the utensil tray. Over the next year or two, we realized that there was a spoon shortage. My perception was that we had a full set at one time. We habitually don't throw spoons away. Yet month after month, spoons slowly but steadily disappeared, never to be seen again. I comforted myself with the possibility that perhaps the spoons were going the way of the pens and combs that my children lost by the truckloads. I have written an article about this notorious problem (it's in a later chapter). Even more likely, the spoons had taken up residence with the disappearing socks - those that go into the washing machine in pairs and come out divorced, never to be loved again. I even considered that perhaps my own children were taking the spoons into the yard to dig, leaving them there in their carelessness, or even hiding evidential spoons inside the living room couch along with the dirty bowls. But I finally turned a blind eye to these two theories. I would not want to think my own children capable of such things. When I noticed spoons were missing at many restaurants, I put 2 and 3 together and realized that spoons were the object of a conspiracy. Imagine this scenario: My wife and I would sit down and order coffee. The waitress would dutifully bring the coffee, and before she could disappear we would blurt out, "We need cream," and she would disappear for ten minutes, and then we would realize - dupes that we are - that we had been distracted by the cream which prevented us from noticing that there were no eating utensils. After the waitress breezed by, efficiently dropping off the creamer without missing a step, we would then patiently watch for her to look our direction again so we could place our order for utensils. Begrudgingly she would deliver them as she passed by with her next order. We would smile politely, knowing that the hard working person was doing her best serving pancakes to kids, and we would gratefully unroll our utensils from the napkin. No spoon. This happened so often that it became predictable. I can't tell you how often, after fifteen minutes of waiting for a spoon, I stirred my coffee with the end of a fork. I was soon into creating theories for the national spoon shortage: College students steal them, along with salt shakers, for their dorm rooms. This theory presupposes that college students don't need knives and forks, so leave us short on only spoons. People dangle spoons from their sticky nose as table tricks, and then forget they are on their nose and walk out with them. I have been watching the exit for evidence. Many follow President George H. W. Bush's example and swallow spoons to make a political fashion statement: a neck bulge on each side. I've been watching for Republicans who resemble Frankenstein. I can't tell the Democrats from the Republicans. Programmers and writers, who often eat at their computers, are in desperate need of spoons - they could starve - and they absentmindedly leave with the spoons, their minds permanently transfixed by computer code or prose scrolling before their eyes. I've been monitoring myself. It's a Uri Geller psychic spoon bending demonstration gone out of control. It's a marketing ploy by fast dissolving sweetener manufacturers who want us to abandon sugar and therefore lose the need for spoons. Listen, manufacturers, I'm already into artificial. Eating utensil manufacturers want us to purchase more utensils and their sales people sneak spoons out during sales visits. Watch for "We sell in sets only," as evidence. Soon I had more theories than spoons. If you are still interested, following are a few more. "Clean up your plate!" is permanently inscribed on the inside of the eyelids of most of us. Having heard that people are starving in far off Uagabanda, people are cleaning their plates by sending take-home boxes to Uagabanda, spoon and all. The food health fanatics want us to quit drinking coffee. Studies show that after four cups you are in danger, so they go around stealing spoons thinking that they are doing us a favor. Too many people linger over their deserts so the spoons don't make it to the washer in time to be recycled. Pancake syrup in this pancake house is spread from door to door by sloppy kids, and kids are walking out with spoons stuck to their clothes. Asians are taking over and we will soon be eating our soup with chopsticks. Efficiency experts are running the store - self explanatory. I can never prove any of these theories, but I know - my perception is - that there is a conspiracy. I also know that whoever is behind the spoon conspiracy also causes the pronunciation of certain words to change. As I look back now, I see the dawning of this conspiracy when suddenly the words "strength" and "length" had their "g" stolen from them to become "strenth" and "lenth." Soon this pronunciation was fashionable. I haven't purchased a new tie in twelve years - you see how well I follow fashion, so you can guess how I pronounce these words. When "ng" occurs in a word, it is pronounced at the back of the throat. Say these words: young, tongue. Now say this:
See, it can be done. Now, my personal theory is that this conspiracy came from one of four sources:
Now everyone perceives that the fashionable pronunciation is correct and if they don't pronounce these words the fashionable way then are demonstrating their ignorance. Not so. Twenty years ago "strenth" wasn't even in the dictionary. It has only made its way to a third acceptable pronunciation. Perception? Think conspiracy… the perception will do wonders for your imagination. Word meanings do run aground, crash and burn, even when people steer with the best of intentions. Take for example the word "secreted." At this point you probably don't know exactly which word I mean. This word has two pronunciations and two meanings. One meaning comes from the word secret, which means hidden or discreet. A person might be "secreted" away in the middle of the night. Secret(ed). The other meaning of the word "secreted" comes from the word "secrete" which means that something more or less oozes out of something else. Flowers secrete nectar. Oil glands secrete oil to lubricate the skin. Thus, oil is "secreted" from a gland. Secrete(d). Now, imagine my surprise when a person in the Witness Protection Program described being secrete(d) into a van by the US Marshall's Service. I wonder if that hurts - being oozed into a van. Gives uzzi a whole new meaning. "You want to get an uzzi! You want to be secrete(d) into a van?" Good reason not to do anything to get yourself into the Witness Protection Program. Ouch! I, too, am sometimes fooled by perceptions. I have used the phrase "niche market" for years. I was blithely pronouncing it "nich," undoubtedly having learned the pronunciation by osmosis from the fools with whom I associate. But then I happened upon some enlightened person who pronounced it "neesh." Soooo, I perceived, this word must be of foreign origin and I have been pronouncing it erroneously. Over the next few days I intelligently pronounced it "neesh," to as many people as would listen. But as the days progressed I had this nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right. So I looked up the word in the dictionary:
Aargh! Poisoned again. The universe is indeed flat. It is simply a matter of perception. For example, consider an image on a piece of paper. Shadows and size give the image a perception of dimensions, but the paper is actually flat and ink has no depth. Similarly, spiral galaxies appear to be flat when viewed on their edge. Perhaps when viewed from a great distance, we can see that the universe is flat as a pancake. At this point it really makes no difference whether it is or it isn't, it is our perception, not truth, that we have to live with. Spread the poison.
|
|
The World Is Contained In a Word Every word is an experience.
|
|
Chapter 8 Experiential Theory of Words One of the important ideas behind how we create, understand, and use words has to do with the extensibility of word definitions. Extensibility means the ability to add to, or extend something - in this case, extend the meaning of a word. Lack of extensibility can limit our ability to think and comprehend ideas, and can limit intellectual growth. But extensibility in natural language limits the ability of a computer program (artificial intelligence) to pick up on variations of meaning. For example, if meaning is considered "inherent" within a word, then there is a structural problem that prevents extensibility and growth. Since the most abstract word could only be a compilation of previously defined words, then we could not create a word that had any more meaning than what is contained in other words. This is a "closed" system. It doesn't permit the inclusion of new ideas. It perhaps reflects a closed system of thinking in which everything is thought to be already known. Meaning isn't inherent in a word. Patterns are the currency of communications, and in verbal communication patterns usually take the form of words." There is a common language (a small set of words with specific meanings) that we use in daily communication, that we all basically understand in the same way, and for which the historical meanings and variations within individuals is not significant. Definition, as perceived by some, brings the elements into a "closed" system of thought. Once defined, nothing can be added or subtracted from the definition. These are the words and definitions that we are taught in elementary school, and without these words that describe experience, we would be unable to communicate. But for other words, I think we are much better off "describing" experience. Descriptions are open systems of thought that permit us to continue understanding the various experience elements within a word or pattern. Definitions, on the other hand, seem to me almost like a modernist quest - a quest for ultimate answers that wants to make all things irrefutably knowable. This quest overlooks the fluid nature of the human condition. The dictionary supposedly provides "reportative" definitions. These definitions report how we actually use words. A closed system of words with inherent meanings doesn't reflect how we actually use words. While dictionary definitions do add some stability to our system so that we can communicate effectively, words do acquire different meanings that typically reflect part of the original meaning, and we do create new words that reflect either a new experience or a new perspective on experience. Every experience an individual has is "localized" in that the interpretation of that experience is dependent on other experiences the person has had. So every experience is interpreted somewhat differently by every individual. Repeated experiences, which I call patterns, I believe become prominent enough that they are recognizable to the individual and sometimes a symbol is assigned to the pattern. A word is just one symbol that can be applied. The definition of a word (which may begin as a description of the experience) helps other people to look for those same experiences within their own range of experience. When the person receiving the new word and definition looks at his own experience, he sees patterns that concur with the description. The receiving person then has a similar basis for using the word, but his understanding is localized, meaning that it is subject to that person's interpretation and experience. What this means then is that no word has a truly inherent meaning, even if it is defined. The meaning of a word is localized within each person, so every word has multiple meanings. When a person employs a word to communicate, his meaning is slightly different than the meaning for the person who hears the word. This not only has implications for how we communicate, it has implications for computer systems that work with words and their meanings. The implications for a computer system is that systems that depend on rigid classifications of words are unable to grow with the language and the migrating meanings of words. In highly "localized" systems with narrow uses, such as for a technology, this would be less of a problem. In larger systems, such as the Internet, and those with which information is largely unstructured (unidentified through rigid categorization or tagging), this could be a major problem. As is already demonstrated by natural language query systems and other systems that try to understand a person's meaning of a word, it is very difficult for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to cope with the meaning flexibility that people commonly use. About the best that can be achieved is an interactive system that returns results from multiple categories. And for a system like Ask Jeeves, there are few cues that the user provides either implicitly or explicitly. The chances of improving on systems like Ask Jeeves that provide no sense of context through localization, and which are extremely broad in range, looks remote. There is a clear need to be able to search and understand information that is either unclassified or that fits into multiple categories. What could potentially improve this type of result is the use of ontologies that are based on the experience behind the word rather than definitions. One solution that is used effectively is to use pairs of words. This is done when creating the meta-tags for Internet HTML pages, which are unseen by the viewer of the page. This identifies the page more explicitly for search engines, and word pairs are much more explicit about meaning than a single word. The odds of making a relevant match increase dramatically. AI programs appear to be caught between two difficult points. In simple queries, the program has to guess at a word meaning - a task that is impossible even for humans. But in complex text the program has to do major processing to understand text. Computers can't understand text in the same way that humans can. Both methods inherently lead to incorrect interpretations of the meaning that the person had in mind. AI is actually being asked to go beyond what people are able to do. One simple method of improving search results requires a minimum of processing. Results are simply categorized according to predetermined "word meaning" frequency categories, with results for the most common meanings and usages placed in a primary category listing, and results for specialized meanings placed in another listing from which the user could choose. The user would then be able to choose from the categories. Some search engines, such as Ask Jeeves, already do this. Another way to improve results is to provide for small variations in word meaning so that as words change meaning or are used differently, allowances are automatically made. How would this type of experience ontology be constructed? A clue is found in the definitions of words that define a word, and then the succeeding definitions. I broke down a word through its definitions to see where they would lead - to more complex words (experiences), or to simpler words (experiences). I chose the word "beauty." There was nothing rigorous (or scientific) about my exploration. I thought I saw the pattern of each word in the explanation being further defined in other explanations by simpler terms, with words often repeating, themes often repeating, indicating that experience may indeed be composed of other more basic experiences. This little example doesn't really demonstrate anything, but it is an intriguing indicator to look more deeply. Beauty: A delightful quality associated with harmony of form or color, excellence of craftsmanship, truthfulness, originality, or another property. Succeeding definitions of some of the words used to define beauty: Delightful - greatly pleasing Pleasing - to give enjoyment, pleasure,
or satisfaction to; to make glad or contented. Enjoyment - the act or state of
enjoyment. Pleasure. Pleasure - the state of being pleased
or gratified. Gratified - to please
or satisfy. Satisfy - to gratify
need, desire, or expectation. Need - a lack of
something required or desirable. Desire - to wish or long
for or want. Expectation - act of
expecting; eager anticipation Quality - an inherent or
distinguishing characteristic Characteristic - a distinguishing
feature Harmony - Agreement
in feeling or opinion Agreement - the act of agreeing Form - The shape and
structure of an object Shape - Characteristic surface
configuration Characteristic - Configuration - Arrangement
of parts or elements Arrangement - the act or
process of arranging Part - portion, division,
piece Object - something perceptible by one
or more of the senses. Many of these words that defined beauty hailed back to the basic "satisfying of longing and desire as a pleasing experience." (Define desire in any way you wish. Wish? I'm on dangerous ground here.) We can relate to the desirability of each of these conditions because we have experienced them. We have experienced harmony and know how desirable agreement is to us. We have experienced a variety of pleasing forms, and know how desirable, and therefore beautiful, certain forms are. But what about computers? Can computers understand, or appreciate in some way, that beauty is a desirable quality? Computer Relationship Systems Relationship systems indicate what kind of connection there is between words. For example, words that have similar classifications can have this relationship indicated. I have mentioned two ways of indicating relationships: context and experience. Context is established by the words that surround a word. Experience, in a computer sense, is possibly indicated by words that define a word, and the words that define those words. There are a number of ways in which relationships are already shown. For example, words that commonly occur together, indicating context, are lumped into clusters. When a search is performed on a word, if the word is found with a group of words, results that include these other words can be returned higher in the list of results, indicating probability. There are other common ways of indicating relationships. The WordNet lexical database contains the hierarchically ordered semantic relationships between words. It indicates if words (especially nouns and verbs) are part of a higher class (hypernym) or a lower rank or class (hyponym). For example, if you do a search in WordNet on the word "history," it returns five senses of the word. If you click "coordinated terms" you see a number of words that belong to the same hypernym. The near hypernyms and hyponyms can form a cluster of words that have similar meanings. Classifying words through this type of semantic mapping can be a key to getting a sense of what a word means, and in being able to find similar words by using other words that are in the same category. What this type of semantic mapping doesn't provide is a sense of experience. In other words, what other more basic words could be used to make up this word? Knowledge VS Experience Getting a handle on experience will be difficult for artificial intelligence. Basing semantic relationships on experience is not the same as having experience. Relationships between words can indicate experience, but they are signs, not symbols, not participating in experience. To a computer they are simply signs that are based on experience. This is knowledge, not experience. Computers are very limited in what they can understand, compared to humans. While computers can play chess quite well, they are very poor at doing other things. Despite the rapid advances in computer capability, Artificial Intelligence has so far only managed to show us that computers have a very long way to go to match what humans easily do. For example, it takes several computers operating simultaneously to recognize that an object is a person, follow his travel, and mimick the person's movement through a robot. Computers don't have an experiential understanding of words or of life. They can know that candy is defined by the word sweet, but they can't understand what sweet is, and they can't have the experience of eating candy to know what sweet is. Even if they could have a pleasure program that equates sweet with good, they still can't have the experience of eating candy and all of the memories and associations that eating entails. Computers can have knowledge, but not experience. Computers also don't make value judgments. Computers can hold all of the information in an encyclopedia, but they can't understand it or know why it is good to know. Computers can be fed information about experience, but they can't know why it is desirable to have it. A computer doesn't understand volition - it doesn't know the compelling reason why someone might do something. The best a computer can do is know the relationships between words. It is the difference between knowledge and experience. Knowledge is knowing that logoplastycism means, "the theory of molding new words with surgical precision." A computer could very efficiently take the alphabet and create all of the possible combinations of letters, but to what end? Experience is knowing that logoplastycism ultimately means to take other words and form them into a new word, and know the problems one runs into when doing that, and precautions that should be taken, and that a person would only do this for some purpose, such as entertainment or to find a new word to name some new thing, and to have emotions, and other experiences associated with this experience. The semantic relationship is not defined by the words or with the words. Relationships are defined externally by the program. The external identifier defines what the connection means. Like a series of Interstate highways crisscrossing the nation to connect major cities from any location, the computer defines what the link between words means, that is, how it is associated. A computer can know a relationship, can know a description of experience, can have signs that point to experience, but it lacks the actual experience. The best the computer can have is words about experience - that is, knowledge. Unlike people, who can absorb knowledge and often relate new knowledge to some experience they already know, a computer can't even do that. Here is an interesting question that takes all of this to extreme: Can an animated character become human? The virtual character can have all of the moves and responses of a human. The character can even respond to pain and the threat of death. In fact, the character could have the experience and brain power of a hundred or more human beings behind it. It could be active 24/7 through a network, and could become alive in the hearts, minds, and activities of people. But does this make the image human? See Also:
|